United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Homosexual movement threatens these freedoms
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Feb 17, 2015
Author: Gina Miller
Post Date: 2015-02-17 21:10:19 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 17572
Comments: 87
It is pointless to answer the insincere, bully arguments of militant homosexual activists, because they will not accept the truth, no matter how plainly, simply and in small words it is presented to them. These people have a propagandist mission of flooding conservative website comment sections with their deceptive talking points (which is why we have very little patience for allowing them to freely spread those lies on our comment forums). But, it is important to refute their lies for the many others out there who are not involved in watching this movement, who do not see its progress nor understand the very real danger to some of our fundamental freedoms that this movement poses. We are already seeing our rights being eroded. Just ask Christian business owners who are being successfully sued by homosexual activists when the Christians refuse to participate in the shameful abomination of marriage. The Left's fallacious argument that "business owners can't discriminate" against same-sex "marriage" customers is a bogus weapon that far too many people blindly accept. In a free nation, business owners are under no obligation to accept the business of anyone who walks in the door, much less those who are pushing a degenerate mockery of marriage in the face of the business owner. Do not be misled by homosexual activists' false comparison of the civil rights movement for the equal treatment of black people to homosexuals. That is a completely illegitimate equation. There is no correlation at all between the morally neutral, innate characteristic of ethnicity and the chosen, sinful behavior of homosexuality. As wise people in the black Christian community say, "Don't compare your sin to my skin!" Our society has become so deeply corrupt, that a growing number of people no longer believe that homosexual behavior is wrong, although it always has been wrong and always will be wrong. A growing number of people also do not understand that marriage is one thing only: the union of a man and a woman, and it can be nothing else, or it's not marriage. People who lack a right moral foundation will not accept the truth. However, a lack of understanding by anyone does not change the fact that our rights and freedoms are in the cross-hairs of the militant homosexual movement. If the evil sham of same- sex "marriage" and other "rights" of the homofascist movement are imposed on the entire United States of America, these freedoms will be in grave danger: Freedom of Conscience and Religion Christian business owners' freedom to run their businesses by the moral code of the Bible and according to their consciences will be effectively outlawed in America. They will not be free to reject the lying premise of same-sex "marriage," and under penalty of law, will be forced to violate their conscience and religious beliefs to accommodate same-sex "marriage" business demands. The countless examples of homo-activist lawsuits that have prevailed against Christian business owners who did not want to use their work to participate in same-sex "marriage" are already a testament to this truth. This will also affect countless other people of conscience, like marriage license clerks, who would be forced to issue these sham licenses to same-sex couples or lose their jobs. Freedom of Association "Discrimination" is a necessary thing in life (it simply means "to make a distinction"), but this word has been hijacked and turned into a weapon of tyranny being used against people of conscience. The "Employment Non- Discrimination Act" (ENDA) being pushed in Congress by homofascist sympathizers, would make it illegal to "discriminate" in hiring and firing practices against men who dress like women (and the reverse) or who display other in-your-face sexually deviant behavior. So, you don't want to hire a man dressed like Cher? Be prepared to get fined out of business, or worse, if this becomes law. Even though this has not yet become the law of the land, many major companies have already adopted internal policies to the same effect. They mandate the acceptance in the workplace of mentally disordered "transgender" people, who imagine they are the opposite sex. They even allow them to use the restroom of the opposite sex. You don't like it? Too bad! In many big corporations, if you want to keep your job, you no longer have the right to protest or state the obvious lunacy of such things, things that would have been rightly understood to be horribly outrageous just a few short years ago. Freedom to Protect Your Children From Pro-Homosexual Indoctrination If same-sex "marriage" and ENDA become law, the creeping pro-homosexual indoctrination in the public schools will become mandatory, as it already is in California. Parents will not be allowed to opt their kids out of being taught that same-sex "marriage" is real marriage, that boys and girls can choose which sex they want to be and that homosexual behavior is perfectly natural and normal, all of which are damnable lies. Even now, many parents don't realize that the "anti-bullying" programs in the public schools are nothing more than thinly disguised pro-homosexual propaganda. Want to shield your child from having a male teacher who dresses as a female or an aggressively open homosexual teacher? Again, too bad for you. Other Predictable Outcomes Freedom of speech is a big target of the entire radical Left, including its homofascist wing. The United States of America's First Amendment protection of our God-given freedom of speech is a great frustration to these people on the Left. All tyrannical regimes throughout the world and history have crushed free speech, because despots simply cannot allow the truth to be told about them. People who are free to speak are free to expose the desperate corruption of the evil guys who rule them and to declare that there is a better way than tyranny. Likewise, homosexualists despise the truth to be told about the immoral, unnatural, unhealthy behavior of homosexuality and "transgenderism." It is easily predictable that they will continue to work to silence those who oppose the part of their agenda that seeks to normalize perverse sexual behavior and destroy the meaning of marriage. Our freedom of speech will be in jeopardy if same-sex "marriage" and ENDA become bad law. They will accomplish this, as they have accomplished some of their other