Saturday, May 04, 2013

God Is Love, But Love Is Not God

"Thou shalt have no other Gods before Me." ~ Exodus 20:3

Neil Simpson, of Eternity Matters blog, often blogs opposition to gay marriage, or, as he calls it, "oxymoronic same sex marriage", a more accurate description. He correctly points out there are no verses or passages anywhere in the Bible that refer to homosexual relationships in an affirmative way. The only times the Bible mentions homosexuality is to call it sin.

  God is Love, but Love is not God. Neither should Love ever be confused with Lust.

Homosexual activists' (and their supporters) argue that God would somehow approve of the homosexual lifestyle as long as it is a "loving" relationship. And, they are right to say two people in love have every right to get married. 

The problem with that argument is this: Two men or two women cannot love each other in the way a heterosexual couple can. What they're doing is confusing love with lust. In Romans 1, Paul testifies that because men had iniquity in their hearts, and rejected God, "God gave them up unto vile affections: for even the women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another."

Read that again. They burned in their lust.

Just as there is no verse or passage in the bible that refers to homosexuality favorably, there is no verse that equates lust and love. None.

Lust should never be confused with love. They are not the same.

But this is exactly what homosexuals and their enablers do. 

I have often said homosexuality violates seven of the ten Commandments. What is the first Commandment? 

"Thou shalt have no other Gods before me."

When anyone places more importance on their own selfish desires than they do God, they have made those desires their God. That violates the first commandment. 

Homosexuals make lust their God.

 I have often said I don't care if homosexuals marry each other or not, as long as they don't insist I approve.

Why do I say that? Because, marriage is a union between a man and a woman. It is never a union between anything else. be it two men, two women, man and animal, more than two of any gender, etc, therefore, what homosexuals do is not a marriage, no matter how many times they insist it is.

All this is not to say I personally hate homosexuals. I don't. I don't even dislike them. In fact, the ones I know personally, I like very much. I consider them friends. I will go so far as to say I love them, as I should. With brotherly love. And, yes, Agape Love.

But I do not lust after them.

What person, if he sees his friend about to willfully commit an act of self destruction would not do whatever he can to prevent his friend from destroying himself? 

What kind of friend would encourage, and even help his friend destroy himself? 

Yet that is exactly what homosexual activists and their supporters are doing when they encourage homosexuals to continue to violate God's precepts. 

I'm sorry, but that is not the actions of a friend.

When I write these posts, I am not writing out of hate for homosexuals. I am under an obligation to God to reach homosexuals for Christ, and to save them from themselves.

God is, in fact, Love. But, Love is not God

Those who support the homosexual agenda need to understand that concept.


311 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 311 of 311
Marshall Art said...

"Why can't they bind the couple who adopts a child or who have children by previous marriages?"

Why ask such a stupid question? It makes no sense.

"Actually they can and do produce children by previous marriages or by artificial means, or by adoption. So the state WOULD indeed have an interest in the success of their unions."

Again, a stupid point. It has no relevance to the intention of the state to license one "type" of union over another. You, in your dishonesty, look to any anomaly to justify your lame position. But in fact, no homosexual union produces children. EVER. You are not speaking to the reproductive abilities of two of the same gender, so your objection is idiotic. The law deals with the reproductive potential of each heterosexual union. Don't be an asshole. It doesn't help your case.

"Clearly false as I have shown above. It is not necessary to "produce" offspring to have and care for offspring."

More incredible dishonesty. No homosexual union can procreate. EVER. Biologically impossible. Thus, there is no interest in the state regarding the success or failure of a homosexual union. No couple can have offspring if they did not produce that offspring. They have the offspring of others, perhaps, but adopted children are not offspring of the adopting parents. What an asshole thing to suggest.

""Bad" according to whom?"

To the God you claim to worship, to the majority of Americans who claim to be His followers, to the majority of other religions and their followers and to thinking people everywhere.

"What kind of "biological episode" would produce gayness?"

It is thought by some that trauma in the life of a mother can affect the level of testosterone in the embryo which might lead to a person more likely to become effeminate (or less aggressive or more passive) and more susceptible to homosexuality later in life. Different than being "born that way".

"What makes this different for uncontrollable compulsions that heterosexuals may have?"

What do you mean, exactly, by asking this question? What "uncontrollable" compulsions do you believe exist in anyone, aside from the compulsion to eat and breathe? Or maybe sneezing or yawning? (You seem to have an uncontrollable compulsion to mince words, play semantic games and generally be an asshole while calling it successful rebuttal, but then, it only seems to be the true. I can't say that it is.)

"So they come out of the womb with "hetero desires"?"

I'm sure, in your typical asshole manner you would suggest that this indicates a suggestion that babies have sexual desires of any kind. But normal people are born to mate with those of the opposite gender. So, yes, one could say they are born to eventually manifest hetero desires.

Jim said...

When all they have is semantics, they just prove they lost the debate.

When "they" claim it's semantics, they prove they lost the debate.

private citizens do anything that has to do with how they run their businesses.

A citizen who runs a business for the purpose of providing goods and services to the public is not a private citizen. Just as they must maintain safety codes and collect sales taxes because of the law, they must obey laws against discrimination.

you dodge like the cowardly supporter of sexual perversion that you are.

ad hominem or not ad hominem?

What I provided was a source for you to investigate

It is not up to me to "investigate" to find your supporting arguments. Provide me with your best ones and I'll read them. I have never asked for more from you. I research these subjects as much as anyone. That's exactly why I participate in these threads.

which is that like homosexuals, they want legal and cultural recognition and legitimization of their immoral relationships.

No. You are mistaken. They want to be left alone. I'm surprised that you don't recognize this as the exact opposite of supporters of SSM.

law was applied equally

No. You are mistaken. They cannot marry their person of choice.

But no one is denying them their ability to marry and commit to each other.

Sheer lunacy to even THINK this, much less type it. That is what they want-to marry and commit to each other, and you would deny them.

And still again we see Jim defer to law as determining his morality.

You keep saying this, but it isn't true. You want to pass, retain, or repeal the law. Whether it is because of morality, bigotry, or some supposed societal ill. I'm not addressing morality because there is no argument to be made regarding what you see as the morality issue here. The issue is what society does or doesn't, should or shouldn't allow on the basis of law.

Do you regard homosexual behavior as sinful?

No. As a non-practioner of the behavior, I don't think about whether it is sinful or not. Those who do practice that behavior can take it up with God.

Do you regard abortion as sinful?

See previous answer.

Marshall Art said...

"We acknowledge it and our arguments do not do anything else.

This is the joke of the year. You claim the exhibit bad behavior. You claim they are a societal evil. You claim they have a disorder."


...Thus we must acknowledge its existence in order to make any judgements about it. What's your problem here? Maybe you don't understand what "acknowledge" means. It does not mean toleration or acquiescence.

"Either one has the ability to choose how to act and live or one doesn't.

Yes they do. So what? They have no reason to "control their desires"."


No one has any reason who rejects reasons put forth to them by others. No one has any reason who rejects reasons experience presents to them. The point is that one can choose. It is obvious that not everyone chooses to transcend their base desires.

"Why must they control their desires? Why is that "really" wrong? Why is their ability or inability to "control their desires" make them lesser that heterosexuals?"

