PDA

View Full Version : APP - Homosexuality Now, Pedophilia Next



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

DamnYankee
11-01-2009, 07:18 PM
by Chuch Baldwin / July 14, 2000


Homosexuality has jumped out of the closet and into social acceptance. Today, sodomite behavior even enjoys legal protection and political preference. If you had told our grandparents thirty-five years ago that this would be the case, they would have laughed you out of the room.

Thirty-five years ago, the only people who were trumpeting the normalization of homosexuality were left-wing college professors. Few people took them seriously. That was a fatal mistake. We should have remembered Lincoln’s sage instruction:

"The philosophy of the classroom in one generation is the philosophy of the country in the next."

Who can deny that those liberal college professors in the 1960’s changed the direction of the entire nation? It behooves us, therefore, to give serious consideration to what liberal college and university professors are now promoting.

I'm told that in an article in the May/June issue of Society magazine entitled, "Sexual Liberation’s Last Frontier," Associate Professor of Sociology at Temple University, Julia Erickson calls for more tolerance and understanding for pedophiles. Yes, pedophiles. Erickson argues that the word pedophilia is too harsh and judgmental. She prefers using "child-adult sex." She questions research that shows long-term effects of such activity.

Erickson compares the plight of pedophiles to homosexuals in years gone by. She believes punishments inflicted upon pedophiles are too severe and suggests they need social acceptance, even legal protection, instead. You and I are making a serious miscalculation if we disregard people like Erickson as the lunatic fringe of society. We made that mistake thirty-five years ago, and look what has happened.

America has legally and culturally abandoned its Judeo/Christian roots. We have expunged traditional morality from the public square, and from the public conscience. Aberrant sexual misconduct of every kind has taken its place. Adultery, fornication, cohabitation and sodomy are socially acceptable, even politically protected. America currently has no moral compass.

Next on the list to achieve politically correct categorization is pedophilia. Understand that pedophilia is exactly where homosexuality was thirty-five years ago: in the classrooms of liberal college professors. If America doesn’t make a sudden and dramatic turn toward traditional [how about Biblical? - JZ] morality, pedophilia will enjoy the same kind of social and political acceptance that homosexuality now enjoys, and it won’t take thirty-five years to happen, either. http://home.bluemarble.net/~heartcom/homosexualitynow.html

Is this where we are going?:eek:

/MSG/
11-01-2009, 07:29 PM
by Chuch Baldwin / July 14, 2000http://home.bluemarble.net/~heartcom/homosexualitynow.html

Is this where we are going?:eek:

While I don't advocate pedophilia, it was quite common place in our country until after WWI, so it is not a relevant argument in regards to the recent acceptance of homosexuality.

DamnYankee
11-01-2009, 07:42 PM
Prior to WWI it was considered "starting a family". Are you equating that with recreational sex?

/MSG/
11-01-2009, 07:44 PM
Prior to WWI it was considered "starting a family". Are you equating that with recreational sex?

Are you equating sex with a minor as the beginnings of a moral family?

Cancel 2018. 3
11-01-2009, 07:49 PM
i bet SM thought that loving v. virginia was the end of the world for moral marriages....:)

DamnYankee
11-01-2009, 07:50 PM
Are you equating sex with a minor as the beginnings of a moral family?It wasn't considered immoral back then.

/MSG/
11-01-2009, 08:06 PM
It wasn't considered immoral back then.

And homosexuality is no longer considered immoral by the majority.:)

USFREEDOM911
11-01-2009, 08:44 PM
by Chuch Baldwin / July 14, 2000http://home.bluemarble.net/~heartcom/homosexualitynow.html

Is this where we are going?:eek:

Strawman argument.

You fail.

:facepalm:

DamnYankee
11-02-2009, 06:30 AM
And homosexuality is no longer considered immoral by the majority.:)

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080618GayRights1_iuq9u0ij.gif
http://www.gallup.com/poll/108115/americans-evenly-divided-morality-homosexuality.aspx

That's the point of the article.

However, morality is not chosen by the populace.

DamnYankee
11-02-2009, 06:32 AM
Strawman argument.

You fail.



It wasn't an argument, but a question.

You fail.

:facepalm:

Damocles
11-02-2009, 08:29 AM
http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080618GayRights1_iuq9u0ij.gif
http://www.gallup.com/poll/108115/americans-evenly-divided-morality-homosexuality.aspx

That's the point of the article.

However, morality is not chosen by the populace.
Morality is also not chosen by secular law.

Hermes Thoth
11-02-2009, 08:34 AM
Morality is a set of attitudes and behaviors which facilitate voluntary, cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships.

So. Homoness is morally neutral.

tinfoil
11-02-2009, 08:38 AM
http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/00-020_last_frontier.htm

Summary: Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch, and Robert Baserman are among the few who have begun to question the supposed long-term effects of child-adult sexual activity on the children involved. It is appropriate to undertake such research if only to wrest the terms of the debate from conservatives who have used pedophilia as a way to silence all attempts at sexual tolerance.



LOL yeah, it's those evil repubs!! Democrats are the party of the pedophile!!

Maineman approves!!

evince
11-02-2009, 08:39 AM
is going to work,what part of adult consent do you not understand?

This is a great example of the utter dishonesty of the con right.

You people are idiots to think this type of vastly flawed thinking is going to work, that is burrying the current R party.

Topspin
11-02-2009, 10:12 AM
thank god desh, let them keep digging.

The republicans will be left with the NRA, and the kkk

/MSG/
11-02-2009, 10:30 AM
thank god desh, let them keep digging.

The republicans will be left with the NRA, and the kkk

Top, you and I agree on a lot and disagree on a lot. However would you be so kind as to leave your mass generalizations out? You'd be better off as there are several groups aligned with the NRA that are firm gay rights supporters (the Pink Pistols for example).

DamnYankee
11-02-2009, 12:01 PM
Morality is also not chosen by secular law.Correct, it is defined by the Bible, of which those laws are based. :good4u:

Damocles
11-02-2009, 12:11 PM
Correct, it is defined by the Bible, of which those laws are based. :good4u:
No, it is defined by the Dhammapada...

:rolleyes:

Morality is chosen, just as religion is chosen, and those laws cannot be based on the Bible, that would be an establishment of religion.

DamnYankee
11-02-2009, 12:18 PM
No, it is defined by the Dhammapada...

:rolleyes:

Morality is chosen, just as religion is chosen, and those laws cannot be based on the Bible, that would be an establishment of religion.Those laws are based on the Bible, and that's not establishment of a religion, but recognition of the authority of a higher power that gave us self-evident rights to begin with.

WinterBorn
11-02-2009, 12:31 PM
Those laws are based on the Bible, and that's not establishment of a religion, but recognition of the authority of a higher power that gave us self-evident rights to begin with.

Those laws are not based on the bible. The laws that we have that are also in the bible have also been in the laws of numerous cultures.

The comparison between homosexuality and pedophilia is just fear-mongering by the right-wing nutcases.

There is no comparison. It is no more accurate than asking if allowing homosexuality will lead to slavery or murder. Both are illegal and immoral.

evince
11-02-2009, 12:31 PM
what part of the bible?

WinterBorn
11-02-2009, 12:35 PM
by Chuch Baldwin / July 14, 2000http://home.bluemarble.net/~heartcom/homosexualitynow.html

Is this where we are going?:eek:

No, it is not where we are going.

DamnYankee
11-02-2009, 12:40 PM
The Architecture of the SCOTUS:

East pediment:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/graphics/scotus4.jpg

Doors:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/graphics/scdoor2.jpg

WinterBorn
11-02-2009, 01:05 PM
The Architecture of the SCOTUS:

East pediment:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/graphics/scotus4.jpg

Doors:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/graphics/scdoor2.jpg

Yes, there are biblical characters on the friezes of the SCOTUS.

But if you think that proves anything, you are being dishonest.

What else is shown, with the same emphasis as the biblical characters???

In the same way that those you showed are displayed, they also display figures of other law givers. Such as Menes, Hammurabi, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius, and Augustus. And on the opposite wall, you will see Justinian, Muhammad, John Marshall and Napoleon.

So your claim only has merit if you cherry-pick your facts and ignore those that do not support your claim.

evince
11-02-2009, 01:10 PM
this gay issue is just one of the idiot ideas of the right.

You are now distroying fany hope your party has of gettting the youth vote along with anyone who is gay and has a gay relative that they love.

omne more nail in the R coffin.

Hermes Thoth
11-02-2009, 01:12 PM
this gay issue is just one of the idiot ideas of the right.

You are now distroying fany hope your party has of gettting the youth vote along with anyone who is gay and has a gay relative that they love.

omne more nail in the R coffin.

Most youth are not attracted by the assininity of gay zealotry.

Damocles
11-02-2009, 01:12 PM
Those laws are based on the Bible, and that's not establishment of a religion, but recognition of the authority of a higher power that gave us self-evident rights to begin with.
If they were solely based on the Bible that would most certainly be establishing your religion as the basis of law, it would be theocracy first and a violation of the first amendment overall.

Recognizing a generic Creator who gave us rights is not the same thing as basing laws on your religious dogma.

evince
11-02-2009, 01:19 PM
The youth of the US is overwhelmingly pro gay rights.

Everyone knows someone who is gay and knows they are as normal as anyone.

you are killing any chance of any real power for your party.

Thanks

DamnYankee
11-02-2009, 01:20 PM
Yes, there are biblical characters on the friezes of the SCOTUS.

But if you think that proves anything, you are being dishonest.

What else is shown, with the same emphasis as the biblical characters???

In the same way that those you showed are displayed, they also display figures of other law givers. Such as Menes, Hammurabi, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius, and Augustus. And on the opposite wall, you will see Justinian, Muhammad, John Marshall and Napoleon.

So your claim only has merit if you cherry-pick your facts and ignore those that do not support your claim.

Moses with tablets is in the exact center of the frieze, which due to its shape is also the largest, so I'd say he is emphasized the most. Also, since the image of the tablets are repeated on the front doors...

Topspin
11-02-2009, 01:22 PM
this gay issue is just one of the idiot ideas of the right.

You are now distroying fany hope your party has of gettting the youth vote along with anyone who is gay and has a gay relative that they love.

omne more nail in the R coffin.

Just one more group they are happy to piss off. Me, I'm pleased. I hope they try to roll with just fat old white dudes.