goals, through lawsuits that end up setting "precedent" and through the push for "hate speech" laws. We're already part-way there with unconstitutional "hate crimes" laws that apply unequal protection of the law, deeming some crime victims more worthy than others of their Orwellian protection. It is also predictable that churches will be targeted, as well. After all, if same-sex "marriage" is the law of the land, then what "right" do church leaders have to refuse to accommodate these sodomites who want to be "married" in the church? Don't doubt this for a minute! These people will not stop until they obliterate any opposition to their twisted, despotic agenda. As with everything the Left does, the "issue" is never the issue. For example, "Obamacare" is not about "affordable health care." It's about power and control over the medical industry, the health insurance industry, and our personal health care. In the same way, the man-made "global warming" hoax is not about "saving the planet." It, too, is about power and control over our freedom of movement, our private property rights and our very way of life. Obama's illegal amnesty is not about "compassion" for poor illegal aliens. It's about creating a massive, permanent underclass of Democrat voters. The same goes for the radical homosexual movement. Its members claim that they only want "marriage equality" (there is no such thing) and equal "rights" (they already have those), but the real goals of this evil movement are rooted in tyranny against our freedoms, especially Christian expression, and if it's not stopped, these and other freedoms will become a fading memory.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: sneakypete (#0)
You can't have it both ways Pete. You say you support two things that are not compatible. You want gay marriage so bad because you think incorrectly that not changing the meaning of words is somehow discrimination. Then you also claim that bakers shouldn't be forced to bake for homos. Which right is more important Pete? Because like I said they both wont survive. It's one or the other. Are you with the Pelosi, Clinton, Obama faction in other words the freaks, or the side of normal people?
I don't want homosexual marriage,you clueless cretin. What I want is for all American citizens to be treated equally by the government. I have already said this a hundred times and could say it for another thousand and you would still continue to ignore it because you want to preach about your insanity and obsession. This is my last post to you on this subject. I am done.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Then Mike Tyson should be on the womans Olympic boxing team. That way the government is treating everyone equally. The equal rights amendment is liberal just like you. checkmate.
That way the government is treating everyone equally. The equal rights amendment is liberal just like you. checkmate. I personally don't believe in "equality", I believe in fairness. We aren't all equal. Some people are smart, some are stupid. Some are good looking, some are fat and ugly. Some are ambitious and self-reliant... some are lazy Xbox playing potheads. Some are woman, and some are man. We aren't all equal. We never were.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Well said...
Marriage is between one man and one woman and that definition applies to all men and all women equally. No exceptions. I don't see the problem.
I don't see the problem. The problem is; -- Who gave the government, (Fed State or local) the power to define marriage?
It is already has a definitoin. Just like 2 + 2 already has a definition. If you cater to people who are mentally ill who are crying to the feds to redefine marriage so they can feel good. You are part of the problem Being a libertarian doesn't mean you have to be amoral. Or maybe that is the problem with libertarians. They are amoral. They treat wrong just like they do right. Good and bad shouldn't be on equal footing.
The above is the crux of the issue at hand. Without the Law Giver there are no absolutes. We find an American society today condoning things they know are wrong only because they want to protect the freedoms of things they know are good. This is the moral relativism of sincere libertarians. "I like my guns and we must protect the 2nd Amendment"; "I like my freedom of religion and free speech so we must protect the 1st Amendment." In order to protect these clear rights, some go on to support things that are NOT rights in our Constitution.
"For holy Scripture establishes a rule to our teaching, that we dare not “be wiser than we ought;” but be wise, as he himself says, “unto soberness, according as unto each God hath allotted the measure of faith." (Augustine of Hippo (354–430)
This is the moral relativism of sincere libertarians. "I like my guns and we must protect the 2nd Amendment"; "I like my freedom of religion and free speech so we must protect the 1st Amendment." In order to protect these clear rights, some go on to support things that are NOT rights in our Constitution. Agree with your assessment, Red. Hard-core Libertarians are balls-against-the-wall for the 1A and 2A, then on other matters appear anarchial, upholding the "freedom" to "do whilst wilt."
The problem is; -- Who gave the government, (Fed State or local) the power to define marriage? Not true. 2+2=4 is a universal mathematical truth. ---- "Marriage" was a religious term used by various religions, for various relationships. -- Till our govts started using it to control religions they didn't like, for example, the Mormons in Utah. I don't cater to queers. I could care less what their problems are about their living arrangements, and the feds should NOT give any tax breaks to anyone for their living arrangements. What the hell is immoral about wanting equal treatment under constitutional law? 2+2=4 is an absolute. Your 'Law Giver' is different from a Mormon's, for instance. Here in the USA, we obey a Supreme law, our Constitution.. Yep, like it's better for two criminals to go free, than one innocent man be convicted? --- Like that? Quite true. Thanks... We agree, except in this respect; there is no power in our Constitution that enables any level of govt to define marriage. [Or to give it tax breaks] -- And that's the problem..
Gonna have to agree with you here, Stone. Once the premise that a 5,000 year-long definition of "marriage" is indeed redefinable, it sabotages the entire language, and with it, the virtues of honesty and integrity. This kind of absurdity seemed to have begun when a certain President got away with, "That depends on what the meaning of 'Is' is."