In order to provide answers to the first two questions, you must decide if you're asking as the Christian you claim to be (in which case you know the answer---or maybe not considering it's you we're talking about), or from a secular perspective. As to the third question, no one is saying that homosexuals are "lesser" individuals. That is a common crap accusation from your side due to your lack of honesty.

"But it hurts no one to do so and so "best course of action" isn't really relevant."

More dishonesty. Harm has been demonstrated repeatedly. Your choice to reject examples of harm do not render them nonexistent. It only shows you're unwilling to deal honestly with concerns about legal legitimization of bad behaviors.

Secondly, "best course of action" is entirely relevant when it comes to legislation. It is the one true relevant factor for all law, that it be in the best interest of the most, if not all, the nation. And there is no compelling reason to alter the legal understanding of marriage and family, especially in light of all that has been presented as harmful effects.

Marshall Art said...

"As far as homosexuality not being immutable..."

You might want to do more than rely on Exodus and look to the many cases of homosexuals who successfully leave the lifestyle behind. It's always a matter of desire just as transcending any other character flaw. Your opinion that homosexual behavior isn't a character flaw is irrelevant and in conflict with your alleged Christian faith. To act out a wicked desire is the result of a weak character. To push an agenda that claims a bad behavior is not wicked is the epitome of a flawed character.

"They already had the same rights as others.

No, they don't. You are mistaken."


Again, you are either a liar or stupid. They were not denied the right to marry. They were not looking to marry in the first place since "to marry" requires two of opposite genders. This does not constitute a denial of rights if they demand something that doesn't exist.

"Ask the people of the twelve states that have legalized SSM about that?"

Once again we see that Jim looks to law for his morality. If all fifty states did the wrong thing, it would still not mean that homosexuals were denied rights. Consensus does not equal moral.

"Discrimination is not a right."

Again, we see Jim relies on law to determine for him what is right and what is wrong. We can agree that racial or gender discrimination is wrong. But to say it is not a right is idiotic except for the gov't, which is what the founders sought to regulate. At the same time, to pretend that there is something wrong with discriminating against behaviors, especially twisted and disordered a behavior as homosexual, is unjustified. It has no basis in anything the founders had in mind, and has no basis in the Christian faith you claim to hold. Indeed, while we are taught to flee from sexual immorality, you vote for people who enable it.

"Except that the attempts to cure that "immutability" have failed."

Here, we see more of the agenda dishonesty. The activists and their enablers like to believe that one cannot change their "orientation". But many have done so, except that the activists and their enablers accuse such people of lying about their change. So, only they are telling the truth about being born that way, even in light of testimonies to the contrary. Indeed, many lesbians claim to have chosen to reject men. The "cure" is within each person to overcome their desires and while in some those desires might linger, they do not have to act upon them. Who can insist they know when a former homosexual is "lying" about his change? The liars claim to know.

"But to conclude by the manner in which one argues that one is an asshole is not an ad hom.

No. You are mistaken."


No. I am not. Both Glenn and I respond to your idiotic arguments. We don't ignore them in order to describe your antics. THAT would be ad hom. YOU are mistaken. You've got three people here who have described your behavior in the same manner. That's on you, not us. We do not say you're an asshole because of your opinions, but for the manner in which you defend them.

Marshall Art said...

"Do you regard homosexual behavior as sinful?

No. As a non-practioner of the behavior, I don't think about whether it is sinful or not. Those who do practice that behavior can take it up with God."


What an incredibly cowardly dodge!! You do not have one shred of integrity whatsoever. Let's try it this way: Do you consider stealing to be sinful? How about murder? I'm assuming you do not practice either of these, either. Will you now say you do not have an opinion on the sinfulness of these actions? How about "discrimination"? You seem to rail on about alleged discrimination. Is this sinful behavior or not? Whether or not you engage in a behavior has nothing to do with whether or not it is sinful. Therefore, whether or not YOU engage in a behavior has no relevance to whether or not you regard it as sinful. Have a little spine. If you truly think homosexual behavior is not sinful, how do you square that with the fact that it is so stated in Scripture?

Jim said...

The law deals with the reproductive potential of each heterosexual union.

But you yourself have said that the law can't determine who will or will not have children so how can the law deal with reproduction potential of anyone? You keep going around in circles on this.

It makes no sense.

Of course it does. You said The intent is to bind the couple to each other for the sake of the children their union produces. Why would the intent exclude couples who have and care for children that their union didn't produce biologically correctly? e.g. children with a prior spouse or adopted children? Should there be no "sake" for those children?

adopted children are not offspring of the adopting parents.

So the state has no interest in binding the union of the couple that has adopted them and will care for them? Biological offspring of these two parents are the only ones that count? No others need apply.

to the majority of Americans who claim to be His followers

OK, then it doesn't matter if it's based on His followers, First Amendment and all that.

It is thought by some

Always a great source of knowledge.

Different than being "born that way".

But wait, if this happens before they were born, then they are born, so they are indeed "born that way". You've just said it.

What "uncontrollable" compulsions do you believe exist in anyone

What "uncontrollable" compulsions do you believe exist in homosexuals?

that babies have sexual desires of any kind.

Well according to an OB/GYN in congress, 15 week-old male fetuses masturbate. So I guess it's possible.

Jim said...

look to the many cases of homosexuals who successfully leave the lifestyle behind.

Catholic priests and nuns successfully leave the lifestyle behind but that doesn't make them any less or more heterosexual or homosexual.

Leaving the lifestyle behind is not a cure. It does not make sexual orientation any less "immutable."

They were not denied the right to marry.

Clearly you are mistaken. The denial of the right to marry who you choose is the denial of the right to marry.

This does not constitute a denial of rights if they demand something that doesn't exist.

It exists in at least 12 states and the District of Columbia. And more to come.

Once again we see that Jim looks to law for his morality.

Once again this is meaningless drivel. I'm not talking morality. I'm talking about people's rights under the law.

Consensus does not equal moral.


Moral is irrelevant. A person who wants to marry a person of the same gender is not concerned with your morality.

Again, we see Jim relies on law to determine for him what is right and what is wrong.

See above and above and above.

to pretend that there is something wrong with discriminating against behaviors, especially twisted and disordered a behavior as homosexual, is unjustified.

Apparently not according to states, municipalities, courts, and most corporations.

But many have done so

No proof of that.

Do you consider stealing to be sinful?

Yes, of course. The Bible says thou shalt not steal.

How about murder?

Yes, of course. The Bible says thou shalt not kill.

Both of these are clearly harmful to others and to society.

You seem to rail on about alleged discrimination. Is this sinful behavior or not?

I don't think it is sinful. But it is illegal.

When it comes to homosexual behavior I do not presume to pass judgement on those who behave that way. That is between them and God. I worked in San Francisco for years. If I gave any thought to the "sinfulness" of any of those around me I would be too distracted to get any work done. I simply refuse to put myself in a state of mind in which I must think of my friends and associates as any less of a person than any others.

Marshall Art said...

"But you yourself have said that the law can't determine who will or will not have children so how can the law deal with reproduction potential of anyone? You keep going around in circles on this."

I'm not going around any circles. You, however, insist on trying to ram into the conversation that which I didn't say, and objections that are irrelevant. Try to focus.