Now that the country knows obama is not a scarey muslim terrorist that too will backfire on them.
I'll be laughing at them for 8yrs.

evince
11-02-2009, 01:24 PM
its going to be more than 8 years at the rate they are being idiots Toppy

DamnYankee
11-02-2009, 01:26 PM
If they were solely based on the Bible that would most certainly be establishing your religion as the basis of law, it would be theocracy first and a violation of the first amendment overall.

Recognizing a generic Creator who gave us rights is not the same thing as basing laws on your religious dogma.
The First Amendment merely prohibits respecting an establishment of religion; it does not prevent laws from being based on a well established religious work.

tinfoil
11-02-2009, 01:27 PM
distroying fany hope


LOL

evince
11-02-2009, 01:29 PM
you do realize who came up with the idea of democracy right?

tinfoil
11-02-2009, 01:29 PM
you do realize who came up with the idea of democracy right?

was it the queers? I bet it was the queers.

Topspin
11-02-2009, 01:31 PM
republicans will soon be just Homophobes, NRA nuts, and the evangelical bible thumping idiots that follow rush.

evince
11-02-2009, 01:34 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato#Birth_and_family


it wasnt in the bible fella

DamnYankee
11-02-2009, 01:35 PM
republicans will soon be just Homophobes, NRA nuts, and the evangelical bible thumping idiots that follow rush. And liberals will be fertilizer. LOL

tinfoil
11-02-2009, 01:36 PM
republicans will soon be just Homophobes, NRA nuts, and the evangelical bible thumping idiots that follow rush.
LOL

Your insults really mean nothing. Call me a racist now!!

Topspin
11-02-2009, 01:37 PM
And liberals will be fertilizer. LOL

I got you pegged as a toetapper

you start a gay thread daily.
Why does a supposedly straight guy like you have mens penis's on his mind daily. LOFL

evince
11-02-2009, 01:39 PM
everyone alive today will be fertilizer.

Your ideas have harmed this country and you refuse to take responsibility for what you cheered on and defended for years so why would anyone think you had something worth taking heed to say?

Hermes Thoth
11-02-2009, 01:40 PM
everyone alive today will be fertilizer.

Your ideas have harmed this country and you refuse to take responsibility for what you cheered on and defended for years so why would anyone think you had something worth taking heed to say?

Please cease with your continual flow of idiotic spew.

Socrtease
11-02-2009, 01:41 PM
Pedophilia has a victim you strawman building dolt. When two homosexuals enter into a relationship it is consensual. A child cannot consent, that is why we have age of consent laws in every state. That means, and I will type this slow so you get it, that there is an age in which we say children lack the capacity to consent to sex. We also say that children lack the capacity to enter into contracts which is why if a 15 year old enters into a contract to buy a home theater and then quits paying, the most the seller can hope for is his home theater system back and cannot sue the minor for specific performance or for the remainder of the home theater value. Merchants can only sue children for payment on necessities such as food, and shelter. Your argument is a strawman and you know it.

/MSG/
11-02-2009, 01:42 PM
was it the queers? I bet it was the queers.

The Greeks, known to be quite homosexual in culture, were the first to institute Democracy. America is a republic however, a concept developed by the Romans.

evince
11-02-2009, 01:44 PM
a republic is a type of democracy

/MSG/
11-02-2009, 01:49 PM
a republic is a type of democracy

But you didn't ask that, and the two are different enough in application and culture to allow for a different response.

evince
11-02-2009, 01:56 PM
Democracy is what we are and the first person on record to talk of people ruling themselves was a greek and the bible did not come up with the idea.

The US is not based on the bible.

Cancel 2018. 3
11-02-2009, 01:59 PM
Democracy is what we are and the first person on record to talk of people ruling themselves was a greek and the bible did not come up with the idea.

The US is not based on the bible.

we are republican form of government....period...do you really want to be a democracy?

i suggest you google the terms to find out the differences between the two....i'll even help you out:


These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

Damocles
11-02-2009, 02:00 PM
The First Amendment merely prohibits respecting an establishment of religion; it does not prevent laws from being based on a well established religious work.
Again, basing all legislation on your religious dogma would be establishing your religion, and a violation of the first amendment.

No matter how many times you try to convince yourself, such laws are not based on bible verses.

/MSG/
11-02-2009, 02:03 PM
Democracy is what we are and the first person on record to talk of people ruling themselves was a greek and the bible did not come up with the idea.

The US is not based on the bible.

You're arguing all over the place. SM stated (incorrectly) that our LEGAL system was based primarily on the Bible, not our electoral form of government. That is based on the Roman principle of a republic.

evince
11-02-2009, 02:05 PM
It is based on democracy

DamnYankee
11-02-2009, 02:23 PM
I got you pegged as a toetapper

you start a gay thread daily.
Why does a supposedly straight guy like you have mens penis's on his mind daily. LOFL
Since you are almost always wrong, you're pegging me that way is proof that I ain't.

With regards to "start a gay thread daily", I only see one on this entire page:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/search.php?searchid=538371&pp=25

Topstool pwned. :)

DamnYankee
11-02-2009, 02:25 PM
Pedophilia has a victim you strawman building dolt. ... Society is the victim of homosexuality you dolt.

DamnYankee
11-02-2009, 02:28 PM
Again, basing all legislation on your religious dogma would be establishing your religion, and a violation of the first amendment.

No matter how many times you try to convince yourself, such laws are not based on bible verses.

Straw man. Laws based on moral code in the Bible doesn't equal basing all legislation on religious dogma. :facepalm:

Topspin
11-02-2009, 02:30 PM
I thought asshat was the biggest clown till southergayboy hit a total of 12,000 post

WinterBorn
11-02-2009, 02:32 PM
Moses with tablets is in the exact center of the frieze, which due to its shape is also the largest, so I'd say he is emphasized the most. Also, since the image of the tablets are repeated on the front doors...

The image is not repeated on the doors. There are friezes of tablets. On one door it is marked with the Roman numerals I thru V, and on the other door it is marked VI thru X. It is your own religious zealotry that sees the only interpretation as it being the 10 Commandments.

But there is a letter on file in the archives of the SCOTUS from the designer, Adolph Weinman. In this letter he says that the roman numerals do not represent the 10 Commandments, but the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution, or the Bill of Rights.

No, the friezes around the SCOTUS chamber and outside the building do not show christianity as the source of our laws.

WinterBorn
11-02-2009, 02:36 PM
Society is the victim of homosexuality you dolt.

How in th ehell do you rationalize that? Two men or two women either bump uglies or fall in love, and you say that this victimizes society??

WTF?

WinterBorn
11-02-2009, 02:37 PM
Straw man. Laws based on moral code in the Bible doesn't equal basing all legislation on religious dogma. :facepalm:

Which moral code do you claim supplied us with our laws?

Damocles
11-02-2009, 02:39 PM
Straw man. Laws based on moral code in the Bible doesn't equal basing all legislation on religious dogma.
Religious dogma in any form is religious dogma even if somebody makes them laws.



Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from. The term derives from Greek δόγμα "that which seems to one, opinion or belief"[1] and that from δοκέω (dokeo), "to think, to suppose, to imagine".[2] The plural is either dogmas or dogmata , from Greek δόγματα.


In the US we are not allowed to make laws based on your religious dogma.

You attempt to again distract from your lack of knowledge of the law. It is inane to say that the law is based on your bible verses. If such were the case Texas sodomy laws would never have been struck down.

DamnYankee
11-02-2009, 02:46 PM
The image is not repeated on the doors. There are friezes of tablets. On one door it is marked with the Roman numerals I thru V, and on the other door it is marked VI thru X. It is your own religious zealotry that sees the only interpretation as it being the 10 Commandments.

But there is a letter on file in the archives of the SCOTUS from the designer, Adolph Weinman. In this letter he says that the roman numerals do not represent the 10 Commandments, but the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution, or the Bill of Rights.

No, the friezes around the SCOTUS chamber and outside the building do not show christianity as the source of our laws.

It figures you would repeat that lie.
"The Information Officer also mentioned there were 'handwritten notes' from Adolph Weinman in the Smithsonian files that further validate the ten amendments theory. What I found was just the opposite!" DuBord said. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54221

No doubt you attack my source now. LOL

DamnYankee
11-02-2009, 02:47 PM
Religious dogma in any form is religious dogma even if somebody makes them laws.



In the US we are not allowed to make laws based on your religious dogma.

You attempt to again distract from your lack of knowledge of the law. It is inane to say that the law is based on your bible verses. If such were the case Texas sodomy laws would never have been struck down.

Building on your straw man will only make your argument weaker.

Damocles
11-02-2009, 02:51 PM
Building on your straw man will only make your argument weaker.
Repeating weak distractions only underlines your lack of knowledge and lack of acceptance of the societal agreement we call the Constitution. It specifically points out your total lack of knowledge on how it has been applied in history, and what it means when the government cannot prefer "religion to irreligion" as decided by the SCOTUS.

WinterBorn
11-02-2009, 02:52 PM
It figures you would repeat that lie. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54221

No doubt you attack my source now. LOL

An article in the World Net Daily from a pastor claiming a conspiracy about the friezes at the SCOTUS building?

No, now why would I attack that. :rofl:

I don't have to attack that. It is ridiculous.

DamnYankee
11-02-2009, 02:55 PM
An article in the World Net Daily from a pastor claiming a conspiracy about the friezes at the SCOTUS building?

No, now why would I attack that. :rofl:

I don't have to attack that. It is ridiculous.

Attack the actual evidence now, dummy:

http://www.wnd.com/images2/courthandwriting%20(2).jpg

http://www.wnd.com/images2/courthandwriting2%20(2).jpg

WinterBorn
11-02-2009, 03:00 PM
It figures you would repeat that lie. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54221

No doubt you attack my source now. LOL

But let me get this straight, the papers in the SCOTUS archives are fakes. And with the great conservatives presidents we have had, the conservative justices they have appointed, the large number of christians in so many branches of the federal gov't, you are going to believe this preacher discovered this huge conspiracy. And when he published it in Feb of 2007, no major news agency or conservative media figure has picked up the story??

WinterBorn
11-02-2009, 03:02 PM
Attack the actual evidence now, dummy:

http://www.wnd.com/images2/courthandwriting%20(2).jpg

http://www.wnd.com/images2/courthandwriting2%20(2).jpg

I saw that and it doesn't prove a damn thing.

Snopes is still saying what they said before. So is the SCOTUS site. So are the reference sites.

Cancel 2018. 3
11-02-2009, 03:18 PM
I thought asshat was the biggest clown till southergayboy hit a total of 12,000 post

how many posts do you have :pke:

DamnYankee
11-02-2009, 03:30 PM
I saw that and it doesn't prove a damn thing.