Amoral not immoral.
The Declaration of Independance is superior to the constitution. For it allowed us to cut ties with another government. Also I would add the constitution asks for a "blessing" That only comes from God.
Come on -- your math is crooked. And so is your history. At NO time in the history of the world has "Marriage" EVER described a homosexual relationship. "Marriage" has been the definitive word to describe cultures -- BOTH secular AND religious -- as ONLY a man and woman who've bonded as mates.
Tax brakes are to help pay for the cost of raising children. Fags should have to pay an extra tax for spreading fag diseases like AIDS.
The same question applies. --What the hell is amoral/wrong about wanting equal treatment under constitutional law?
Mike Tyson should box in the womans Olympics. Once you can get by that let me know. We all want to be equal right. Any man can marry any woman. if you don't understand that you are as dense as the sneaky peter.
We agree, except in this respect; there is no power in our Constitution that enables any level of govt to define marriage. [Or to give it tax breaks] -- And that's the problem.. Then tie them into raising children, not into living arrangements... Fine with me, but I doubt we'd get much support. -- I'd rather we shitcanned the whole income tax, and found some constitutional tax method.. How bout you?
The government REDEFINING marriage violates the first amendments religious protection. If the constitution protects two perverts to redefine marriage. Then the constitution is a piece of shit document that I would never support. I would want its overthrow. I'd wipe my ass on it.
I get your point. -- But both Pete and I are far from 'dense'. -- And you're the boss here, so I guess equality under the law at LF is a moot point, aye?
You can have any view you want. You don't have to agree with me. Nothing personal I agree with most of what you say. It just infuriates me that society is being forced to accept a perversion as normal. It is sick stuff. That is not the purpose of government. I may criticize Pete a lot. But I never have banned him. I don't think I've even ever deleted one of his posts.
-- there is no power in our Constitution that enables any level of govt to define marriage. [Or to give it tax breaks] -- And that's the problem.. The government REDEFINING marriage violates the first amendments religious protection. My point is that govt has no power to define, or to REDEFINE.. -- So we agree. It doesn't, imho.
It just infuriates me that society is being forced to accept a perversion as normal. It is sick stuff. That is not the purpose of government. We agree. And I can't imagine why you think I'm for 'gay marriage'.
Which came first? The chicken or the egg?
"For holy Scripture establishes a rule to our teaching, that we dare not “be wiser than we ought;” but be wise, as he himself says, “unto soberness, according as unto each God hath allotted the measure of faith." (Augustine of Hippo (354–430)
At the least the above is 10,000 years of worldwide societal case law. SCOTUS loves case law. Wonder if they think they should trump 10,000 years of history.
"For holy Scripture establishes a rule to our teaching, that we dare not “be wiser than we ought;” but be wise, as he himself says, “unto soberness, according as unto each God hath allotted the measure of faith." (Augustine of Hippo (354–430)
I've been working on a theory that redlegged peckerheads may have been first. --- Whattdya think?
Humor...very un-libertarian:) Well we know it can't be the egg. As a mature hen lays eggs. But we know 'new' chickens, chicks come from eggs. So the Constitution of the United States of America is one such 'egg' and there were chickens and eggs before it. So somewhere there must be the unmoved chicken. You know the Rooster that got it all started.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
That's BullBush. Many different societies have defined marriages many different ways. What you are describing is the definition of marriage by a tiny religious cult known as "Christians". Almost all other religions allowed multiple wives,and a lot of them allowed all sort of things that would make you faint dead away at the thought of them. If you want to say "1 man,1 wife is the accepted standard for marriage amongst Christians",you are correct. Not everybody is a Christian,though.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Not true. There were "male marriages" as well as "female marriages" in Europe,Asia,and even in what is now called North America by native tribes dating back thousands of years. It was said back in the late 1700-'s or early 1800's that "The British Navy runs on rum and sodomy" because so many sailors had wives on shore,and "ships wives" once they were at sea. I have a hard time believing the British Navy was unique in this.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I have to admit that I am shocked to see you rally to the defense of the Mormons and their cultural desire to have more than 1 wife per family. Good for you!
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
BullBush! In some societies people have married their horses,their sisters,and even their daughters. Not to mention their brothers and cousins.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Not to mention their brothers and cousins. Quit bringing in your small town history Pete:)
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
Most people lived in small groups/tribes of hunter/gatherers before farming became common. Even after farming became common because farming used to be very labor intensive.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Sneakypete: Not true. There were "male marriages" as well as "female marriages" in Europe,Asia,and even in what is now called North America by native tribes dating back thousands of years. Educate me. In which societies, tribes, or cultures were "male marriages" or "female marriages" found acceptible? It was said back in the late 1700-'s or early 1800's that "The British Navy runs on rum and sodomy" because so many sailors had wives on shore,and "ships wives" once they were at sea. I have a hard time believing the British Navy was unique in this. That's some interesting queer trivia, but what has it to do with either "gay marriage"? (or you and Yukon?)
Quit bringing in your small town history Pete:) Lol... (And what?? No cousins??)