When I say that the state can't determine, or won't spend the time and effort to determine, who can or can't or will or won't have children, it is because you insist on trying to insert the notion that because not every hetero couple can or will have kids that we can then not deny homosexuals.

I'll get to the rest later.

Jim said...

you insist on trying to insert the notion that because not every hetero couple can or will have kids that we can then not deny homosexuals.

You can't deny homosexuals SSM because they can't have children* and then say it doesn't matter whether or not heterosexual couples have children.

* As I have many times shown, homosexual couples can and do have children.

Marshall Art said...

Again, just a little honest now and then would go a long way, Jim. It is obvious to honest people that when it is said that hetero unions have children, it is blatantly obvious that what is meant is that they are able, just the two of them, without any outside help whatsoever, to procreate and bring into existence a new life. No homosexual couple can do this. Ever. They MUST resort to outside help in order "have" children. They must adopt, artificially inseminate or use surrogates, or assume the child brought into existence by one of them with another person. To pretend they "can and do have children" is an incredible lie and distortion of reality, not to mention a deceitful game of semantics. And you dare object to being labeled an asshole.

Back to the Stanley Cup.

Jim said...

OK, see if you can follow me on this:

Stipulated that a couple of the same gender cannot by and between themselves biologically produce children. Nobody argues that.

But you said, What we are saying is that the state licenses traditional marriage because of the procreative possibility of heterosexual couplings and the benefit to the state of seeing such unions remaining united and caring for their offspring.

Why doesn't the state benefit by homosexual unions becoming legal and remaining united and caring for THEIR offspring HOWEVER they come into being?

You also said, The intent is to bind the couple to each other for the sake of the children their union produces.

Why is it only for the sake of children biologically produced by heterosexual couples and not for the children who have one or more parents in a SSM?

To pretend they "can and do have children" is an incredible lie and distortion of reality, not to mention a deceitful game of semantics.

Again, I never said they biologically produced offspring between themselves, so how about you drop the liar and asshole bullshit?

I said that a gay couple can be heads of a household wherein they have children by any and all of the methods you've noted. Those children are NO LESS the children of at least one of the parents and both if it is a legal adoption than the children of biologically approved hetero mating in a hetero marriage. The care of and by a stable, committed couple is no less important to kids in gay households than those in hetero households.

So if the state has an interest in a union that binds a couple for the sake of the children, there is no reason that it should matter whether the genders are mixed or matched.

Marshall Art said...

All of your questions make are based on faulty premises and assumptions, mainly suggesting that the point is the parents, when my point deals with the welfare of the kids. A true compassion for children would preclude kids from ever coming into the care of practicing homosexuals. In other words, what is the starting point of your concerns? It is after the kids are already in the care of practicing homosexuals. All of your objections assume a family of this type.

The laws regarding marriage, as it should be and has been, does not deal in this manner. It begins with the union of a man and woman and the biological likelihood of their union producing offspring. This likelihood is the basis for state sanctioning of the union.

No two men or two women can unite in any way the results in procreation. Therefore, there is no basis for the state to be concerned with sanctioning or licensing these unions.

What's more, if there was true concern for the welfare of children, there would be no issue here as no one would be producing children without their welfare being prominent. Their welfare requires that they know both their parents ("parents" meaning their biological parents), or that it was intended that they do (allowing that sometimes a parent dies before the child can truly know and be influenced by him or her) and that there is a real expectation that the parents will remain together to raise that child until adulthood. Homosexuals, as well as self-centered heteros, do not cover these bases.

"Again, I never said they biologically produced offspring between themselves, so how about you drop the liar and asshole bullshit?"

When you stop pretending there's any level of equivalence between the traditional and the twisted alternative you support, "liar" will no longer apply. When you continue to put forth obviously bullshit arguments, "asshole" will continue to apply.

So to summarize, there needs to be a better level of concern for the welfare of children as regards unions of ANY kind. Such concern understands that "stable, committed" homosexual couples fail to demonstrate that concern by pretending they provide for children in the manner best for the children. Their true concern is for themselves and their desire to be recognized as equivalent to normal unions and thus deserve what they do not.

Jim said...

stop pretending there's any level of equivalence between the traditional and the twisted alternative you support

When will you stop pretending that biologically approved children of a heterosexual marriage in a household where there is hunger, filth, drugs, violence, sexual abuse, or physical abuse is better for the children than a clean, safe, drug-free, violence-free household headed by gay parents?

Mark said...

There are only two reasons why a homosexual (or lesbian) couple would want to raise children:

1. To train them to become Homosexuals themselves, and

2.To have a live in sex toy they can molest without outside interference.

But, that is beside the point. Jim, all your arguments fail in light of God's Word. If you disagree with God, you will have to account to Him for your haughty spirit and arrogance. God says Homosexuality is an abomination to him. Therefore Homosexuality is an abomination. Period. And, Jim, if you think you know better than God then you need prayer. If you don't repent and humbly ask His forgiveness, I wouldn't want to be in your shoes at the final Judgment.

And that, Jim, is the bottom line.

Jim said...

If you disagree with God, you will have to account to Him for your haughty spirit and arrogance.

I wouldn't want to be in your shoes at the final Judgment.

I'm not shaking in my boots. I am at peace with God.

There are only two reasons why a homosexual (or lesbian) couple would want to raise children:

1. To train them to become Homosexuals themselves, and

2.To have a live in sex toy they can molest without outside interference.


You're full of shit, Mark.

And THAT is the bottom line.

Marshall Art said...

"When will you stop pretending that biologically approved children of a heterosexual marriage in a household where there is hunger, filth, drugs, violence, sexual abuse, or physical abuse is better for the children than a clean, safe, drug-free, violence-free household headed by gay parents?"

You really need to link to the post or comment where I even hinted at such a thing. Otherwise, you are providing support for my contention that you are a liar and an asshole.

I would never suggest that a child is better off in the situation you try to put forth as a real either/or situation. Everything I put forth assumes equal comparisons. Good hetero people raising kids vs good homo people raising kids. Bringing up horror stories and offering "nice" homo couples as alternatives is an asshole tactic.

But with honest tactics in mind, kids are always better off with the people who brought them into the world, with hetero couples adopting being second best. Here is one of the many articles you could have found, had you not pretended perusing Wintery Knight's blog was such a chore.

Marshall Art said...

By the way, I do not agree with Mark regarding his "only two reasons" above. Unless he says otherwise, I'm going to assume he's not being totally serious or honest by publishing that comment. I have no doubt there are homosexuals that want to go the distance in playing house and raising kids is likely a part of that. I just don't believe the best interests of the kids are ever in mind, even if they insist it is. How could it be when by "having" them, they immediately deprive them of either a mother or father, and do so on purpose?

Jim said...

You really need to link to the post or comment where I even hinted at such a thing.

The point is that you would permit the marriage of the hetero couple who would provide a terrible environment for their kids because they have a "traditional" union, yet you would not permit the marriage of a gay couple who provide an excellent home environment for their children. Do you deny that?

kids are always better off with the people who brought them into the world,

This is absurd. By this measure a child of an abusive biological parent would be better off than an adopted child in a clean, safe, and loving household.

Thanks for finally providing a link which agrees with your argument. Here is one critique of that "study".

Unless he says otherwise, I'm going to assume he's not being totally serious

I've been debating Mark here for awhile. I'm sure he's totally serious.