Snopes is still saying what they said before. So is the SCOTUS site. So are the reference sites.
It proves the architects original intentions: Ten Commandants, not ten amendments.

DamnYankee
11-02-2009, 03:31 PM
I thought asshat was the biggest clown till southergayboy hit a total of 12,000 post
You're the faggot around here, liberal.

Damocles
11-02-2009, 03:33 PM
It proves the architects original intentions: Ten Commandants, not ten amendments.
What are you talking about? There were 12 Amendments offered in the Bill of rights, the last ratified May of 1992 was submitted along with the other 11 Amendments in the Bill of rights on September 25, 1789. Upon ratification it became the 27th Amendment, but it was one of the original Bill of Rights, it just took a "little" longer to get ratified. There is one still pending, the first offered...



Article the first... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

DamnYankee
11-02-2009, 03:39 PM
What are you talking about? There were 12 Amendments offered in the Bill of rights, the last ratified May of 1992 was submitted along with the other 11 Amendments in the Bill of rights on September 25, 1789. Upon ratification it became the 27th Amendment, but it was one of the original Bill of Rights, it just took a "little" longer to get ratified. There is one still pending, the first offered...Apparently something much different than you are talking about. I'm talking about what the tablets on the pediment and doors of the US Supreme Court Building signify. According to the architect, they are the Ten Commandments.
:facepalm:

WinterBorn
11-02-2009, 03:46 PM
What are you talking about? There were 12 Amendments offered in the Bill of rights, the last ratified May of 1992 was submitted along with the other 11 Amendments in the Bill of rights on September 25, 1789. Upon ratification it became the 27th Amendment, but it was one of the original Bill of Rights, it just took a "little" longer to get ratified. There is one still pending, the first offered...

The original Bill of Rights was the first 10 amendments. And this is what the tablets on the doors of the SCOTUS are said to be referring to, not the 10 comandments.

A single preacher has printed an article saying there is a huge conspiracy to remove the 10 comandments from their place of importance as the basis for our laws.

The SCOTUS website, Snopes, and every other reference piece I can find says otherwise.

WinterBorn
11-02-2009, 03:47 PM
It proves the architects original intentions: Ten Commandants, not ten amendments.

It proves nothing of the kind. If it were actual proof, the SCOTUS information site and Snopes would have changed their public information.

Damocles
11-02-2009, 03:54 PM
Apparently something much different than you are talking about. I'm talking about what the tablets on the pediment and doors of the US Supreme Court Building signify. According to the architect, they are the Ten Commandments.

And they are there along with secular themed historical references to laws.

You mentioned Amendments, I assumed since you were talking about 10 of them you were under the mistaken impression that the Bill of Rights was offered as only 10 Amendments, it wasn't.

It doesn't really matter what frieze is on the side of a building, what matters is whether they are allowed to enact law based on your religious dogma, they aren't. They are in fact incapable of making laws that represent either your dogma or that of the "irreligious" based on previous SCOTUS rulings.

USFREEDOM911
11-02-2009, 04:15 PM
It wasn't an argument, but a question.

You fail.



I get to decide what is a question and what is an argument!! :cof1:

You fail, again.

:facepalm:

USFREEDOM911
11-02-2009, 04:19 PM
Correct, it is defined by the Bible, of which those laws are based. :good4u:

Whcih part of the Bible??
Old Testament or New Testament??

Cancel 2018. 3
11-02-2009, 04:31 PM
It proves nothing of the kind. If it were actual proof, the SCOTUS information site and Snopes would have changed their public information.

if he going off of the friezes as intent...then it appears we are bound under the quran and islamic law:


Muhammad (c. 570 - 632) The Prophet of Islam. He is depicted holding the Qur’an. The Qur’an provides the primary source of Islamic Law. Prophet Muhammad’s teachings explain and implement Qur’anic principles.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/north&southwalls.pdf

WinterBorn
11-02-2009, 04:44 PM
if he going off of the friezes as intent...then it appears we are bound under the quran and islamic law:



http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/north&southwalls.pdf

Considering how he feels about gays, he might like that.

DamnYankee
11-02-2009, 07:22 PM
Whcih part of the Bible??
Old Testament or New Testament?? Both.

DamnYankee
11-02-2009, 07:29 PM
And they are there along with secular themed historical references to laws.

You mentioned Amendments, I assumed since you were talking about 10 of them you were under the mistaken impression that the Bill of Rights was offered as only 10 Amendments, it wasn't.

It doesn't really matter what frieze is on the side of a building, what matters is whether they are allowed to enact law based on your religious dogma, they aren't. They are in fact incapable of making laws that represent either your dogma or that of the "irreligious" based on previous SCOTUS rulings.

I was aware that two original amendments weren't ratified. Solitary claims that the tablets on the doors signify the Ten Amendments, which is ludicrous. Thanks for clearing that up.

You are digressing from the point, which is that morality is the basis of many of our laws, and morality is defined in the Bible. The Ten Commandments on the SC building pediment and doors signifies this.

Damocles
11-02-2009, 07:32 PM
I was aware that two original amendments weren't ratified. Solitary claims that the tablets on the doors signify the Ten Amendments, which is ludicrous. Thanks for clearing that up.

You are digressing from the point, which is that morality is the basis of many of our laws, and morality is defined in the Bible. The Ten Commandments on the SC building pediment and doors signifies this.
You are mistaken, morality is not defined from the Bible for everybody, solely those who follow it dogmatically (and as you saw earlier with the definition it is what you do, it isn't as insulting as people think) and laws that are solely from that source are stricken down.

I haven't digressed I have stated a simple truth.

DamnYankee
11-02-2009, 07:43 PM
You are mistaken, morality is not defined from the Bible for everybody, solely those who follow it dogmatically (and as you saw earlier with the definition it is what you do, it isn't as insulting as people think) and laws that are solely from that source are stricken down.

I haven't digressed I have stated a simple truth.

Morality is defined by the Bible and because of the tolerance of Christ even non-believers as yourself benefit from His guidance.

Cancel 2018. 3
11-02-2009, 07:45 PM
I was aware that two original amendments weren't ratified. Solitary claims that the tablets on the doors signify the Ten Amendments, which is ludicrous. Thanks for clearing that up.

You are digressing from the point, which is that morality is the basis of many of our laws, and morality is defined in the Bible. The Ten Commandments on the SC building pediment and doors signifies this.

there is also muhammad with the quran on the building....are you going to be intellectually honest and use the same logic towards saying islam and the quran defines our morality?

DamnYankee
11-02-2009, 07:51 PM
there is also muhammad with the quran on the building....are you going to be intellectually honest and use the same logic towards saying islam and the quran defines our morality?There are many great morality lessons in the Koran, however they are secondary to the Bible, and this is signified by the prominence of the Ten Commandments, in the center and largest.

WinterBorn
11-02-2009, 07:51 PM
there is also muhammad with the quran on the building....are you going to be intellectually honest and use the same logic towards saying islam and the quran defines our morality?

And Confucius also defines our morality.

Hammarabi certainly does, since he created one of the first written sets of laws in history.

WinterBorn
11-02-2009, 08:00 PM
There are many great morality lessons in the Koran, however they are secondary to the Bible, and this is signified by the prominence of the Ten Commandments, in the center and largest.

Which commandments are used in our laws?

"ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'

SIX: 'You shall not murder.'

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.' "





There are two that are in our laws now, and always have been. But laws against stealing and murder are in almost every culture in the world, including those who had laws before having any contact with judeo/christian faiths.

The law against adultery is iffy, because it has been struck down in most places.

So what is left is that 70% of the 10 Commandments are not and have not been laws, except in some unconstitutional instances, in our nation.

And the laws that we have used were also in the Code of Hammurabi, which either predates the commandments or is of the same time period. The laws that we have were also in use by the chinese when they had never heard of westerners, and their laws influenced the west later.

DamnYankee
11-02-2009, 08:08 PM
Which commandments are used in our laws?

.... "...however they are secondary to the Bible, and this is signified by the prominence of the Ten Commandments..."

Another Solitary failure.

:facepalm:

WinterBorn
11-02-2009, 08:11 PM
"...however they are secondary to the Bible, and this is signified by the prominence of the Ten Commandments..."

Another Solitary failure.

:facepalm:

One preacher claims the doors show the 10 Commandments.

The SCOTUS archives and researchers say that they represent the Bill of Rights.

Since most of the 10 Commandments were never used as laws, but all of the first 10 amendments are laws, and shape our nation, I think your conspiracy theory is weak.

Cancel 2018. 3
11-02-2009, 08:14 PM
There are many great morality lessons in the Koran, however they are secondary to the Bible, and this is signified by the prominence of the Ten Commandments, in the center and largest.

fair enough...

but it is quite a stretch to say the our laws are based on the bible, while ignoring the plethora of other philosphers or lawgivers....that are also on the scotus, thus making sure that no one religion or philosophy ruled our judicial system

WinterBorn
11-02-2009, 08:17 PM
fair enough...

but it is quite a stretch to say the our laws are based on the bible, while ignoring the plethora of other philosphers or lawgivers....that are also on the scotus, thus making sure that no one religion or philosophy ruled our judicial system

Our laws are a mixture of many, many cultures and historical figures.

DamnYankee
11-02-2009, 08:19 PM
One preacher claims the doors show the 10 Commandments.

The SCOTUS archives and researchers say that they represent the Bill of Rights.

Since most of the 10 Commandments were never used as laws, but all of the first 10 amendments are laws, and shape our nation, I think your conspiracy theory is weak. The architect of the building states that the Ten Commandments were to be signified. The design was approved by Congress.

Damocles
11-02-2009, 08:19 PM
Morality is defined by the Bible and because of the tolerance of Christ even non-believers as yourself benefit from His guidance.
Rubbish, the Bible is not the sole source of morality, morality existed long before Jeebus showed up and will still exist long after Jeebus goes the way of the Pagan gods.

Morality can be a set of rules dogmatically followed, those rules however cannot be the substance of the law in this land. Morality can also be a secular set of rules.

It is not the job of the government to keep you moral. If it were there would be laws against adultery, sodomy (that weren't struck down), etc. It would even be illegal to be homosexual, but it isn't. Your set of dogma is not what we base our laws on. First it cannot be, second it is obvious by what we allow that they aren't.

We simply do not allow our government to set laws based on your religious beliefs, and we aren't going to without a constitutional amendment to allow a theocracy.