Yup, at least 10,000 years. From the day Eve, Steve and Adams first evolved and forged society's very first Threesome Hippie/Homo Marriage. ;-) SCOTUS loves case law. Wonder if they think they should trump 10,000 years of history. SCROTUS thinks they are so utterly "enlightened, " that led by Ruth Bader-Witchburg and womyn of SCROTUS, we know they will vote the usual 5-4 to discard the current definition of "marriage." Because not 10,000 years; NOT even one million years as traditional, usual, normal definition of "marriage" is enough consensus
Yes, I remember Badeye saying he was born in the wrong country and a bit too late. Except for the rum.
The homosexual movement is out to threaten social adherence to basic sanity. Threatening the reminents of such adherence from all directions has become a national sport and a symbol of diversity.
The ones which died out. No male-female "interaction" no babies. Boy even Dawkins could figure that one out:)
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
This one didn't: www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/fr...e/secrets-of-the-vatican/ The Eunuch drones have taken over the self-worshiping hive... and when that happens -- It's Romans 1:25+ time, again.
The homosexual movement is the consequential part of the cyclical human nature that is described in Romans 1:25+ "because of this, GOD GAVE THEM OVER"
Wow.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
You finish that liberal book on Paul yet? Curious how it ended. Probably with endnotes from Vanity Fair.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
Curious how it ended. "The bottom line is that no other historical account of earliest Christianity is similar to this one, because no other account adheres to the methodology that has been described here. They all violate it rampantly, not just on a few details; and all of them build their “historical” reconstructions primarily upon the Gospels and Acts, documents which are falsely alleged to be witness testimony, rather than upon the seven authentic letters by Paul, which are far higher quality evidence." Zuesse, Eric (2012-03-29). CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity . Hyacinth Editions. Kindle Edition. It ends like that.
Got insurance?
Educate yourself. That's some interesting queer trivia, but what has it to do with either "gay marriage"? Did you miss the part about "ship wives" being the norm? (or you and Yukon?) Yeah,I'm not an ignorant,superstitious,bigotted fool,so I MUST be queer,huh?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
The ones which died out. No male-female "interaction" no babies. You are not stupid,so why do you insist on trying to pass yourself off as stupid? Homosexuals have always been a tiny minority of the human population,and the fact that they were recognized as humans with a right to live like everyone else by most societies that weren't members of the "Christian religion of peace and love" does nothing to change that. What is it with you Christians and your hatred and fear of homosexuals? The oddest part is you worship a guy that was most likely a homosexual himself.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Educate yourself. I didn't think you'd be able to answer that one. Look -- unlike you, I don't have time or incination to frequent "gay-friendly" online propaganda and revisionist indoctrination centers. As busy as you are, I'm surprised you do. Did you miss the part about "ship wives" being the norm? No, but I missed the part of seafaring history where sodomy has been interpreted as "marriage" back at the dock ("Arrrgh...Look everybody! Me an' me bucko are now mateys fer' life! Husband and wife! Arrgh!!") Yeah,I'm not an ignorant,superstitious,bigotted fool,so I MUST be queer,huh? At least I can laugh at your ball-busting. You can't take a bit of ribbing anymore?
A tiny minority of the human population, and STILL are. So why do they any right to enforce their perversions and fascism by coercive judicial fiat or have their lifestyle sanctioned and endorsed by the rest of us? What is it with you Christians and your hatred and fear of homosexuals? Hey pal -- when the schools and gubmint are sanctioning and endorsing perverion, making homosexuality seem "normal," and forcing private business to deal with homofascist queers, you'd better believe Christians are going to oppose it being crammed down their throats. But Christians are hardly the only ones who reject institutional homosexual coercion by the courts. The oddest part is you worship a guy that was most likely a homosexual himself. Ignorance and idiocy has become your signature, hasn't it?
Educate yourself. I didn't think you'd be able to answer that one. I could if I wanted to bother to spend the time to look up things I read a decade or more ago just so I could post links to them here so you and others who have no real interested in reading them and would say the information was wrong if you did read it. You are a grown man. If this stuff interests you,look it up your own damn self.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Excuse me? Somebody is trying to pass laws to force you to turn queer against your wishes? On the other hand,fundie Christians are also a tiny minority of the world population,and you are always trying to pass laws to force the rest of us to live according to your beliefs. People like you are a much bigger threat to individual freedoms than all the homosexuals in the world because you think you are punishing people and denying them freedoms because it is "Gawds will!"
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
HEAR HEAR, why did we allow the government anywhere near such a personal relationship as a vow between a man and woman?