I have no doubt there are homosexuals that want to go the distance in playing house and raising kids is likely a part of that.

No doubt? Based on what?

by "having" them, they immediately deprive them of either a mother or father, and do so on purpose?

And yet you would force a single woman to give birth even though she is purposely depriving the child a "father".

Studies show that children of gay parents do just as well those of heterosexual couples. In other words, they are not deprived.

Marshall Art said...

"The point is that you would permit the marriage of the hetero couple who would provide a terrible environment for their kids because they have a "traditional" union, yet you would not permit the marriage of a gay couple who provide an excellent home environment for their children. Do you deny that?"

Of course I deny it. Your point assumes that it can be known in advance the quality of care any set of parents might provide when seeking a license to marry. Talk about absurd!

"This is absurd. By this measure a child of an abusive biological parent would be better off than an adopted child in a clean, safe, and loving household."

Once again, you attempt to measure apples against oranges. Given the context in which it was stated, my comment assumes equal comparison between biological parents and all others.

"Here is one critique of that "study"."

Perhaps you can find a more biased "critique" if your really try. It is abject deceit to suppose that there won't be, or can't be, a likelihood of a child turning to homosexuality if raised in a home (or culture) that regards the choice as morally benign. Just look at the culture today and the impact it has had (since the 60's) on morals and values. To pretend that we haven't taken a decided immoral turn to the negative is denial of the worst kind. To pretend that it won't, and hasn't, had a decided negative impact on our youth is far worse.

What's more, the pro-homosexual community has delivered many flawed studies to support their lies and to go to a queer site for validation smacks of desperation.

"I have no doubt there are homosexuals that want to go the distance in playing house and raising kids is likely a part of that.

No doubt? Based on what?"


I'll give you the benefit of the intensive doubt here that due to your zeal in finding fault in the righteous position, you may have misunderstood my meaning. But just because I know homosexuals are disordered in their attractions, it doesn't follow that I believe they are incapable of wanting what a normal person wants, even if through their abnormal lifestyle. Indeed, their homosexuality doesn't preclude a desire to have someone "special" in their lives, even if that "special" someone is another disordered dude. So it shouldn't surprise anyone that they might also want to have something akin to a family. More to the point, it is based on their own testimonies.

Marshall Art said...

"And yet you would force a single woman to give birth even though she is purposely depriving the child a "father"."

Oh, Jim! By all means! Kill the kid in the womb! THAT is the perfect adult solution in dealing with the consequences of bad behavior!

It seems the term "asshole" is self-applied.

It would be honest to admit that most women who have sex outside of marriage are NOT necessarily looking to get pregnant. I would NOT encourage the rest to attempt to do so without providing a father for the child. Still, I cannot forgive any asshole who believes aborting a child for some twisted attempt to justify homosexual parenting is a good idea.

"Studies show that children of gay parents do just as well those of heterosexual couples. In other words, they are not deprived."

There are NO studies not done or funded by homo activists or enablers that concur. Not one such study has been shown to be bereft of major flaws of methodology. Not one.

Indeed, the study above that you tried to refute by linking to a queer site was peer reviewed, which at least shows the means by which the conclusions were acquired were sound. The Regnerus study was yet another. Indeed, all studies showing that the best environment for a child is with his own parents are even more widely accepted as fact.

Does this mean that no child raised by homosexuals can succeed? No one is making this argument. The argument is whether or not there is sufficient evidence to state categorically that there is no difference. There isn't. But homo activists and their enablers, like yourself, don't give a flying rat's ass about what is best for kids if the answer means homosexuals can't get their way, or even puts their position in the least bit of doubt.

Jim said...

"The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity...By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statue is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Justice Anthony Keddedy

Jim said...

Your point assumes that it can be known in advance the quality of care any set of parents might provide when seeking a license to marry. Talk about absurd!

Which throws out your argument. If you can't know in advance for "any set of parents", you can't assume for gay parents anymore than you can assume for straight parents that children will be better or worse off.

assumes equal comparison between biological parents and all others.

No, your comment was unqualified. You said always better off.

Perhaps you can find a more biased "critique" if your really try.

As if your study by a person whose stated goal is to prove that gay marriage is bad for children isn't biased? It is to laugh.

based on their own testimonies.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you mean by "going the distance in playing house and raising kids". Care to elaborate?

dealing with the consequences of bad behavior!

Bad behavior such as rape or incest?

There are NO studies not done or funded by homo activists or enablers that concur.

Just as there are NO studies not done or funded by religious bigots that concur with your opinion.

The argument is whether or not there is sufficient evidence to state categorically that there is no difference.

Nor is there sufficient evidence to state categorically the opposite.

Jim said...

Also, I would add that what is best for the kids is to know that they and their families are not LESS than anyone else's family.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Justice Kennedy, and all the liberals on the court, defy common sense. They twist the Constitution to promote a perverse agenda.

Just remember, the SCOTUS also defended slavery and abortion by twisting the Constitution.

Jim said...

Just remember, the SCOTUS also defended slavery and abortion by twisting the Constitution.

And the President changed that and the Courts have upheld the rights guaranteed by the ratifying states of the 5th and 14th Amendments.

Just as the SCOTUS did today.

Justice Kennedy, and all the liberals on the court, defy common sense.

Clearly YOUR sense is not "common".

Do you believe children of a gay marriage are less than those in a straight marriage?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Interesting that in previous SCOTUS decision, states were not allowed to change what marriage is, which is why Utah had to give up polygamy to be a state. Now they use the same Constitution to suddenly find a right for states to have their own definitions of marriage. They are driving by what is popular among liberals rather than the rule of law.

The president didn't change anything with slavery or abortion. Lincoln's emancipation only emancipated slaves in the confederacy.

The SCOTUS now has decided that California citizens have no right to change their constitution. I guess on the Feds can tell a state what is allowed in their constitution.

There are no "children of a gay marriage," because "gay marriage" doesn't exist any more than does a square circle.

Jim said...

Interesting that in previous SCOTUS decision, states were not allowed to change what marriage is, which is why Utah had to give up polygamy to be a state.

This comment contradicts itself. Utah wasn't a state so the idea that states were not allowed to "change what marriage is" does not apply.

Now they use the same Constitution to suddenly find a right for states to have their own definitions of marriage.

No, states have been able to define certain terms of marriage, such as age and consanguinity, since the founding.

They are driving by what is popular among liberals rather than the rule of law.

The rule of law, which in this case is the 5th Amendment, is "nor shall any person...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

The SCOTUS now has decided that California citizens have no right to change their constitution.

Only for the simple-minded. The court said that the plaintiffs in the California case had no standing so that the original Federal Court decision must stand. That decision said that California citizens cannot deprive its citizens a right that they already had without a compelling societal reason. The Prop 8 proponents in that case could provide no such reason, only that gay people are icky.

SCOTUS basically said that the only person who can sue to reinstate Prop 8 is someone who has been harmed by it being overturned.

Since this, by definition, is impossible, Prop 8 is dead.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim,
You again demonstrate rank stupidity. Utah was polygamous. They wanted to be a state. They were not allowed to become a state in the USA and one of the factors was polygamy. Through legal charges over a period of time the SCOTUS became involved and stated essentially that as a state in the union they could not have their own definition of what marriage is - that it was a matter for society as a whole to have moral marital laws.