DamnYankee
11-02-2009, 08:20 PM
fair enough...

but it is quite a stretch to say the our laws are based on the bible, while ignoring the plethora of other philosphers or lawgivers....that are also on the scotus, thus making sure that no one religion or philosophy ruled our judicial system Saying that they are based on the Bible doesn't ignore these other minor influences.
*searches for some emoton that won't be construed as gay*

DamnYankee
11-02-2009, 08:21 PM
Rubbish, the Bible is not the sole source of morality, morality existed long before Jeebus showed up and will still exist long after Jeebus goes the way of the Pagan gods. Post 93.

Damocles
11-02-2009, 08:24 PM
Post 93.
Post 92...

(I added a bit with an edit... so I'll repost it here.

Rubbish, the Bible is not the sole source of morality, morality existed long before Jeebus showed up and will still exist long after Jeebus goes the way of the Pagan gods.

Morality can be a set of rules dogmatically followed, those rules however cannot be the substance of the law in this land. Morality can also be a secular set of rules, which are what are laws actually are.

It is not the job of the government to keep you moral. If it were there would be laws against adultery, sodomy (that weren't struck down), etc. It would even be illegal to be homosexual, but it isn't. Your set of dogma is not what we base our laws on. First it cannot be, second it is obvious by what we allow that they aren't. Imagine all the things that would be illegal if we set our laws based on your dogma. Masturbating would be illegal, witchcraft (a religion) would be illegal, being an atheist would be illegal.

We simply do not allow our government to set laws based on your religious beliefs, and we aren't going to without a constitutional amendment to allow a theocracy.

I am very glad that we live in a land that allows me to follow my own set of beliefs without being forced into yours, and that freedom is reflected in our laws.

WinterBorn
11-02-2009, 08:25 PM
Saying that they are based on the Bible doesn't ignore these other minor influences.

Minor influences? :rofl:

That is hysterical! You are so determined that your faith shaped it all that I bet it was even a struggle to type that there were other "minor influences".

Socrtease
11-02-2009, 08:34 PM
Society is the victim of homosexuality you dolt.Just when I thought you could not say anything more ludicrous you show me I am wrong. Society is NOT victimized by men have sex with men. You are the now the king of hyperbole. No one should take you seriously anymore.

/MSG/
11-02-2009, 08:42 PM
Just when I thought you could not say anything more ludicrous you show me I am wrong. Society is NOT victimized by men have sex with men. You are the now the king of hyperbole. No one should take you seriously anymore.

Indeed.

Cancel 2018. 3
11-02-2009, 08:55 PM
Saying that they are based on the Bible doesn't ignore these other minor influences.
*searches for some emoton that won't be construed as gay*

ok...then you admit that the bible is not the sole influence, the other 17 law givers also have influence...

what if muslims were to use your argument in requesting sharia law?

Don Quixote
11-03-2009, 12:05 AM
the difference is one is about consenting adults and the other is about adults and non-consenting children

also, homosexuals and heterosexuals may be pedophiles

Don Quixote
11-03-2009, 12:07 AM
ok...then you admit that the bible is not the sole influence, the other 17 law givers also have influence...

what if muslims were to use your argument in requesting sharia law?

i see that you noticed that it depends on whose law or 'holy' book is involved

Topspin
11-03-2009, 05:53 AM
to think this guy actual has a college education. Southerntool back to asshat land of ignore.

WinterBorn
11-03-2009, 05:56 AM
Just when I thought you could not say anything more ludicrous you show me I am wrong. Society is NOT victimized by men have sex with men. You are the now the king of hyperbole. No one should take you seriously anymore.

I asked him to defend this accusation, but was ignored.

Anyone taking bets as to whether he does so?

DamnYankee
11-03-2009, 07:15 AM
Post 92...

(I added a bit with an edit... so I'll repost it here.

Rubbish, the Bible is not the sole source of morality, morality existed long before Jeebus showed up and will still exist long after Jeebus goes the way of the Pagan gods.

Morality can be a set of rules dogmatically followed, those rules however cannot be the substance of the law in this land. Morality can also be a secular set of rules.

It is not the job of the government to keep you moral. If it were there would be laws against adultery, sodomy (that weren't struck down), etc. It would even be illegal to be homosexual, but it isn't. Your set of dogma is not what we base our laws on. First it cannot be, second it is obvious by what we allow that they aren't. Imagine all the things that would be illegal if we set our laws based on your dogma. Masturbating would be illegal, witchcraft (a religion) would be illegal, being an atheist would be illegal.

We simply do not allow our government to set laws based on your religious beliefs, and we aren't going to without a constitutional amendment to allow a theocracy.

I am very glad that we live in a land that allows me to follow my own set of beliefs without being forced into yours, and that freedom is reflected in our laws.

All that effort doesn't negate what I said earlier.

DamnYankee
11-03-2009, 07:16 AM
Just when I thought you could not say anything more ludicrous you show me I am wrong. Society is NOT victimized by men have sex with men. You are the now the king of hyperbole. No one should take you seriously anymore.You want proof? Just look at P-Town, Mass.

DamnYankee
11-03-2009, 07:17 AM
ok...then you admit that the bible is not the sole influence, the other 17 law givers also have influence...

what if muslims were to use your argument in requesting sharia law?I'd say that Christianity came first.

Damocles
11-03-2009, 08:00 AM
All that effort doesn't negate what I said earlier.
What you said? You made some inane post about an emoticon that would show "gay"... and then reiterated it as an answer to a post of mine.

You're out of your mind if you think you have made some valid point that cannot be "negated" with posts about "gay" emoticons.

So far I have simply pointed out that the laws are not based on your religion, pointed out why, pointed out that laws that were have been struck down, and you've given me some post about "gay" emoticons.

It doesn't take a genius to see that you are now trapped in the wilder land of lost argument and desperate distraction.

If you want a theocracy (laws based on your religion) you'll either have to move or get the Congress to pass an Amendment that would then need to be ratified by 3/4 of the states.

/MSG/
11-03-2009, 08:01 AM
I'd say that Christianity came first.

You'd be wrong. Paganism in it's many forms came first. The first monotheists to appear would be the Jews, which the old testament of the bible is based on. Interestingly enough the bible was not started as moral or religious tome but rather a historical one, to chronicle the history of the Jewish people after their nation had been broken up by the Assyrians.

WinterBorn
11-03-2009, 08:02 AM
You want proof? Just look at P-Town, Mass.

Proof?

I think everyone here had rather have an explanation of why you think homosexuality victimizes all of society.

/MSG/
11-03-2009, 08:03 AM
Proof?

I think everyone here had rather have an explanation of why you think homosexuality victimizes all of society.

His explanation, even though he would never admit to it, is fear. Fear of what he doesn't understand. Fear of being wrong. Fear, in the end, is what it all boils down to.

WinterBorn
11-03-2009, 08:16 AM
His explanation, even though he would never admit to it, is fear. Fear of what he doesn't understand. Fear of being wrong. Fear, in the end, is what it all boils down to.

Which is why I press for an explanation. As he struggles to give a coherent answer that does not involve fear, perhaps he will realize the truth.

Knowing it is the first step.

Damocles
11-03-2009, 08:18 AM
Which is why I press for an explanation. As he struggles to give a coherent answer that does not involve fear, perhaps he will realize the truth.

Knowing it is the first step.
I still can't believe he pointed to "Post 93" as a serious answer. I feel sorry for him now.

DamnYankee
11-03-2009, 10:11 AM
What you said? You made some inane post about an emoticon that would show "gay"... and then reiterated it as an answer to a post of mine.

You're out of your mind if you think you have made some valid point that cannot be "negated" with posts about "gay" emoticons.

So far I have simply pointed out that the laws are not based on your religion, pointed out why, pointed out that laws that were have been struck down, and you've given me some post about "gay" emoticons.

It doesn't take a genius to see that you are now trapped in the wilder land of lost argument and desperate distraction.

If you want a theocracy (laws based on your religion) you'll either have to move or get the Congress to pass an Amendment that would then need to be ratified by 3/4 of the states.

Straw man about the emoton; it is unrelated to the main content of the post: "Saying that they are based on the Bible doesn't ignore these other minor influences. "

DamnYankee
11-03-2009, 10:12 AM
I still can't believe he pointed to "Post 93" as a serious answer. I feel sorry for him now. Now you're getting hissy with this distraction of yours.

DamnYankee
11-03-2009, 10:13 AM
You'd be wrong. Paganism in it's many forms came first. The first monotheists to appear would be the Jews, which the old testament of the bible is based on. Interestingly enough the bible was not started as moral or religious tome but rather a historical one, to chronicle the history of the Jewish people after their nation had been broken up by the Assyrians.Out of context. We were discussing Islam v. Christianity.

DamnYankee
11-03-2009, 10:16 AM
Proof?

I think everyone here had rather have an explanation of why you think homosexuality victimizes all of society.
Perhaps, being from 'bama, you're not aware of the society that is P-Town, Mass. I suggest that you spend a week there are report back to us.

www.ptown.org :good4u:

Damocles
11-03-2009, 10:24 AM
Straw man about the emoton; it is unrelated to the main content of the post: "Saying that they are based on the Bible doesn't ignore these other minor influences. "
You clearly have no idea what a straw man is.

I simply pointed to "post 93" as you did in answer to a post about how laws based on your religion have been struck down. It is a simple post about emoticons and whether you can find one that doesn't suggest "gay" or some other inanity. That's not a straw man it is literally what you did.

They are quite literally not "based on the bible" if they were they would be struck down like the other laws that were set solely for biblical morality. Your answer is as weak as the attempt to distract talking about emoticons and their "gay"...

/MSG/
11-03-2009, 10:34 AM
Which is why I press for an explanation. As he struggles to give a coherent answer that does not involve fear, perhaps he will realize the truth.

Knowing it is the first step.

Actually it's admitting.

/MSG/
11-03-2009, 10:35 AM
Out of context. We were discussing Islam v. Christianity.

Only in relation towards morality and it's context in our legal system. You're just being selective about the context employed.

/MSG/
11-03-2009, 10:40 AM
Perhaps, being from 'bama, you're not aware of the society that is P-Town, Mass. I suggest that you spend a week there are report back to us.

www.ptown.org :good4u:

I don't see anything so reprehensible with the town. Not somewhere I would go personally, but I doubt they would have what I was looking for in the first place (a good local brewery).

DamnYankee
11-03-2009, 11:54 AM
I don't see anything so reprehensible with the town. Not somewhere I would go personally, but I doubt they would have what I was looking for in the first place (a good local brewery).Would you choose to raise a family there?