"The bottom line is that no other historical account of earliest Christianity is similar to this one, because no other account adheres to the methodology that has been described here. They all violate it rampantly, not just on a few details; and all of them build their “historical” reconstructions primarily upon the Gospels and Acts, documents which are falsely alleged to be witness testimony, rather than upon the seven authentic letters by Paul, which are far higher quality evidence." Zuesse, Eric (2012-03-29). CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity . Hyacinth Editions. Kindle Edition. It ends like that. Sounds like he is promoting the heresy of Marcion.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
What is it with you Christians and your hatred and fear of homosexuals? The oddest part is you worship a guy that was most likely a homosexual himself. Not fear nor hatred. Society for centuries has been built on men liking women, and women liking men. They fall in love, get hitched, consummate the marriage and have babies. The couple raises the kids balanced with a nurturing mother, the father provides the leadership and stability. The rug rats grow up and rinse and repeat. Outside of this WELL documented normal functioning family is something called outliers or abnormal.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
Sorry Pete I'm no longer Catholic. Even when I was I did not worship the Pope.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
It is true that was and is the norm,but that doesn't mean it was exclusive. It was just the norm. Besides homosexuals,there were also bi-sexuals and heterosexuals who never married or had kids,and even some people who were not interested in sex with anyone. Yet society somehow (sarcasm) survived this. What is killing society has nothing to do with sex,and everything to do with power and domination by a few (mostly heterosexual) of the majority. Save your anger for the globalists/fascists/communists. They are the real danger to society. BTW,these "crusades" against homosexuals do NOTHING to further society,and in fact they help the globalists/fascists/communists by further fragmenting society and making it easier for them to take power. THEY have all the money and political power. All WE have is superior numbers,and everything we do that fragments our strength in numbers only serves to make the globalists/fascists/communists stronger. They are playing divide and conquer (mostly along racial and social lines)game to make us weaker and prevent us from fighting back,and we are letting them get away with it.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
There is something seriously wrong with this latest guy. Even by the low standards set by previous Popes he stands out as a 8 ball.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Why does does Italy have so much Tor traffic?
What does the parasitic appropriation of reproductive resources by homosexuals do for the reproductive/socio-biological fitness of society? "Fitness" being a measure of viable offspring produced over multiple generations.
The oddest part is you worship a guy that was most likely a homosexual himself. Social engineering - evolution - atheism - Marxism ! Problem 4: Natural Selection Struggles to Fix Advantageous Traits in Populations In 2008, 16 biologists from around the world convened in Altenberg, Austria, to discuss problems with the modern neo-Darwinian model of evolution. The journal Nature covered this "Altenberg 16" conference, quoting leading scientists saying things like: • "[T]he origin of wings and the invasion of the land . . . are things that evolutionary theory has told us little about." • "You can't deny the force of selection in genetic evolution . . . but in my view this is stabilizing and fine-tuning forms that originate due to other processes." •"The modern synthesis is remarkably good at modeling the survival of the fittest, but not good at modeling the arrival of the fittest." ( more) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3259281/posts Jesus the effeminate - maybe ... the queer --- impossible ! The formula for Christianity is a perfect God - man (( sinless )) ... going successfully through the justice system --- for a guilty humanity !
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
What reproductive resources are they appropriating? Male homosexuals damn sure ain't appropriating heterosexual women.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
$, among other things. For example, how much does homosexual "infertility" treatment cost? Making lesbian sperm from female stem cells will no doubt be expensive. How do the Transhumanists/Postgenderist perverts intend to pay for such abominations of medical science? Suggested reading on the subject of Reproductive Fitness and Resources: www.amazon.com/Sex-Evolut...Martin-Daly/dp/0871507676 It's a classic text that was used in university biology curricula... back before self-worshiping activists perverted the social cooperation among animals into their own image. Is teaching biological FACT a "hate" crime yet?
How many viable offspring can two sperm create without un-natural intervention? ZERO. That FACT stands regardless of whether homosexuals accept it or not. "I KNOW BUT ONE CODE OF MORALITY FOR MEN WHETHER ACTING SINGLY OR COLLECTIVELY" --Thomas Jeffeson
Say WHAT?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Uhuh. www.google.com/#q=sperm+from+female+stem+cells "When the technology is ready, even more provocative reproductive feats might be possible. For instance, cells from a man's skin could theoretically be used to create eggs that are fertilized with a partner's sperm,"
Having anti social type behaviors are not the norm. Society in the past saw fit not to promulgate them.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
BullBush! "Anti-social behaviors" are totally dependent on your viewpoint. For instance,Pol Pot,Mao,Stalin,and Hitler had wildly different POV's on what constitutes "anti-social behavior" than Thomas Jefferson. Or any cult that practices "group think" instead of "individual think". In fact,the norm is to for different people to have different opinions.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
You have trouble distinguishing right from wrong.
"Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration..."
You have trouble distinguishing right from wrong. Nope. You have trouble understanding that your biases are clouding your judgement. Just because you dislike or find something repulsive,that doesn't mean it is wrong or immoral,anymore than your deciding that something is moral and right means your decision should apply to everyone. Nobody died and made you Master of the Universe.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Nope. You have trouble understanding that your biases are clouding your judgement. Just because you dislike or find something repulsive,that doesn't mean it is wrong or immoral,anymore than your deciding that something is moral and right means your decision should apply to everyone. Pete you are more of a fool then I originally thought. Lets consider your nonesnse. Yeah maybe Hitler was right killing those jews wasn't immoral. And Maybe Thomas Jefferson was wrong about individual liberty. Only an insane person would think to compare the two and say "Nobody made you the Master of the Univers". There is a right and wrong Pete. What is morally right is universal. I think maybe you are just a senile old man whose moral compass has rotted away.
