[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Woodworking and Construction Hacks

"CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination"

"NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law"

"Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing"

Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine

Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn.

After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning

Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate

Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending.

Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar”

"Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny"

"Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is"

Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner.

Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him

South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien

GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis

Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash

New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms

Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania

Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally

"It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala

Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump

Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive'

(Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl

"Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race"

He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage

The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom!

"Kamala’s Inane Talking Points"

"The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics"

Easy Drywall Patch

Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast

In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind"

Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’

Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens

Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer?

hurricanes and heat waves are Worse

'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic

Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump

IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons

Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training

The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses

Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists

Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general

Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep

Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA.

Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report

Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence.

Tenn. AG reveals ICE released thousands of ‘murderers and rapists’ from detention centers into US streets

Kamala Harris Touts Mass Amnesty Offering Fast-Tracked Citizenship to Nearly Every Illegal Alien in U.S.

Migration Crisis Fueled Rise in Tuberculosis Cases Study Finds


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

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: 18718
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  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: sneakypete (#0)

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.

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?

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-02-17   21:14:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-02-18   1:44:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-02-18   6:53:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: A K A Stone, Sneaky Pete (#3)

Thn 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.

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

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-02-18   8:25:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: sneakypete, Y'ALL (#2)

What I want is for all American citizens to be treated equally by the government.

Well said...

tpaine  posted on  2015-02-18   8:33:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: A K A Stone (#3)

"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.

I don't see the problem.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-02-18   10:34:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

I don't see the problem.

The problem is; -- Who gave the government, (Fed State or local) the power to define marriage?

tpaine  posted on  2015-02-18   10:42:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: tpaine (#7)

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.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-02-18   11:55:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: A K A Stone, GarySplFc, liberator (#8)

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)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-18   12:17:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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."

Liberator  posted on  2015-02-18   13:12:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: redleghunter, AKA Stone, Y'ALL (#9)

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.

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.

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.

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.

Being a libertarian doesn't mean you have to be amoral.

What the hell is immoral about wanting equal treatment under constitutional law?

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.

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..

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.

Yep, like it's better for two criminals to go free, than one innocent man be convicted? --- Like that?

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."

Quite true. Thanks...

In order to protect these clear rights, some go on to support things that are NOT rights in our Constitution. --- redleghunter

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..

tpaine  posted on  2015-02-18   13:23:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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."

Liberator  posted on  2015-02-18   13:23:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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?

Amoral not immoral.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-02-18   13:26:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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..

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.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-02-18   13:27:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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.

Liberator  posted on  2015-02-18   13:28:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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..

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.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-02-18   13:29:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: A K A Stone (#13)

The same question applies. --What the hell is amoral/wrong about wanting equal treatment under constitutional law?

tpaine  posted on  2015-02-18   13:29:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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..

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.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-02-18   13:34:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: A K A Stone (#16)

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..

Tax brakes are to help pay for the cost of raising children.

Then tie them into raising children, not into living arrangements...

Fags should have to pay an extra tax for spreading fag diseases like AIDS.

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?

tpaine  posted on  2015-02-18   13:37:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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..

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.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-02-18   13:43:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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?

tpaine  posted on  2015-02-18   13:43:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: tpaine (#21)

I get your point. -- But both Pete and I are far from 'dense'. -- And you're the boss here,

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.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-02-18   13:45:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: A K A Stone (#20)

-- 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.

If the constitution protects two perverts to redefine marriage.

It doesn't, imho.

tpaine  posted on  2015-02-18   13:48:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: A K A Stone (#22)

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.

We agree.

And I can't imagine why you think I'm for 'gay marriage'.

tpaine  posted on  2015-02-18   13:52:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: tpaine (#11)

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)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-18   14:31:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-18   14:32:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: redleghunter (#25)

Which came first? The chicken or the egg?

I've been working on a theory that redlegged peckerheads may have been first. --- Whattdya think?

tpaine  posted on  2015-02-18   14:42:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: tpaine, liberator (#27)

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)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-18   14:56:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: Liberator (#12)

Once the premise that a 5,000 year-long definition of "marriage" is indeed redefinable,

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)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-02-18   15:13:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-02-18   15:17:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: A K A Stone (#20)

The government REDEFINING marriage violates the first amendments religious protection.

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)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-02-18   15:20:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: redleghunter (#26)

At the least the above is 10,000 years of worldwide societal case law.

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)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-02-18   15:21:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: sneakypete (#32)

BullBush! In some societies people have married their horses,their sisters,and even their daughters.

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)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-18   15:53:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: redleghunter (#33) (Edited)

Quit bringing in your small town history Pete:)

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  posted on  2015-02-18   18:28:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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."

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?)

Liberator  posted on  2015-02-18   20:21:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: redleghunter, sneakypete (#33)

In some societies people have married their horses,their sisters,and even their daughters.

Quit bringing in your small town history Pete:)

Lol...

(And what?? No cousins??)

Liberator  posted on  2015-02-18   20:24:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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

Liberator  posted on  2015-02-18   20:38:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: sneakypete (#30)

"The British Navy runs on rum and sodomy"

Yes, I remember Badeye saying he was born in the wrong country and a bit too late. Except for the rum.

Biff Tannen  posted on  2015-02-18   21:24:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: A K A Stone (#0)

Homosexual movement threatens these freedoms

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.

rlk  posted on  2015-02-18   22:24:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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?

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)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-18   22:24:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (41 - 87) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com