/MSG/
11-03-2009, 12:30 PM
Would you choose to raise a family there?Wouldn't be my first choice, but sure. If the town wasn't in MA anyways.

WinterBorn
11-03-2009, 12:34 PM
Would you choose to raise a family there?

There are plenty of places I wouldn't choose to raise a family. Any urban environment wouldn't be a choice I would make unless it was a last resort.

Is this area a high crime area?

DamnYankee
11-03-2009, 12:34 PM
Wouldn't be my first choice, but sure. If the town wasn't in MA anyways.
Why wouldn't you choose it, say, if it wasn't in Massachusetts? In fact, say if it was just like where you live now, except that the population was a very high percentage queer. Would you choose it over where you live now to raise a family?

DamnYankee
11-03-2009, 12:35 PM
There are plenty of places I wouldn't choose to raise a family. Any urban environment wouldn't be a choice I would make unless it was a last resort.

Is this area a high crime area?If you consider sodomy a crime, then yes, P-Town has an exceedingly high crime rate.

WinterBorn
11-03-2009, 12:37 PM
If you consider sodomy a crime, then yes, P-Town has an exceedingly high crime rate.

Not a high crime area then. If it was a rural area that had a high population of gays, I wouldn't have a problem living there. What others do is not my concern.

/MSG/
11-03-2009, 12:40 PM
Why wouldn't you choose it, say, if it wasn't in Massachusetts? In fact, say if it was just like where you live now, except that the population was a very high percentage queer. Would you choose it over where you live now to raise a family?

You seem to forget that I currently live in Detroit. I wouldn't raise a family here regardless of the sexuality of most residents.

Of course all other things being equal I honestly wouldn't if my children grew up in a predominately gay area, so long as it was good enough for me to live there in the first place.

DamnYankee
11-03-2009, 12:48 PM
Liars.

/MSG/
11-03-2009, 12:53 PM
Liars.

So now you just call me a liar? You lose all points in this argument. I honestly don't care who fucks in i what bodily orifice as long as it's consensual, and I don't have to watch. I don't see anything wrong with it and honestly, if I ever had gay children I would love and support them as much as if they were straight so long as they didn't sully my family name and passed on the blood line.

Cancel 2018. 3
11-03-2009, 12:57 PM
SM....why are you so afraid of homosexuals?

DamnYankee
11-03-2009, 01:02 PM
So now you just call me a liar? You lose all points in this argument. I honestly don't care who fucks in i what bodily orifice as long as it's consensual, and I don't have to watch. I don't see anything wrong with it and honestly, if I ever had gay children I would love and support them as much as if they were straight so long as they didn't sully my family name and passed on the blood line. You just made my point with the bolded context. In gay towns like San Fran, P-Town and Key West you're likely to see all kinds of public displays of queer sex. If you were raising a family there it would be a huge negative for you.

DamnYankee
11-03-2009, 01:04 PM
SM....why are you so afraid of homosexuals?I'm not, Yurt. Why would you ask that?

/MSG/
11-03-2009, 01:05 PM
You just made my point with the bolded context. In gay towns like San Fran, P-Town and Key West you're likely to see all kinds of public displays of queer sex. If you were raising a family there it would be a huge negative for you.

You're wrong on two fronts. First you have no evidence to base that claim on, second you don't see all sorts of hetero sex in straight cities and if you do, it's against the law.

Socrtease
11-03-2009, 01:14 PM
Perhaps, being from 'bama, you're not aware of the society that is P-Town, Mass. I suggest that you spend a week there are report back to us.

www.ptown.org :good4u:So in P-Town there is sex on the streets? Actual anal and oral sex? Or is just that men walk through town hand in hand with other men, and women do the same? Do they sometimes kiss in public too? Those icky queers, kissing and holding hands just like Breeders. And no I would not live in P-Town but not because of queers, because the government is Mass is way to involved in people's personal lives, they tax you way to much. I HAVE lived in Santa Fe NM which is also a very queer friendly town, as is Liberal Kansas which I spent a lot of time in during law school because they have great show venues. I would raise by children in either of those towns. I have queer friends and my children are already exposed to them being affectionate with one anther.

DamnYankee
11-03-2009, 01:15 PM
You're wrong on two fronts. First you have no evidence to base that claim on, second you don't see all sorts of hetero sex in straight cities and if you do, it's against the law.Dude, when I lived in Massachusetts there was a highway rest area that became infested with queers. They'd stop in and have sex with each other. There's a little park in nearby Winston-Salem that has a reputation for the same thing. Most queers choose to be queer because they can't find women who want to have sex like that, and if they find an area where they can congregate will poke each other in the open. These are facts and you can choose to publicly deny them but you know they are true which is why you reacted as you did.

Cancel 2018. 3
11-03-2009, 01:20 PM
I'm not, Yurt. Why would you ask that?

it just seems, of all the sins, you're most concerned with this one....

/MSG/
11-03-2009, 01:22 PM
Dude, when I lived in Massachusetts there was a highway rest area that became infested with queers. They'd stop in and have sex with each other. There's a little park in nearby Winston-Salem that has a reputation for the same thing. Most queers choose to be queer because they can't find women who want to have sex like that, and if they find an area where they can congregate will poke each other in the open. These are facts and you can choose to publicly deny them but you know they are true which is why you reacted as you did.

It's not facts, it's anecdotal at best, and ripe with bigotry. People stopping to have sex in a park? Hell I do that with my wife when the mood so suits me. It's illegal and likely to be just as prominent in straight neighborhoods as gay neighborhoods. Admit it, you're afraid that general acceptance of homosexuality will destroy your very belief system.

DamnYankee
11-03-2009, 03:05 PM
it just seems, of all the sins, you're most concerned with this one.... It is, after all, the most egregious sin, starting with Ham (Genesis 9:22), causing a generational curse by Noah to his youngest son, which became a curse by God onto the seven nations of Canaan (Deuteronomy 7:1, 2).

DamnYankee
11-03-2009, 03:07 PM
It's not facts, it's anecdotal at best, and ripe with bigotry. People stopping to have sex in a park? Hell I do that with my wife when the mood so suits me. It's illegal and likely to be just as prominent in straight neighborhoods as gay neighborhoods. Admit it, you're afraid that general acceptance of homosexuality will destroy your very belief system. Assuming that heteros have public sex as often as queers, you stated yourself that you wouldn't want to look at queers doing that. If you raised a family in a town full of queers you'd have to keep your eyes closed, a lot.

Cancel 2018. 3
11-03-2009, 03:34 PM
It is, after all, the most egregious sin, starting with Ham (Genesis 9:22), causing a generational curse by Noah to his youngest son, which became a curse by God onto the seven nations of Canaan (Deuteronomy 7:1, 2).

blasphemy of the holy spirit is

deuteronomy 7:1, 2 has nothing to do with homosexuality

genesis is not about homosexuality

read up on blasphemy of the holy spirit, it is the only unforgivable sin

WinterBorn
11-03-2009, 04:33 PM
Liars.

To call me a liar because I didn't answer the way you wanted me too is ridiculous.

I have seen nothing to warrant it.

WinterBorn
11-03-2009, 04:36 PM
Assuming that heteros have public sex as often as queers, you stated yourself that you wouldn't want to look at queers doing that. If you raised a family in a town full of queers you'd have to keep your eyes closed, a lot.

I don't want to see anyone having sex in public (unless its me).

But I haven't seen it in some "gay areas" that I have been in and around. Key West is Florida's answer to San Fran, and I never saw anyone except straight couples having sex on the beach.

PostmodernProphet
11-03-2009, 05:04 PM
It is, after all, the most egregious sin, starting with Ham (Genesis 9:22), causing a generational curse by Noah to his youngest son, which became a curse by God onto the seven nations of Canaan (Deuteronomy 7:1, 2).

/boggle....where did you come up with the idea that Genesis 9 or Deuteronomy 7 have anything to do with homosexuality?......

DamnYankee
11-03-2009, 05:26 PM
/boggle....where did you come up with the idea that Genesis 9 or Deuteronomy 7 have anything to do with homosexuality?......
Gee I don't know. :rolleyes:

DamnYankee
11-03-2009, 05:36 PM
blasphemy of the holy spirit is

deuteronomy 7:1, 2 has nothing to do with homosexuality

genesis is not about homosexuality

read up on blasphemy of the holy spirit, it is the only unforgivable sin

We've been through it previously: Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Homosexuals & the Scripture

Socrtease
11-03-2009, 05:40 PM
Heteros have sex in public all the time. My first wife used to love the thrill of possibly being caught and/or being watched. We had sex in the back of a car in a mall parking lot one time. We used to have sex on Balconies all the time, she would blow me in movie theaters. I had an ex girl friend in Germany who loved to give head in the backseat of a taxi or have sex on airplanes. My last wife and I had sex in a dressing room in Dillards. The woman I am married to now likes to have sex in hidden areas of public places. I have never been with a woman that DIDN'T like to have sex in public places.

PostmodernProphet
11-03-2009, 05:45 PM
Gee I don't know. :rolleyes:

then why did you say it?.....

PostmodernProphet
11-03-2009, 05:47 PM
We've been through it previously: Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Homosexuals & the Scripture (http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=193656&postcount=1)


While somewhat euphemistic, this phrase is a Hebrew metaphor which literally means to engage in illicit sex with. The phrase appears other places in Scripture, but this incidence is quite telling.

lol, no it isn't....what's your authority for that claim.....

here is the list of possible definitions of the verb in that sentence in the original Hebrew.....not a single one of them has anything to do with sex....



Strong's Number: 07200 Browse Lexicon
Original Word Word Origin
har a primitive root
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Ra'ah TWOT - 2095
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
raw-aw' Verb
Definition
to see, look at, inspect, perceive, consider
(Qal)
to see
to see, perceive
to see, have vision
to look at, see, regard, look after, see after, learn about, observe, watch, look upon, look out, find out
to see, observe, consider, look at, give attention to, discern, distinguish
to look at, gaze at
(Niphal)
to appear, present oneself
to be seen
to be visible
(Pual) to be seen
(Hiphil)
to cause to see, show
to cause to look intently at, behold, cause to gaze at
(Hophal)
to be caused to see, be shown
to be exhibited to
(Hithpael) to look at each other, face


http://www.biblestudytools.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=07200&version=kjv

I would be interested in knowing what these reputed "other instances in scripture" are so we can see if they even use the same root verb.....