You are correct that states have determined the TERMS of marriage, but never before have they been able to determine the DEFINITION of marriage, because marriage has always been defined as the union of opposite sex people - NEVER as same-sex.

It is a lie to say anyone was denied rights under the 5th. In order to make that claim, you have to redefine what marriage is. Simple as that, and that has been the substance of this discussion and ever other discussion in reference to same-sex fake marriage. In his decision Kennedy lied about the reason for DOMA and he railed about people forcing their morality all the while HE was moralizing and forcing HIS version of morality on the rest of us.

The issue about Prop 8 was also all base on lies.
http://thecripplegate.com/2-lies-behind-the-prop-8-challenge/

But lies is all homosexualists have in their favor anyway.

Marshall Art said...

"dealing with the consequences of bad behavior!

Bad behavior such as rape or incest?"


There you go again, deceitfully suggesting the worst possible scenario as if my comment reflected such a thing. Of COURSE you're an asshole! How dare you suggest it is merely an ad hom. Having sex outside of marriage is bad behavior, as the faith to which you claim belief so plainly says.

But since you mention it, rape and incest are also bad behaviors. Let's just kill the kid that such behaviors produce, because rational, honest and honorable adults do that sort of thing when trouble arises.

"Just as there are NO studies not done or funded by religious bigots that concur with your opinion."

I just presented one, referred to another and spoke of more general studies dealing with what is best for children. I'll wait here while you find which ones are done by "religious bigots". I won't apologize for truth aligning with Christian teachings. I won't waste time trying to defend against desperate accusations of religious bigotry when no better arguments can be had for your position.

"Nor is there sufficient evidence to state categorically the opposite."

Clearly this is untrue as I just presented one, referred to another and spoke of more general studies dealing with what is best for children.

Jim said...

You again demonstrate rank stupidity.

Although you clearly don't know the difference between stupidity and ignorance (which speaks volumes), I am guilty of neither.

Polygamy was outlawed by the US Congress some 20 years before Utah was admitted to the Union. Utah was denied statehood several times for a variety of reasons including the geographical size of the territory. Are we to believe the US should change their laws to accommodate a territory which applies for statehood?

In order to make that claim, you have to redefine what marriage is.

But this is the FALSE premise upon which your entire argument rests. "Redefining" marriage is not only false, it's irrelevant.

In order to make the claim that rights are denied one only has to show that benefits of marriage are not available to people without a compelling reason to deny them.

It's as simple as that.

In his decision Kennedy lied about the reason for DOMA

Really? Can you cite the lie from the decision?

The issue about Prop 8 was also all base on lies.

Actually, your link is chock full of lies:

"the challenge was about gay marriage. The truth is that it is about a Christian’s right to vote."

This is just inarguable horse shit, plain and simple.The judge said that gays couldn't be denied marriage simply because Christians thought they were icky.

"Proposition 8 took away a right to gay marriage. The truth is, that right never (legally) existed in California."

Another lie. The California Supreme Court in In re Marriage Cases of 2008 declared "that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry."

"Second, the case was assigned to an openly homosexual judge. "

As opposed to an openly Christian judge?

"Third, that judge ruled that individual counties could not defend proposition 8. That left nobody to do the defending."

That's just plain nonsense. Clearly the case was defended or it wouldn't have been in court.

But lies is all homosexualists have in their favor anyway.

Not as of today, thank God!

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim,
One who is just ignorant is interested in learning. You are unteachable and STUPID.

Jim said...

I know you are, but what am I?

Marshall Art said...

Jim's final comment typifies the childishness of his entire position, and the position of the activists and enablers he defends.

Jim said...

No, it simply points out Glenn's childishness and the absence of an argument.

Jim said...

One who is just ignorant is interested in learning. You are unteachable and STUPID.

The truth is, as usual, I learned quite a bit from this thread. Such discussions lead me to read a lot about the subject and the various claims.

But Glenn thinks that unpersuaded means unteachable. It doesn't. It means his arguments are not persuasive in the face facts. To say that I am unteachable in essence throws in the towel because he has failed to provide the winning argument.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim, you aren't persuaded by God's word when it comes to homosexual behavior, so I don't expect you to be persuaded with any truth.

Jim said...

Jim, you aren't persuaded by God's word when it comes to homosexual behavior, so I don't expect you to be persuaded with any truth.

I don't concern myself with homosexual behavior. What two consenting adults do in private is between them and God.

I concern myself with what is fair, equitable, and legal.

But back to the original post:

Neither should Love ever be confused with Lust.

OK, so what? Who does that, Mark?

Homosexual activists' (and their supporters) argue that God would somehow approve of the homosexual lifestyle as long as it is a "loving" relationship.

No they don't. Nobody even considers "God" and "lifestyle" in the same sentence.

And, they are right to say two people in love have every right to get married.

See, you admit it.

Two men or two women cannot love each other in the way a heterosexual couple can.

Of course they can. To assert otherwise is simply absurd.

there is no verse that equates lust and love.

Of course. Why would it? Why would anybody? Anybody over the age of 16 knows the difference, regardless of their sexual orientation.

But this is exactly what homosexuals and their enablers do.

No they don't.

Homosexuals make lust their God.

No they don't.

I have often said I don't care if homosexuals marry each other or not, as long as they don't insist I approve.

Not once has any of them insisted you approve.

In short, this post asserting that homosexuals can't love romantically is totally false and without merit.

Beyond that, the argument for or against SSM has nothing whatsoever to do with God's Word. The Word is irrelevant. Whether or not I am persuaded by God's Word is not relevant to SSM, truth or not.

Jim said...

Now 13 states!

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim is cheering on perversion.

Jim said...

Jim is cheering on The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Your logic and obsession are perverse.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I'm still trying to find anything in those documents which redefines what marriage is. Your obsession with supporting homosexuality is what is extremely perverse.

Jim said...

I'm sure that if you read those documents thoroughly you wouldn't find any mention of marriage at all, definition or otherwise.

What you would find in them is that all men are created with the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that they will not be deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of law; and they will not be denied the equal protection of the laws.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

What you will find throughout history, as has been demonstrated to you numerous times, that the definition of marriage was assumed.
Nothing permits redefining marriage.
Homosexuals not being given special rights to redefine marriage did not affect the FACT that they already had every right everyone else had, as has also been previously demonstrated numerous times.

Not a single document listed says people can have special rights to redefine marriage.

Jim said...

the definition of marriage was assumed.

Yeah, assumed. People assumed that people couldn't fly, or go into space, or that women couldn't heads of state.

But The Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights assume nothing about marriage. They explicitly state that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Nothing permits redefining marriage.

Nothing forbids it either, though the marriage "definition" bit is meaningless.

Homosexuals not being given special rights to redefine marriage did not affect the FACT that they already had every right everyone else had, as has also been previously demonstrated numerous times.

You've asserted that it's a FACT, though clearly it is not. There is no special right needed. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness require no special right. In 37 states they are denied the right of liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

This is rapidly changing. By the end of the decade this will all be moot. Justice will be done. Get over it.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

So says Jim the homosexualist.

They did in fact have every right to marry with the same requirements as every non-queer.

But now they are getting special rights to not have the same requirements.