You have lost your bleeping mind. There is a right and wrong Pete. What is morally right is universal. How old are you,12? There is no such thing as "one morality for all and all situations."
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Seems to me heterosexuals have ruined marriage. Where's the anger about that?
For instance,Pol Pot,Mao,Stalin,and Hitler had wildly different POV's on what constitutes "anti-social behavior" than Thomas Jefferson. Or any cult that practices "group think" instead of "individual think". In fact,the norm is to for different people to have different opinions. You just demonstrated above that the "new norm" is abnormal.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
Seems to me that women and divorce lawyers beat them to it. Just wait until all these "happy homos" hit divorce court and then we will see just how "gay" they really are. You have to wonder why none of them seem to have heard the expression,"Be careful what you hope for,lest you get it.",don't you?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I think the problem is ignorance of history. Some Christians have this mythical idea that marriage is some cast-in-stone, 'God blessed' thing that was all laid out and sanctioned in the New Testament and followed by all good Christians since. It never existed that way. Look into it. What marriage has been changes regularly over time and it always has. Does that mean homo marriage is ok? Not necessarily, but it does mean is that this argument that they are corrupting marriage from what it's always been, is a failed argument. Marriage is what the people want it to be, and it always has been. You just don't like it. That's ok. People on their high horse about homo's ruining marriage seem to ignore the violence done to the institution by non-homo's, by Christians. Not a word about that. Because they don't really care about the institution. They just hate homo's. Whatever. Marriage is what you want it to be. No one but you can affect your marriage. Your kids will have their own idea of what marriage is. It'll be ok.
I almost never wonder anything about what homo's think. I just don't care enough to think about it. Kind of does suck to see them enter into the misery of marital breakups though. Wouldn't wish that on anyone lol
Really? Is that the trendy thing now blame everything on Christians? My first guess would be to blame Judges, Leftards and Atheists cause they seem not to care about much of anything but themselves.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
The one advantage they did have,and they work hard to throw it away. Are they homosexuals,or masochists ?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
It never existed that way. Look into it. Marriage between the opposite genders is much older than Christianity. We know that from archeological digs, stone tablets and other artifacts all confirming the biblical record. The rest of your commentary is interesting but not founded on historical evidence. Frankly it is a post modern relativistic approach.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
My first guess would be to blame Judges, Leftards and Atheists cause they seem not to care about much of anything but themselves. Next we will hear that Arab Christians are at fault for sticking their necks under ISIS blades.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
What's the natural multi-generational reproductive fitness of a homosexual couple? ZERO
Where's the anger about that? You are correct to a degree. The transgression of heterosexuals using the institution of marriage as akin to a short term 'hook up' and the use of the 'no fault' divorce has set the stage for homosexual 'marriage.' Yes the above opened the door. Homosexuals basically point to the disfunctional hetero couples and broken families and say "hey they are just like us now, so we want in on this." Which encompasses the previous comments made. That what has been the norm for centuries is no longer with exceptions. The 'new' 'norm' is abnormal by not only Jewish/Christian standards but the historical design as well. The solution is not to embrace the "whore of Babylon" but to "come out of her."
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
Oh no, that's never been God's answer. Christians are to live among them, not withdraw. Notice, jesus was born and raised in Galilee not secluded and protected in a temple.
Notice, jesus was born and raised in Galilee not secluded and protected in a temple. Live among yes. Embrace the world at the expense of following Christ? NO! Christians are pilgrims. Jesus Christ never embraced the sin of the sinners he forgave. He healed them. He said drop what you are doing and follow Him.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
Agreed
We are already seeing our rights being eroded. Just ask Christian business owners who are being successfully sued by homosexual activists when the Christians refuse to participate in the shameful abomination of marriage. The Left's fallacious argument that "business owners can't discriminate" against same-sex "marriage" customers is a bogus weapon that far too many people blindly accept. In a free nation, business owners are under no obligation to accept the business of anyone who walks in the door, much less those who are pushing a degenerate mockery of marriage in the face of the business owner.
#2. To: A K A Stone (#1)
You want gay marriage so bad because you think incorrectly that not changing the meaning of words is somehow discrimination.
#3. To: sneakypete (#2)
I don't want homosexual marriage,you clueless cretin. What I want is for all American citizens to be treated equally by the government.
#4. To: A K A Stone, Sneaky Pete (#3)
Thn Mike Tyson should be on the womans Olympic boxing team.
#5. To: sneakypete, Y'ALL (#2)
What I want is for all American citizens to be treated equally by the government.
#6. To: A K A Stone (#3)
"What I want is for all American citizens to be treated equally by the government."
#7. To: misterwhite, Y'ALL (#6)
"What I want is for all American citizens to be treated equally by the government." Marriage is between one man and one woman and that definition applies to all men and all women equally. No exceptions.
#8. To: tpaine (#7)
The problem is; -- Who gave the government, (Fed State or local) the power to define marriage?