Cancel 2018. 3
11-03-2009, 06:01 PM
We've been through it previously: Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Homosexuals & the Scripture (http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=193656&postcount=1)

wrong....and pampers addressed the rest

/MSG/
11-03-2009, 06:23 PM
Assuming that heteros have public sex as often as queers, you stated yourself that you wouldn't want to look at queers doing that. If you raised a family in a town full of queers you'd have to keep your eyes closed, a lot.

I wouldn't want to see ANYONE having sex in public, regardless of sexuality. You continue to dodge the issue, instead trying to find the tiniest flaw in my personal argument (of which none exists as I am not bigoted). You resort to your obviously biased anecdote which is a non shared experience among posters here.

We get it. 'Queers' are subhuman to you and don't deserve equal treatment. You're free to your opinion and indeed to treat them however you like (within the consequences of the law of course). However, as it stands our government cannot act as you do as it has a duty to ALL it citizens, not just the pious, and further society as whole is only degraded by your ignorance and/or hatred. So in closing you're not only foolish, you're slowing down the progress of society and humanity.

PostmodernProphet
11-03-2009, 06:26 PM
wrong....and pampers addressed the rest

I think this is the third unrelated thread you've chosen to insult me, simply because I made you look foolish in an argument.....that's so childish....makes you look like a liberal....

Cancel 2018. 3
11-03-2009, 06:34 PM
I think this is the third unrelated thread you've chosen to insult me, simply because I made you look foolish in an argument.....that's so childish....makes you look like a liberal....

do you need a tissue? and i love the hypocrisy where you insult me in the above post, yet whine about me doing so....

i guess you look like a liberal :clink:

DamnYankee
11-03-2009, 07:41 PM
I wouldn't want to see ANYONE having sex in public, regardless of sexuality. You continue to dodge the issue, instead trying to find the tiniest flaw in my personal argument (of which none exists as I am not bigoted). You resort to your obviously biased anecdote which is a non shared experience among posters here.

We get it. 'Queers' are subhuman to you and don't deserve equal treatment. You're free to your opinion and indeed to treat them however you like (within the consequences of the law of course). However, as it stands our government cannot act as you do as it has a duty to ALL it citizens, not just the pious, and further society as whole is only degraded by your ignorance and/or hatred. So in closing you're not only foolish, you're slowing down the progress of society and humanity.

Your not being honest here. You wouldn't live in a town full of queers.

DamnYankee
11-03-2009, 07:42 PM
lol, no it isn't....what's your authority for that claim.....

here is the list of possible definitions of the verb in that sentence in the original Hebrew.....not a single one of them has anything to do with sex....



http://www.biblestudytools.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=07200&version=kjv

I would be interested in knowing what these reputed "other instances in scripture" are so we can see if they even use the same root verb.....

That's why they call it a euphemism.

DamnYankee
11-03-2009, 07:44 PM
Heteros have sex in public all the time. My first wife used to love the thrill of possibly being caught and/or being watched. We had sex in the back of a car in a mall parking lot one time. We used to have sex on Balconies all the time, she would blow me in movie theaters. I had an ex girl friend in Germany who loved to give head in the backseat of a taxi or have sex on airplanes. My last wife and I had sex in a dressing room in Dillards. The woman I am married to now likes to have sex in hidden areas of public places. I have never been with a woman that DIDN'T like to have sex in public places.Perhaps if you knew how to satisfy them better they wouldn't feel the need to find their kicks with this rather unusual behavior.

/MSG/
11-03-2009, 07:44 PM
Your not being honest here. You wouldn't live in a town full of queers.
And you know the inner workings of my mind? What, pray tell, gives you this impression?

DamnYankee
11-03-2009, 07:49 PM
And you know the inner workings of my mind? What, pray tell, gives you this impression?Based on the revulsion that you expressed earlier. Plus its human nature. Since you were in the military, how would you react if half of your platoon was queer?

/MSG/
11-03-2009, 07:52 PM
Based on the revulsion that you expressed earlier. Plus its human nature. Since you were in the military, how would you react if half of your platoon was queer?

What revulsion? Because I wouldn't want to see two men have sex I hate them? I wouldn't want to see any two or more people have sex who aren't me and my wife or porn stars. And even most porn stars don't make the grade.

As for the military question I'd react the same as I did when I met every gay person who served with me (quite a few). Indifferent. Ooo, you like men/women? Big deal. The military, or at least the Marines, are the gayest acting group of people I've ever met.

DamnYankee
11-03-2009, 08:18 PM
What revulsion? Because I wouldn't want to see two men have sex I hate them? I wouldn't want to see any two or more people have sex who aren't me and my wife or porn stars. And even most porn stars don't make the grade.

As for the military question I'd react the same as I did when I met every gay person who served with me (quite a few). Indifferent. Ooo, you like men/women? Big deal. The military, or at least the Marines, are the gayest acting group of people I've ever met.

Good answer, but not to my question.

/MSG/
11-03-2009, 08:20 PM
Good answer, but not to my question.

How so? I wouldn't care if EVERYONE but me was gay in my unit. Now please tell me how you know so absolutely that I wouldn't live in a predominately gay town?

DamnYankee
11-03-2009, 08:23 PM
How so? I wouldn't care if EVERYONE but me was gay in my unit. Now please tell me how you know so absolutely that I wouldn't live in a predominately gay town?If you're not going to be honest with me than I can't answer. *shrug*

/MSG/
11-03-2009, 08:29 PM
If you're not going to be honest with me than I can't answer. *shrug*

No, you can't answer because you know you're wrong. Why should I think that gay people are subhuman like you do? Why should I be afraid of them like you are? I have no reason.

Face it, you've been trapped and can't get out. Admit to your bigotry and I'll be on my way.

WinterBorn
11-03-2009, 08:48 PM
If you're not going to be honest with me than I can't answer. *shrug*

Do you know this man? You act like anyone who doesn't take your side, but is not an extreme liberal must be lying.

DamnYankee
11-04-2009, 07:20 AM
No, you can't answer because you know you're wrong. Why should I think that gay people are subhuman like you do? Why should I be afraid of them like you are? I have no reason.

Face it, you've been trapped and can't get out. Admit to your bigotry and I'll be on my way.Its not bigotry to not accept a lifestyle that is chosen and immoral. I don't like abortion supporters either.

WinterBorn
11-04-2009, 08:24 AM
Perhaps if you knew how to satisfy them better they wouldn't feel the need to find their kicks with this rather unusual behavior.

:rofl:

You think people have wild sex because they are unsatisfied with "regular" sex? Don't be daft.

I think its safe to say that the majority of people under 50 are not satisfied with limited themselves to missionary position in their bed in the dark.

There is nothing wrong with having fun with your spouse or partner. You should try something adventurous. Like maybe leave the light on.

WinterBorn
11-04-2009, 08:26 AM
Its not bigotry to not accept a lifestyle that is chosen and immoral. I don't like abortion supporters either.

First of all, most gays don't choose to be gay. There may be a few, but not the majority.

Second of all, there are a lot of things I don't particularly like. But that doesn't mean I don't tolerate those who do.

/MSG/
11-04-2009, 09:10 AM
Its not bigotry to not accept a lifestyle that is chosen and immoral. I don't like abortion supporters either.

It IS bigotry to demand that the world conform to your personal moral code and deny other that which you would demand for yourself. I don't support stupidity but I still think idiot's should have the same rights that I do. Now since you refuse to do anything here but argue in some sort of wild goose chase, return to one of the issues at hand;
1. How do you know I wouldn't live in a gay town if it met all my other expectations? (here's a hint, San Fransisco meets all of them except it's in California)
2. How does gay marriage damage society?
3. How does the acceptance of gay people in society at large increase the proliferation of pedophilia, something you yourself said was morally acceptable 100 years ago?

DamnYankee
11-04-2009, 09:22 AM
It IS bigotry to demand that the world conform to your personal moral code and deny other that which you would demand for yourself. ...No its not. It's immoral to steal, murder and rape. I demand that folks don't do it.

WinterBorn
11-04-2009, 09:23 AM
No its not. It's immoral to steal, murder and rape. I demand that folks don't do it.

Your comparison is ridiculous. Those three crimes have victims. Homosexuality is not a crime and does not have victims.

DamnYankee
11-04-2009, 09:43 AM
Children are the victims.

/MSG/
11-04-2009, 09:44 AM
No its not. It's immoral to steal, murder and rape. I demand that folks don't do it.

As winterborn already pointed out, those crimes have victims. You have yet to find a single way in which homosexuality has any victim.

/MSG/
11-04-2009, 09:45 AM
Children are the victims.

How? How are two people being gay hurting the youth of America?

DamnYankee
11-04-2009, 09:53 AM
How? How are two people being gay hurting the youth of America? Straw Man. The argument is about an institution of queer marriage.

/MSG/
11-04-2009, 09:57 AM
Straw Man. The argument is about an institution of queer marriage.

You yourself said children were the victim, and society was the victim. I simply equated that to be the children of society. So which is it? Show me how ANYONE is the victim.

WinterBorn
11-04-2009, 09:58 AM
Straw Man. The argument is about an institution of queer marriage.

:rofl:

You tell us that children are the victims. Then we asked to clairfy, you call it a strawman??


Priceless avoidance of the topic that you brought up.

Cancel 2018. 3
11-04-2009, 10:02 AM
Children are the victims.


How? How are two people being gay hurting the youth of America?


Straw Man. The argument is about an institution of queer marriage.

:palm:

DamnYankee
11-04-2009, 10:03 AM
You yourself said children were the victim, and society was the victim. I simply equated that to be the children of society. So which is it? Show me how ANYONE is the victim.
Both are. Children will have to be taught that queer is normal and healthy: a lie. Adoption agencies will be forced to place kids with queer parents; queers are less stable and are unable to raise children as normal parents can. Societies based on lies inevitably fail.

DamnYankee
11-04-2009, 10:04 AM
:palm: Didn't you claim that was a gay emoton? :eek:

WinterBorn
11-04-2009, 10:06 AM
Both are. Children will have to be taught that queer is normal and healthy: a lie. Adoption agencies will be forced to place kids with queer parents; queers are less stable and are unable to raise children as normal parents can. Societies based on lies inevitably fail.

The bold faced part is an absolute lie. There have been numerous studies that have shown no difference between kids raised by gays and kids raised by straights.

/MSG/
11-04-2009, 10:10 AM
Both are. Children will have to be taught that queer is normal and healthy: a lie. Adoption agencies will be forced to place kids with queer parents; queers are less stable and are unable to raise children as normal parents can. Societies based on lies inevitably fail.