And we've proved this over and over, which is why it has been proven that you are unteachable.

Jim said...

So says Jim the homosexualist.

So says Glenn the bigot.

They did in fact have every right to marry with the same requirements as every non-queer.

Again, false. There are no "requirements" other than legal age. Yet, they cannot marry who they love. The proof of this is that if they could, then there would be no issue. But there is.

But now they are getting special rights to not have the same requirements.

The courts say that they are NOT special rights. The are the rights that all people should have.

And we've proved this over and over

You haven't proved anything. You've asserted it but proved nothing.

it has been proven that you are unteachable

No, it hasn't. It's just that you can't teach me that the earth is flat, just as you can't teach me that the founding documents don't grant all men the rights to life liberty, the pursuit of happiness, due process, and equal access of the law.

Marshall Art said...

"In 37 states they are denied the right of liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

This is an absolute and unmitigated lie. Homos have the absolute liberty to "marry" whomever they choose. They do not have any "right" to insist that the state (the rest of the people) regard their union as equal to and as beneficial to the state (the rest of the people) as traditional marriages.

The right for homos to pursue happiness has not been infringed upon simply because the state will not recognize their unions. There is no benefit to the state in doing so. Thus, there is no need or mandate that the state does so. This does not equate to an infringement on homos' pursuit of happiness. What YOU'RE demanding, as are they, is that the state provide happiness by acquiescing to their whiny demands. In other words, you are not looking for the pursuit of happiness to be protected, but the happiness itself. This is unreasonable.

Jim said...

This is an absolute and unmitigated lie.

As I said above, Marshall, you are full of shit.

[Homosexuals] have the absolute liberty to "marry" whomever they choose.

False. They don't want the right to "marry". They want all the rights and privileges of legal marriage that anyone else gets.

Nowhere in the founding documents or the law is it stated that marriage MUST be beneficial to the state.

In other words, you are not looking for the pursuit of happiness to be protected, but the happiness itself. This is unreasonable.

This is illogical and idiotic. You are full of shit.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim pulls out the bigot card. Sorry, but one is not a bigot for refusing to sanction perversion. The real bigots are those who want to punish people for NOT sanctioning perversion.

There have ALWAYS been requirements for marriage: Of age, opposite sex, not closely related.

That poor father who wants to marry his adult daughter isn't allowed to marry who he loves - where is your defense of his violation of rights?

The "special rights" are the rights to claim same-sex fake marriage is a real marriage.

With your logic and claims, anyone should be able to marry the one they love, and yet you deny the right of a father/daughter or mother/son relationship, or brother/sister, or a man and a corpse.

NO queer has been denied any rights by not being allowed to marry. NO ONE has a right to marry just anyone.

Marshall Art said...

Again, the true question does not revolve around to whom one wishes to commit one's self. The question is whether or not the state, the people, have the right to decide which union is deserving of its support and recognition. The homosexuals may claim they seek what everyone else is getting, but the reality is that they are demanding that they be treated as if they are the same, identical and as such, worthy of what everyone else is getting. This has never been proven in the least, but only asserted and thus, by assertion, deserving. Doesn't work that way, or isn't supposed to. But the left, and in this case, homosexuals and their enablers, aren't concerned with doing things the way they're supposed to, as evidenced by their reliance upon activist judges instead of democratic voting; upon altering and diluting meaning, rather than adhering to established definition; upon accusation, demonizing, condescension and whining, rather than calm and objective debate based on fact and truth.

"Nowhere in the founding documents or the law is it stated that marriage MUST be beneficial to the state."

Doesn't need to be. But there is no reason why the state should give a damn who lives with whom except that it does have an interest in one type of union that produces the next generation. And it is to the state's benefit that such unions be supported and encouraged to remain united for the care and upbringing of the children those unions produce. When homos can reproduce, then they will have a legitimate grievance for not being regarded the same way traditional marriages have been. Until then, it is not the mere uniting that compels state sanctioning, but what potential a union has as regards procreation.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/marriage-procreation-and-historical-amnesia/?smid=fb-share&_r=1

Jim said...

Sorry, but one is not a bigot for refusing to sanction perversion.

One is a bigot for referring to his fellow Americans as "queer", "homo", "perverted", and unworthy of marriage's benefits or of caring for children and spouses.

There have ALWAYS been requirements for marriage: Of age, opposite sex, not closely related.

Tell that to Solomon, Caligula, hell, tell it to Jerry Lee Lewis.

We are not talking about incest, polygamy, or bestiality here. Anyone interested in that can fight their own battles. We are talking about same-sex marriage.

The "special rights" are the rights to claim same-sex fake marriage is a real marriage.

The right to marry is not special for anyone.

"Fake marriage"? Tell that to the plaintiffs in the Prop 8 case. Tell it to their four children. Tell those children that they are some how less because they have two mothers.

anyone should be able to marry the one they love

No. You are forgetting the concept of compelling interest of the state. The state may or may not have a compelling interest in barring these other types of marriage. That can be debated elsewhere. But no compelling interest has been shown that would override the right for same sex couples to marry.

a man and a corpse.

I see you've moved beyond the man on dog thing. Does Rick Santorum know?

NO queer has been denied any rights by not being allowed to marry.

Oh no. You're not a bigot.

Ross DoubtThat is not an authority on SSM. He can have his opinion. If he's so concerned about marriage and procreation why doesn't he talk to Newt Gingrich or John McCain. Furthermore, the idea that procreation is the first purpose of matrimony to the exclusion of all other purposes, which is essentially what you are saying, is idiotic.

Jim said...

The question is whether or not the state, the people, have the right to decide which union is deserving of its support and recognition.

No it isn't. This was decided in Loving.

The homosexuals may claim they seek what everyone else is getting, but the reality is that they are demanding that they be treated as if they are the same, identical and as such, worthy of what everyone else is getting.

This is a nonsense statement. They want the legal benefits of marriage. "Worthy"? You're a bigot.

This has never been proven in the least, but only asserted and thus, by assertion, deserving.

Another nonsense statement. "Deserving"? You're a bigot.

But the left, and in this case, homosexuals and their enablers

You DO know that there are gays on the right and they want to get married, too.

aren't concerned with doing things the way they're supposed to

The way they're "supposed to"? What kind of idiocy is that?

evidenced by their reliance upon activist judges instead of democratic voting

You mean the activist judges who negated the will of the people by striking down the voting rights act?

It is never proper nor legal to deny rights by democratic vote. That's what the Bill of Rights is all about. Remember civics?

rather than adhering to established definition

The "definition" as you call it has changed in 13 states. More to come.

And it is to the state's benefit that such unions be supported and encouraged to remain united for the care and upbringing of the children those unions produce.

Tell that to Newt Gingrich. You may not be aware of this but the divorce rate nationwide is somewhere around 50%. I'm thinking the state doesn't have much to say about unions remaining united.

When homos can reproduce, then they will have a legitimate grievance for not being regarded the same way traditional marriages have been.

"Homos" (you're a bigot) have children. How they got them is none of your business, and the state really doesn't care either.

but what potential a union has as regards procreation.

Then outlaw any marriage that has no such potential.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Again, it is not bigotry to describe a person by their behavior. I call a thief a thief, and that is not bigoted. I call an adulterer an adulterer and that is not bigoted, I call a person who practices strange and perverse sexual behavior a queer or a pervert. That isn't bigoted. What is bigoted is the use of words like "homophobe" against people who don't want to be forced to sanction perversion. You like perversion - then you sanction it, but don't require me to sanction it.