#9. To: A K A Stone, GarySplFc, liberator (#8)
Good and bad shouldn't be on equal footing.
#10. To: redleghunter, A K A Stone, GarySplFc (#9)
We find an American society today condoning things they know are wrong only because they want to protect the freedoms of things they know are good.
#11. To: redleghunter, AKA Stone, Y'ALL (#9)
It is already has a definitoin. Just like 2 + 2 already has a definition.
If you cater to people who are mentally ill who are crying to the feds to redefine marriage so they can feel good. You are part of the problem.
Being a libertarian doesn't mean you have to be amoral.
Or maybe that is the problem with libertarians. They are amoral. They treat wrong just like they do right. --- Good and bad shouldn't be on equal footing.--- A K A Stone
redleghunter -- The above is the crux of the issue at hand. Without the Law Giver there are no absolutes.
We find an American society today condoning things they know are wrong only because they want to protect the freedoms of things they know are good.
This is the moral relativism of sincere libertarians. "I like my guns and we must protect the 2nd Amendment"; "I like my freedom of religion and free speech so we must protect the 1st Amendment."
In order to protect these clear rights, some go on to support things that are NOT rights in our Constitution. --- redleghunter
#12. To: A K A Stone, tpaine (#8)
If you cater to people who are mentally ill who are crying to the feds to redefine marriage so they can feel good. You are part of the problem.
#13. To: tpaine (#11)
Being a libertarian doesn't mean you have to be amoral. What the hell is immoral about wanting equal treatment under constitutional law?
#14. To: tpaine (#11)
2+2=4 is an absolute. Your 'Law Giver' is different from a Mormon's, for instance. Here in the USA, we obey a Supreme law, our Constitution..
#15. To: tpaine, redleghunter, AKA Stone, Y'ALL (#11)
2+2=4 is a universal mathematical truth. ---- "Marriage" was a religious term used by various religions, for various relationships.
#16. To: tpaine (#11)
We agree, except in this respect; there is no power in our Constitution that enables any level of govt to define marriage. [Or to give it tax breaks] -- And that's the problem..
#17. To: A K A Stone (#13)
#18. To: tpaine (#17)
We agree, except in this respect; there is no power in our Constitution that enables any level of govt to define marriage. [Or to give it tax breaks] -- And that's the problem..
#19. To: A K A Stone (#16)
Tax brakes are to help pay for the cost of raising children.
Fags should have to pay an extra tax for spreading fag diseases like AIDS.
#20. To: tpaine (#19)
there is no power in our Constitution that enables any level of govt to define marriage. [Or to give it tax breaks] -- And that's the problem..
#21. To: A K A Stone (#18)
Any man can marry any woman. if you don't understand that you are as dense as the sneaky peter.
#22. To: tpaine (#21)
I get your point. -- But both Pete and I are far from 'dense'. -- And you're the boss here,
#23. To: A K A Stone (#20)
If the constitution protects two perverts to redefine marriage.
#24. To: A K A Stone (#22)
Nothing personal I agree with most of what you say.
#25. To: tpaine (#11)
#26. To: Liberator (#15)
At NO time in the history of the world has "Marriage" EVER described a homosexual relationship. "Marriage" has been the definitive word to describe cultures -- BOTH secular AND religious -- as ONLY a man and woman who've bonded as mates.
#27. To: redleghunter (#25)
Which came first? The chicken or the egg?
#28. To: tpaine, liberator (#27)
Whattdya think?
#29. To: Liberator (#12)
Once the premise that a 5,000 year-long definition of "marriage" is indeed redefinable,
#30. To: Liberator (#15)
At NO time in the history of the world has "Marriage" EVER described a homosexual relationship. "Marriage" has been the definitive word to describe cultures -- BOTH secular AND religious -- as ONLY a man and woman who've bonded as mates.
#31. To: A K A Stone (#20)
The government REDEFINING marriage violates the first amendments religious protection.
#32. To: redleghunter (#26)
At the least the above is 10,000 years of worldwide societal case law.
#33. To: sneakypete (#32)
BullBush! In some societies people have married their horses,their sisters,and even their daughters.
#34. To: redleghunter (#33)
(Edited)
Quit bringing in your small town history Pete:)
#35. To: sneakypete (#30)
Liberator: "At NO time in the history of the world has "Marriage" EVER described a homosexual relationship. "Marriage" has been the definitive word to describe cultures -- BOTH secular AND religious -- as ONLY a man and woman who've bonded as mates."
#36. To: redleghunter, sneakypete (#33)
In some societies people have married their horses,their sisters,and even their daughters.
#37. To: redleghunter (#26)
At the least the above [definition of marriage as man and woman] is 10,000 years of worldwide societal case law.
#38. To: sneakypete (#30)
"The British Navy runs on rum and sodomy"
#39. To: A K A Stone (#0)
Homosexual movement threatens these freedoms
#40. To: Liberator, TooConservative, Vicomte13, GarySpFc, Don, out d.a (#35)
Educate me. In which societies, tribes, or cultures were "male marriages" or "female marriages" found acceptible?
#41. To: redleghunter (#40)
The ones which died out.