Children won't have to be taught a damn thing, but if they are taught to accept everyone own their own merit instead of a gross generalization, than good. Further you have no proof that gay families are more or less stable that straight ones, especially with the current trend towards single parents and teenage parents.

DamnYankee
11-04-2009, 10:10 AM
Anyone with an agenda can design a study with results that defy common sense. Normal parents have both male and female perspectives so are better able to advise and discipline their children as situations occur.

Cancel 2018. 3
11-04-2009, 10:12 AM
Didn't you claim that was a gay emoton? :eek:

nope, never

DamnYankee
11-04-2009, 10:13 AM
Children won't have to be taught a damn thing, but if they are taught to accept everyone own their own merit instead of a gross generalization, than good. Further you have no proof that gay families are more or less stable that straight ones, especially with the current trend towards single parents and teenage parents.

Teenage parents are less stable than ones who have matured and better financially equipped. Single parent households are less stable then two parent households. Queers are less stable than normal folks.

These are facts, and they are undeniable.

/MSG/
11-04-2009, 10:13 AM
Anyone with an agenda can design a study with results that defy common sense. Normal parents have both male and female perspectives so are better able to advise and discipline their children as situations occur.

So.... you have no proof of ANY of your arguments? Not a damn thing huh?

WinterBorn
11-04-2009, 10:14 AM
Anyone with an agenda can design a study with results that defy common sense. Normal parents have both male and female perspectives so are better able to advise and discipline their children as situations occur.

So you are saying that these studies, done by reputable doctors and social workers, were falsified to further their agenda?

Do you have any evidence? I mean, other than the fact that they disagree with your views.

DamnYankee
11-04-2009, 10:14 AM
nope, never Oh yeah, it was this one:

:facepalm:

Cancel 2018. 3
11-04-2009, 10:15 AM
Both are. Children will have to be taught that queer is normal and healthy: a lie. Adoption agencies will be forced to place kids with queer parents; queers are less stable and are unable to raise children as normal parents can. Societies based on lies inevitably fail.

parents will not have to teach their children that queer is normal....schools already talk about homosexuality as 'normal'....eg., shouldn't discriminate against them...so this point falls flat on its face

in some states, gays can already adopt....

there is absolutely zero evidence that gay couples are less stable and are unbable to raise children as "normal" parents can....this is completely unfounded, especially in the light of how many kids are abused, neglected etc...in "normal" relationships

Cancel 2018. 3
11-04-2009, 10:16 AM
Oh yeah, it was this one:

:facepalm:

nope, never said that emoticon was gay....

WinterBorn
11-04-2009, 10:16 AM
Teenage parents are less stable than ones who have matured and better financially equipped. Single parent households are less stable then two parent households. Queers are less stable than normal folks.

These are facts, and they are undeniable.

"Queers are less stable than normal folks."

That is absolutely not a fact. It may be your fervent wish, but it is not a fact.

Damocles
11-04-2009, 10:19 AM
Children are the victims.
Children are the victims of pedophilia. That is a different subject. The vague idea that because their parents are different they are victimized is simply not even close to direct victimization that should be required before we start passing laws.

/MSG/
11-04-2009, 10:27 AM
Teenage parents are less stable than ones who have matured and better financially equipped.True, for the most part

Single parent households are less stable then two parent households.True, for the most part

Queers are less stable than normal folks. Untrue, for the most part, as you have no rational basis for your argument.


These are facts, and they are undeniable.

You deny facts all the time. Like the fact that most homosexuality is genetic not chosen.

USFREEDOM911
11-05-2009, 12:15 AM
Children are the victims.

How are children victims??

USFREEDOM911
11-05-2009, 12:17 AM
Both are. Children will have to be taught that queer is normal and healthy: a lie. Adoption agencies will be forced to place kids with queer parents; queers are less stable and are unable to raise children as normal parents can. Societies based on lies inevitably fail.

You really do become delusional, when you have a mal-hissy. :palm:

Socrtease
11-05-2009, 12:37 AM
Based on the revulsion that you expressed earlier. Plus its human nature. Since you were in the military, how would you react if half of your platoon was queer?
I served in the Military and knew many gay soldiers. I never outed them and I actually showered with a few along with lots of other men in my company after PT. They didn't do anything different from the rest of us. They showered, they dried off, got dressed and went to chow. My biggest concern in the army was that the guy to my right and my left new how to take care of himself in combat. That is ALL that matters. You are the one that is scared of queers so quit projecting your piddly pussy ass revulsion on us and own up to your bigotry.

PostmodernProphet
11-05-2009, 06:09 AM
It IS bigotry to demand that the world conform to your personal moral code and deny other that which you would demand for yourself.

yet what I see in this thread is the insistence that everyone accept homosexual relationships and activism as normal and moral.....how is THAT not demanding that everyone conform to a moral code?

WinterBorn
11-05-2009, 06:17 AM
yet what I see in this thread is the insistence that everyone accept homosexual relationships and activism as normal and moral.....how is THAT not demanding that everyone conform to a moral code?

What I see is that one group is being denied equality because of the fears of another group.

No one is saying you have to accept anything. The argument has been made that either would not live in a predominantly gay community or that we are lying when we say we would.

I don't like a lot of people. But unless they do something directly to me (or mine), or they break the law, I say "Live & let live".

WinterBorn
11-05-2009, 06:21 AM
yet what I see in this thread is the insistence that everyone accept homosexual relationships and activism as normal and moral.....how is THAT not demanding that everyone conform to a moral code?

PMP, I dislike people who would use others. I dislike people who abuse others. But I do not presume to tell them that they cannot marry.

I dislike and do not accept those who would cheat on their spouse. But if they get caught, they can still remarry.

DamnYankee
11-05-2009, 08:13 AM
Untrue, for the most part, as you have no rational basis for your argument..


A recent study from the Netherlands, where gay marriage is legal, ... Researchers found that even among stable homosexual partnerships, men have an average of eight partners per year outside their "monogamous" relationship.http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/februaryweb-only/2-16-41.0.html?start=1

Doesn't sound like a stable situation to me.

PostmodernProphet
11-05-2009, 08:49 AM
I say "Live & let live".

except for Southern Man....Southern Man can burn for being a bigot......

/MSG/
11-05-2009, 10:12 AM
yet what I see in this thread is the insistence that everyone accept homosexual relationships and activism as normal and moral.....how is THAT not demanding that everyone conform to a moral code?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, you can hate gay people all you want. In fact you can treat them however you personally want to (with respect towards the law), but our GOVERNMENT, our body of law, cannot see it that way. All people must be given a fair share until they have proven to be a detriment to society. And thus far no one has been able to show one iota of how people being gay is harmful to society.

/MSG/
11-05-2009, 10:14 AM
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/februaryweb-only/2-16-41.0.html?start=1

Doesn't sound like a stable situation to me.

Considering the nature of the source, and the big intellectual leap you're making (multiple partners=less stable especially since the same could be said about many straight couple), I find your claim questionable.

PostmodernProphet
11-05-2009, 10:47 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again, you can hate gay people all you want. In fact you can treat them however you personally want to (with respect towards the law), but our GOVERNMENT, our body of law, cannot see it that way. All people must be given a fair share until they have proven to be a detriment to society. And thus far no one has been able to show one iota of how people being gay is harmful to society.
wrong....hate isn't the issue, tolerance is no longer the issue.....acceptance is demanded or you are labeled as a bigot.....

Cancel 2018. 3
11-05-2009, 10:59 AM
PMP...you're so full of it

it is YOU who is demanding gays accept YOUR morals and it is YOU who is shoving down their throats by saying that can't marry because YOU believe homosexuality is wrong.

nice try...you will allow adulterers, liars, britney's, abusers and murderers to marry, but oh no, not a fucking homosexual, those evil fucking bastards will destroy marriage....

biggest bunch of bs and hypocrisy i've ever seen

/MSG/
11-05-2009, 11:36 AM
wrong....hate isn't the issue, tolerance is no longer the issue.....acceptance is demanded or you are labeled as a bigot.....

And if you're a priest/minister/grand poobah, you can exclude them from whatever ceremony you want. You can go on international TV and tell everyone how they will burn in hell and whatever. It's your right. Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of thought! Enjoy them, exercise them by all means! But do not expect that our government be in line with your narrow thought pattern and deny others what you would demand for yourself.

WinterBorn
11-05-2009, 12:19 PM
except for Southern Man....Southern Man can burn for being a bigot......

SM is trying to stop others from living their lives as they see fit. He is trying to force his morality on society.

Also, he is deliberately antagonistic and hostile.

WinterBorn
11-05-2009, 12:22 PM
wrong....hate isn't the issue, tolerance is no longer the issue.....acceptance is demanded or you are labeled as a bigot.....

I have said it before and will say it again, your acceptance is up to you.

But the gov't is not allowed the same leeway.

PostmodernProphet
11-05-2009, 12:24 PM
PMP...you're so full of it

it is YOU who is demanding gays accept YOUR morals and it is YOU who is shoving down their throats by saying that can't marry because YOU believe homosexuality is wrong.


really?....I have not asked any homosexual to abandon their relationship to comply with my views on morality......I have not asked them to redefine any social institutions to comport with my beliefs.....I have not called anyone a bigot for not sharing my beliefs......yet, liberals continue to be assholes.....is that somehow my fault?......

PostmodernProphet
11-05-2009, 12:25 PM
I have said it before and will say it again, your acceptance is up to you.

But the gov't is not allowed the same leeway.

this is America....there is no 'government' out there that is different from us......

PostmodernProphet
11-05-2009, 12:26 PM
But do not expect that our government be in line with your narrow thought pattern and deny others what you would demand for yourself.

this is my point....somehow I have a 'narrow thought pattern'....I'm not as good as the rest of you because I don't share your moral beliefs......there is no bigot more bigoted than a liberal bigot.....

PostmodernProphet
11-05-2009, 12:27 PM
He is trying to force his morality on society.

Also, he is deliberately antagonistic and hostile.
lol.....blind liberalism....

/MSG/
11-05-2009, 12:28 PM
this is America....there is no 'government' out there that is different from us......

You're right, this is America. A land where everyone regardless of moral/ethical code is to be treated EQUALLY in the eyes of the law.

PostmodernProphet
11-05-2009, 12:29 PM
nice try...you will allow adulterers, liars, britney's, abusers and murderers to marry, but oh no, not a fucking homosexual, those evil fucking bastards will destroy marriage....



by the way, I don't consider homosexuals to be evil fucking bastards.....unless they are liberal homosexuals....then it goes without saying that they are evil, fucking bastards....