Jim said...

My response to your DoubtThat.

Jim said...

it is not bigotry to describe a person by their behavior.

Speaking of perverted, you logic is really queer.

A thief is a thief. An adulterer is an adulterer. You are not describing these people by their behavior. You are not describing them at all. You are calling them by the name given to them.

A homosexual is a homosexual by your logic. Homosexuals may be celibate. Their behavior is none of your business, even if you actually did know what it is or simply dream about it.

"Queer" is a derogatory term for homosexuals used by bigots. Pervert is a derogatory term for lots of things and is used by ignorant bigots.

You brand all people of a certain group in a certain way without knowing them, what they believe, and how they treat their fellow Americans. This is the essence of bigotry, and your picture is next to the word "bigot" in the dictionary.

people who don't want to be forced to sanction perversion.

Nobody cares one damn bit whether you "sanction" gay marriage or not. Nobody cares. Nobody is asking you to. There is nothing they can receive from YOU by your "sanctioning" them so they don't give a shit about you or what you sanction. Just stay in your cave and live your own life while they live theirs.

You like perversion

Well I admit to a perverse pleasure in watching you run around in circles trying to catch your tail on this issue. But beyond that, I have no particular affinity for perversion. I'm for letting you be happy in your own perversity of being obsessed with how your fellow Americans pursue happiness.

then you sanction it, but don't require me to sanction it.

See above where I write that nobody cares one bit what you do or don't sanction. Really, Glenn, nobody but NOBODY cares what you "sanction". Most gays would simply shrug and say "Who is Glenn, what does sanction mean, and why do I care at all?"

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim,
Their behavior is homosexual - they are not a homosexual. THey are people, and behave sexually in a homosexual manner.

To say their behavior is queer or perverted is not bigoted, nor is it any more derogatory than saying an adulterer is an adulterer.

And yes they DO want my sanction; they want my approval. Which is what the whole homosexual agenda is about - societal approval of there perversion. And if someone wanted me to play for their fake wedding and I refused, they would seek legal action against me for refusing to give my personal approval.

And you lie every time you deny that.

Jim said...

Their behavior is homosexual - they are not a homosexual. THey are people, and behave sexually in a homosexual manner.

You're acting like those kids in the AT&T commercials, talking nonsense. Homosexuals call themselves homosexuals, doctors call them homosexuals, psychiatrists and psychologists call them homosexuals, the media call them homosexuals. They are homosexuals. Not because of their "behavior" but because of their sexual orientation. A homosexual is defined as someone who is sexually or romantically attracted to someone of the same sex.

Stop being a dope.

It IS true that they are people, but for bigots like you, they are a lesser order of people.

To say their behavior is queer or perverted is not bigoted

Of course it is! Feel free to believe their behavior is "strange and perverse" to you, but if you call them a "queer of a pervert" you are a bigot.

nor is it any more derogatory than saying an adulterer is an adulterer.

You really should be doing those commercials. The lock upon my garden is a snail, that's what it is.

they want my approval.

Never in a gazillion years. EVER.

they would seek legal action against me for refusing to give my personal approval.


No, they would sue you for refusal to perform a service to a protected member of the public. You don't have to approve of anything. If you REALLY don't approve, then wear a shirt or a sign saying so.

And you lie every time you deny that.

And you prove your profound ignorance every time you say THAT.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

It has only been in the past few decades that these perverts took the word “homosexual” to be an identity rather than descriptive of their sexual proclivities. And the whole world of lemmings followed suit. So now thy want to be identified by their sexual proclivities in order to claim minority status. Sorry, but you are NOT your sexual proclivities. I am not a heterosexual - I am a human, a man. My sexual desires are heterosexual, but my sexual desires do not define me.

Only perverts would want to be defined by their sexual desires.

Only a jackass like you would make the unsubstantiated claim that I see those who practice homosexual behavior as a lesser order of people. I see every human being as equal.

Keep bringing out the “bigot” card. you keep using that word, but I don’t think it means what you think it means. You use it as an attack on someone who speaks the truth without political correctness. Homosexual behavior is indeed queer - strange and not normal. It is indeed perverse, using the human body for that which it was not designed..

If one is at a wedding they are sanctioning said wedding. Those at weddings are called witnesses to the event. If I don’t believe a function is really a wedding, then I should not have to play for it and witness the event. You are so wrapped up in non-rights of queers that you are more than willing to violate the rights of the rest of us by forcing us to accept homosexuality as normal behavior.

You are an enabler of those who practice homosexuality.

Jim said...

It has only been in the past few decades that these perverts took the word “homosexual” to be an identity rather than descriptive of their sexual proclivities

So what? Catch up with the times. They themselves use "gay" or "lesbian". It is the medical community and the media among others who use the term "homosexual".

I am not a heterosexual

I KNEW it!

Only perverts would want to be defined by their sexual desires.

No, they want to be defined as Americans, with all the rights thereof.

I see every human being as equal.

And you have the nerve to call me a liar. Your argument is that they are unfit to be parents, they are unfit to have the legal benefits of marriage and should be denied the dignity of legal marriage.

I don’t think it means what you think it means.

I know exactly what it means. You have the right to believe in the Bible and what you think is God's Word, but if you use that belief to denigrate people as a group, to deny them dignity and rights, to claim that their pursuits of happiness within society are unworthy, then you are a bigot.

using the human body for that which it was not designed.

As I'm sure you are aware, there is nothing sexually that gays do that straight people don't do on a regular basis.

If one is at a wedding they are sanctioning said wedding. Those at weddings are called witnesses to the event

That is not true. The wedding party, official, and guests are witnesses. Everyone else is a provider of a service.

If I don’t believe a function is really a wedding, then I should not have to play for it and witness the event.

Would you play for a bar mitzvah? How about a divorce celebration? Are you Jewish? Catholic? Would you play for a Muslim wedding? Would you play for an interracial wedding? A dog wedding?

It's just a party. Usually the PAID staff get free food and drinks. I did when I played weddings. Go for it. Wear a "God hates fags" shirt if you want to be sure that they know you are not "sanctioning" their union.

willing to violate the rights of the rest of us by forcing us to accept homosexuality as normal behavior.

You do have the right not to accept homosexuality as normal behavior. But you don't have the right to refuse them service.

willing to violate the rights of the rest of us by forcing us to accept homosexuality as normal behavior.

As much as you are an enabler of bigotry.

Jim said...

Oops. Last comment was directed at "enabler" drivel.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

It was the queers who first stole the word “gay” (which means happy and few of them really are), and then took over the adverb/adjective “homosexual” to mean them as a person. The medical community and everyone else who didn’t want to be seen as not being politically correct just went along with it. That doesn’t change the FACT that the person is not a homosexual.

Queers do NOT want to be identified as Americans - they want to be called and identified as “homosexual.” They were never lacking in any rights.

They have no right to be “parents” because they bring harm to the child, even if it is only teaching a skewed ideology of human sexuality - the kids would grow up thinking it is normal and proper rather than the perversion that it is. They can “marry” all they want but no one has the right to demand a fake marriage be recognized by the state just so they can get money. The lie is that they want anything but money.