#42. To: rlk (#39)
The homosexual movement is out to threaten social adherence to basic sanity.
#43. To: VxH (#41)
#44. To: VxH (#42)
#45. To: redleghunter (#44)
#46. To: redleghunter (#43)
Wow
Twinkle Twinkle Morning Star.
#47. To: Liberator (#35)
Educate me. In which societies, tribes, or cultures were "male marriages" or "female marriages" found acceptible?
#48. To: redleghunter (#40)
Educate me. In which societies, tribes, or cultures were "male marriages" or "female marriages" found acceptible?
#49. To: sneakypete (#47)
In which societies, tribes, or cultures were "male marriages" or "female marriages" found acceptible?
#50. To: sneakypete, redleghunter (#48)
Homosexuals have always been a tiny minority of the human population,and the fact that they were recognized as humans with a right to live like everyone else by most societies that weren't members of the "Christian religion of peace and love" does nothing to change that.
#51. To: Liberator (#49)
In which societies, tribes, or cultures were "male marriages" or "female marriages" found acceptible?
#52. To: Liberator (#50)
So why do they any right to enforce their perversions and fascism by coercive judicial fiat or have their lifestyle sanctioned and endorsed by the rest of us?
#53. To: tpaine (#7)
#54. To: VxH (#45)
#55. To: sneakypete, rlk, liberator, GarySpFc (#48)
Homosexuals have always been a tiny minority of the human population,and the fact that they were recognized as humans with a right to live like everyone else by most societies that weren't members of the "Christian religion of peace and love" does nothing to change that.
#56. To: sneakypete, liberator (#48)
The oddest part is you worship a guy that was most likely a homosexual himself.
#57. To: redleghunter (#55)
Society for centuries has been built on men liking women, and women liking men.
#58. To: redleghunter (#56)
Even when I was I did not worship the Pope.
#59. To: redleghunter, sneakypete (#55)
#60. To: sneakypete, redleghunter (#57)
(Edited)
these "crusades" against homosexuals do NOTHING to further society,
#61. To: sneakypete (#57)
(Edited)
domination by a few (mostly heterosexual) of the majority
#62. To: VxH (#60)
What does the parasitic appropriation of reproductive resources by homosexuals do for the reproductive/socio-biological fitness of society?
#63. To: sneakypete (#62)
(Edited)
What reproductive resources are they appropriating?
#64. To: A K A Stone (#0)
ey will not accept the truth, no matter how plainly, simply and in small words it is presented to them.
#65. To: VxH (#63)
Making lesbian sperm from female stem cells will no doubt be expensive.
#66. To: sneakypete (#65)
Say WHAT?
#67. To: sneakypete (#57)
It is true that was and is the norm,but that doesn't mean it was exclusive. It was just the norm.
#68. To: redleghunter (#67)
Having anti social type behaviors are not the norm.
#69. To: sneakypete (#68)
For instance,Pol Pot,Mao,Stalin,and Hitler had wildly different POV's on what constitutes "anti-social behavior" than Thomas Jefferson.
#70. To: A K A Stone (#69)
For instance,Pol Pot,Mao,Stalin,and Hitler had wildly different POV's on what constitutes "anti-social behavior" than Thomas Jefferson.
#71. To: A K A Stone (#69)
For instance,Pol Pot,Mao,Stalin,and Hitler had wildly different POV's on what constitutes "anti-social behavior" than Thomas Jefferson.
#72. To: sneakypete (#71)
For instance,Pol Pot,Mao,Stalin,and Hitler had wildly different POV's on what constitutes "anti-social behavior" than Thomas Jefferson. You have trouble distinguishing right from wrong.
#73. To: A K A Stone (#72)
Yeah maybe Hitler was right killing those jews wasn't immoral. And Maybe Thomas Jefferson was wrong about individual liberty.
#74. To: All (#73)
#75. To: sneakypete (#68)
BullBush! "Anti-social behaviors" are totally dependent on your viewpoint.
#76. To: Biff Tannen (#74)
Seems to me heterosexuals have ruined marriage.
#77. To: redleghunter (#75)
#78. To: sneakypete (#76)
#79. To: Biff Tannen, redleghunter (#77)
People on their high horse about homo's ruining marriage seem to ignore the violence done to the institution by non-homo's, by Christians.
#80. To: Biff Tannen (#78)
Kind of does suck to see them enter into the misery of marital breakups though.
#81. To: Biff Tannen (#77)
I think the problem is ignorance of history. Some Christians have this mythical idea that marriage is some cast-in-stone, 'God blessed' thing that was all laid out and sanctioned in the New Testament and followed by all good Christians since.
#82. To: CZ82 (#79)
Really? Is that the trendy thing now blame everything on Christians?
#83. To: Biff Tannen (#77)
(Edited)
#84. To: Biff Tannen, liberator, CZ82 (#74)
Seems to me heterosexuals have ruined marriage.
#85. To: redleghunter (#84)
#86. To: Biff Tannen (#85)
Oh no, that's never been God's answer. Christians are to live among them, not withdraw.
#87. To: redleghunter (#86)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]