WinterBorn
11-05-2009, 12:29 PM
this is America....there is no 'government' out there that is different from us......

But there is a difference between the individual and the collective.

As an individual you are not required to accept anything. But for the collective "us" (as in the gov't) to exclude a group based on sexual orientation is simply wrong.

PostmodernProphet
11-05-2009, 12:30 PM
You're right, this is America. A land where everyone regardless of moral/ethical code is to be treated EQUALLY in the eyes of the law.

so explain to me again why they can't simply have the relationship of their choice without requiring everyone else in America to accept it as 'marriage'........

PostmodernProphet
11-05-2009, 12:31 PM
But there is a difference between the individual and the collective.


perhaps in communist countries....perhaps that explains why liberals think everything is hunky dorry so long as the 'government' pays for it....

WinterBorn
11-05-2009, 12:31 PM
this is my point....somehow I have a 'narrow thought pattern'....I'm not as good as the rest of you because I don't share your moral beliefs......there is no bigot more bigoted than a liberal bigot.....

Any issue in which we disagree will have me thinking you are wrong. It is the nature of disagreement.

WinterBorn
11-05-2009, 12:33 PM
lol.....blind liberalism....

Not at all. When we are discussing gay marriage, and his response is "go try being gay with your neighbor and see how it works out for your marriage" or "You two agree, you must be gay buddies" or something similar, he is not debating he is trying to insult.

I am not a blind liberal any more than I am a blind conservative.

I look at each issue on its own merits.

PostmodernProphet
11-05-2009, 12:33 PM
Any issue in which we disagree will have me thinking you are wrong. It is the nature of disagreement.

dodge.....I can pin point a half dozen posts to this thread showing that liberals believe anyone who doesn't accept their views on homosexuality to immoral bigots.....it's the essence of the problem in this debate....the left refuses to acknowledge it's own bigotry.....

WinterBorn
11-05-2009, 12:34 PM
perhaps in communist countries....perhaps that explains why liberals think everything is hunky dorry so long as the 'government' pays for it....

Not at all. You are allowed to be a devote christian, and Damo is allowed to be a devote buddhist, but our gov't can be neither.

PostmodernProphet
11-05-2009, 12:34 PM
I look at each issue on its own merits.
well, aren't you special....again, your 'better' than the rest of us.....

WinterBorn
11-05-2009, 12:35 PM
dodge.....I can pin point a half dozen posts to this thread showing that liberals believe anyone who doesn't accept their views on homosexuality to immoral bigots.....it's the essence of the problem in this debate....the left refuses to acknowledge it's own bigotry.....

Not a dodge. I can point to conservatives doing the same thing.

And, other than SM, I try and remain civil to all. Yet you lump me in with the uncivil liberals.

WinterBorn
11-05-2009, 12:36 PM
well, aren't you special....again, your 'better' than the rest of us.....

WTF? Where have I said that? I have presented my side of debates and read other people's.

PostmodernProphet
11-05-2009, 12:36 PM
You are allowed to be a devote christian
well aren't we generous today....what will you let me be tomorrow?.....can we redefine 'religion' to only mean Christianity?....I don't want you merely to tolerate me, I want you to consider my beliefs normative......

/MSG/
11-05-2009, 12:37 PM
so explain to me again why they can't simply have the relationship of their choice without requiring everyone else in America to accept it as 'marriage'........

You don't have to accept it. No religion or church has to accept it. Just the blind impartial eye of the government.

PostmodernProphet
11-05-2009, 12:38 PM
WTF? Where have I said that? I have presented my side of debates and read other people's.
obviously you were comparing yourself to someone, either SM or myself.....at least YOU judge each issue on it's merits....fucking shame we don't......but what can you expect....we don't have your superior outlook on life.....

PostmodernProphet
11-05-2009, 12:38 PM
Not a dodge. I can point to conservatives doing the same thing.

And, other than SM, I try and remain civil to all. Yet you lump me in with the uncivil liberals.
that's because you refuse to recognize you're already lumped.....

Cancel 2018. 3
11-05-2009, 12:39 PM
by the way, I don't consider homosexuals to be evil fucking bastards.....unless they are liberal homosexuals....then it goes without saying that they are evil, fucking bastards....

why do allow these "immoral" people to marry?


allow adulterers, liars, britney's, abusers and murderers to marry, but oh no, not a homosexual

PostmodernProphet
11-05-2009, 12:40 PM
You don't have to accept it. No religion or church has to accept it. Just the blind impartial eye of the government.

no business has to grant spousal benefits?.....no taxpayer money will be involved?......sweet....let's pass a law saying gays can use the word "marriage" but none of the rest of us have to pay any attention to it......

PostmodernProphet
11-05-2009, 12:41 PM
why do allow these "immoral" people to marry?

the only 'immoral' people around here are the ones opposed to gay marriage....not sure what you mean.....

Cancel 2018. 3
11-05-2009, 12:41 PM
really?....I have not asked any homosexual to abandon their relationship to comply with my views on morality......I have not asked them to redefine any social institutions to comport with my beliefs.....I have not called anyone a bigot for not sharing my beliefs......yet, liberals continue to be assholes.....is that somehow my fault?......

yes you are....

you are telling them that they are second class citizens who do not have the right to marry simply because you believe their relationship is immoral based solely on your christian beliefs....since you are still cutting out my posts and ignoring much of what i write, i am FORCED to repeat myself...

marriage is NOT a religious institution in this country. yet you are forcing your religious views on them.

now, stop cutting out my posts and address them in full so i don't have to repeat myself. what say you to the above?

Cancel 2018. 3
11-05-2009, 12:42 PM
the only 'immoral' people around here are the ones opposed to gay marriage....not sure what you mean.....

i see....so you believe adultery, lying, abusing your spouse, and murdering someone is moral....

is this correct?

PostmodernProphet
11-05-2009, 12:43 PM
y ?

a cut post for you to play with.....

PostmodernProphet
11-05-2009, 12:44 PM
i see....so you believe adultery, lying, abusing your spouse, and murdering someone is moral....

is this correct?

see....I'm immoral....because I don't agree with gay marriage I am a lying adulterer who abuses his spouse.....

Cancel 2018. 3
11-05-2009, 12:44 PM
yes you are....

you are telling them that they are second class citizens who do not have the right to marry simply because you believe their relationship is immoral based solely on your christian beliefs....since you are still cutting out my posts and ignoring much of what i write, i am FORCED to repeat myself...

marriage is NOT a religious institution in this country. yet you are forcing your religious views on them.

now, stop cutting out my posts and address them in full so i don't have to repeat myself. what say you to the above?

not surprising PMP once again runs from tough questions and debates and gives a smart ass reply instead

/MSG/
11-05-2009, 12:45 PM
no business has to grant spousal benefits?.....no taxpayer money will be involved?......sweet....let's pass a law saying gays can use the word "marriage" but none of the rest of us have to pay any attention to it......

That would still be unequal treatment. Again, you would deny others what you demand for yourself.

Cancel 2018. 3
11-05-2009, 12:45 PM
see....I'm immoral....because I don't agree with gay marriage I am a lying adulterer who abuses his spouse.....

what are you talking about? you are being obtuse on purpose....whats the matter, can't actually handle the real discussion?

PostmodernProphet
11-05-2009, 12:52 PM
not surprising PMP once again runs from tough questions and debates and gives a smart ass reply instead

after dealing with that question for 76 pages I can't imagine what more could be said....

PostmodernProphet
11-05-2009, 12:53 PM
That would still be unequal treatment. Again, you would deny others what you demand for yourself.
why should you treat something not equal as equal......what you demand is that society change the unequal into the equal.....

/MSG/
11-05-2009, 12:53 PM
why should you treat something not equal as equal......what you demand is that society change the unequal into the equal.....

And how are they 'unequal'?

PostmodernProphet
11-05-2009, 12:54 PM
what are you talking about? you are being obtuse on purpose....whats the matter, can't actually handle the real discussion?

a direct respone....you accused me of considering lying, adultery, and spouse abuse as moral......do you consider that obtuse?....

PostmodernProphet
11-05-2009, 12:55 PM
And how are they 'unequal'?

obviously....the relationship between two men is not 'marriage'.....you want to make it 'marriage'.....you want to make that which is NOT equal, equal.....

DamnYankee
11-05-2009, 12:56 PM
Considering the nature of the source, and the big intellectual leap you're making (multiple partners=less stable especially since the same could be said about many straight couple), I find your claim questionable.
The source is a study by Dutch researchers.

Talk about a leap, of course multiple partners makes a marriage unstable.

/MSG/
11-05-2009, 12:57 PM
obviously....the relationship between two men is not 'marriage'.....

Through your own narrow vision (which no one is forcing you or even suggesting you change). But that imparts an unfairness towards a group of American citizens. And still that would not make anyone 'unequal'.

DamnYankee
11-05-2009, 12:57 PM
SM is trying to stop others from living their lives as they see fit. He is trying to force his morality on society.

Also, he is deliberately antagonistic and hostile.

Solitary = :tantrum:

/MSG/
11-05-2009, 12:58 PM
The source is a study by Dutch researchers.

Talk about a leap, of course multiple partners makes a marriage unstable.

Not always. You know about swingers correct? They're still allowed to marry and I'm certain you see the 'immorality' in that.

DamnYankee
11-05-2009, 01:00 PM
Not a dodge. I can point to conservatives doing the same thing.

And, other than SM, I try and remain civil to all. Yet you lump me in with the uncivil liberals.

I'll remember this post and treat you differently as well from now on. :good4u:

DamnYankee
11-05-2009, 01:02 PM
Not always. You know about swingers correct? They're still allowed to marry and I'm certain you see the 'immorality' in that.I don't see how that furthers your argument.

/MSG/
11-05-2009, 01:04 PM
I don't see how that furthers your argument.

It shows your morality is subjective and that the 'institution' of marriage is no more harmed by these activities then by gay marriage, multiple partners or not.

DamnYankee
11-05-2009, 01:08 PM
It shows your morality is subjective and that the 'institution' of marriage is no more harmed by these activities then by gay marriage, multiple partners or not.You just said that I would think that swinging was immoral, which it obviously is. Now if you can provide data that shows that swingers are as stable as non-swingers that may help your argument, but you didn't do that.

/MSG/
11-05-2009, 01:11 PM
You just said that I would think that swinging was immoral, which it obviously is. Now if you can provide data that shows that swingers are as stable as non-swingers that may help your argument, but you didn't do that.

It still proves your morality is subjective and cannot be a sole basis for law.