It doe not denigrate people to point out the truth that their sexual behavior is an abomination to God, and is perverse and dehumanizing. They denigrate themselves by practicing such behavior.

“Gays” do a lot of things normal people don’t do. And anyone who uses the anus for sex is abusing sexuality as well as risking grave damage and diseases. The orifice is for waste.

Everyone at a wedding is a witness. You are there and witnessing it.

I would play for a bar mitzvah because it is not sanction perversion blaspheming God in any way. I would NOT participate in a divorce celebration. I am not Jewish, I am a Christian. I am not Catholic, I am a Christian. I would play for any real wedding regardless of skin color or beliefs - I have played for unbelievers many times. But their weddings are real man/woman weddings approved by God. And there is no such thing as an “interracial” wedding, since there is only one human race. To even ask about a dog wedding demonstrates stupidity, since there is no such thing. But, then again, you think there is such a thing as a “gay” wedding.

I would not wear a shirt stating such lies.

I don’t refuse anyone service. If a “gay” wants me to play for a birthday party or a funeral or such, I have no problem. But I do have the human right to refuse to assist in honoring a perversion called “gay marriage.”

You still don’t know what the word “bigot” means. You are still as unteachable as always, and still the blasphemer of God as always, and still the fool as always. I’m unsubcribing to this string so as not to have to even look at your foolishness any more. So you can have the last word and I’ll never see it - you are a huge time waster.

Jim said...

“Gays” do a lot of things normal people don’t do

Really? Like what?

Clearly you have never experienced oral sex. Pity. It would surely do you a world of good.

Queers do NOT want to be identified as Americans

How queer of you to think such a thing!

no one has the right to demand a fake [sic] marriage be recognized by the state just so they can get money. The lie is that they want anything but money.

They do now. In thirteen states and the District of Columbia.

According to Marshall it's not money. It's recruiting new "homos" and creating new sex toys.

Everyone at a wedding is a witness. You are there and witnessing it.

I think you are confusing "eye=witness" with ceremonial "witness". They are not the same.

I am not Catholic, I am a Christian.

Catholics aren't Christians?

I have played for unbelievers many times. But their weddings are real man/woman weddings approved by God.

Why would He approve of a wedding of people who don't believe in Him?

And there is no such thing as an “interracial” wedding, since there is only one human race.

Apparently you are not familiar with the common sociological and anthropological lexicon.

since there is no such thing.

There was one in the news very recently.

You are still as unteachable as always

Yes, you cannot teach me that the world is flat. Sorry that is beyond your skills.

Mark said...

I will admit there are probably some homosexuals who want children because they seek to satisfy some natural parenting instinct, though I suspect that is more true of lesbians than Homosexual men. After all, women are intended by God to be mothers. Men aren't. Men do, however have an inborn fatherhood instinct, so they might also want to raise children to satisfy that longing.

But my original statement that they want to raise their own sex toys and train children to be homosexuals stands. Here's proof: http://theothermccain.com/2013/07/02/neutral-objective-incompetence-how-ginger-gorham-aided-pedophile-network/

Notice the article indicates this was not some random isolated incident, but an entire network of homosexuals who raise kids to be sex toys for their perverted desires.

Jim said...

Clearly you did not actually read the article.

First, there is no "proof" that this is not a relatively isolated incident. I'm pretty sure one could find incidents of flesh=eating people, too.

but an entire network of homosexuals who raise kids to be sex toys for their perverted desires.

This is not supported by the article. The article said it was 2 men who raised 1 child who eventually had sex with 8 men and videos were distributed.

So we are talking about 1 random incident which cannot prove that any more than a handful of people perpetrate the crimes you suggest. This out of hundreds of millions of gay people in the world.

Your "proof" is laughable.

Marshall Art said...

I can't wait until my own computer is back from the shop. Using this one is too big a pain in the ass to try and respond to so many typically goofy Jim comments. The funniest one is him suggesting it is our side where we're going in circles.

Mark said...

"Nobody is born gay" Here is proof presented by homosexual authors:

http://www.hollanddavis.com/?p=3647

Here's another interesting observation by the homosexual authors:

There are more ex-gays than gays.

Jim said...

Here is proof presented by homosexual authors:

There's nothing in the linked article that says any authors were gay.

One study is not proof.

Furthermore, the study is of adolescents who by their very nature are in flux as to their sexuality and sexual attraction.

Is there a gene for being attracted to red heads? The color yellow? Cats over dogs?

None of this is relevant. It doesn't matter in this context how people come to be gay. As Rachel Maddow said to Jim Demint:

"Gay people exist. There's nothing we can do in public policy that makes more of us exist, or less of us exist. And you guys have been arguing for a generation that public policy ought to essentially demean gay people as a way of expressing disapproval of the fact that we exist, but you don't make any less of us exist. You just are arguing in favor of more discrimination, and more discrimination doesn't make straight people's lives any better."

Mark said...

Jim, allow me to respond to a couple of your observations:

You said, "There's nothing in the linked article that says any authors were gay.", and,

"One study is not proof."

My bad. I read it wrong. What it said actually, was “The authors were pro-gay..."

But, the article clearly states (in the first paragraph) "Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way."

Then, you said, "So we are talking about 1 random incident which cannot prove that any more than a handful of people perpetrate the crimes you suggest. This out of hundreds of millions of gay people in the world.

Yet somehow, someone, found the one homosexual couple, (out of millions) who are the only perverts. Sorry, Jim, just because you refuse to believe common sense and logic, it doesn't mean it's not true. In fact, common sense tells us homosexual perverts are like cockroaches in the sense that if you see one, there are millions more behind the baseboards.

But since you demand citation of what should be obvious to you, here's another article...by an ex homosexual:

http://www.newswithviews.com/psychology/psychology2.htm

Jim said...

Actually the only conclusion the studies Came to was that being gay was not genetic. That doesn't eliminate alternative explanations for being born gay.

because you refuse to believe common sense and logic.

There is nothing logical or of common sense about your claim. It is an ugly, slanderous assertion born out of extreme bigotry and hate. Just because you can dig up one vile example doesn't mean it represents more than just that incidence. To claim it does iso extremely bigoted.

And then you dig up a personal story of a damaged and maladjusted person and think his story is common. The world is full of happy, well-adjusted gay people living joyous and successful lives. I've personally known and worked with dozens of gay people who would disabuse you of the notion that your article in any way relates to them.

You need to learn to deal with fact that there are good people in your community and probably your family who are gay and they aren't going to go away. The sooner you do, the sooner you will be happy and well-adjusted instead of obsessing over something you can't stop. Read the Maddow quote again.

Have a great 4th of July and have a gay time!

Marshall Art said...

The Maddow quote is crap and self-serving. I have linked before to a study that shows a higher percentage of homosexuality among kids raised by homosexuals. The idea that public policy, which ultimately influences societal attitudes, won't affect the percentage of homosexuals to heteros is naive at best, but most likely a willful lie. It does them no good to admit what is logical. This logic is supported by the overall situation regarding sexuality in our culture since the 50's and 60's and the "if it feels good, do it" mantras. Abortions, out-of-wedlock births, STDs, child mothers, sexual abuse, depression, suicides are all more common these days than in days past due to the abdication of society toward maintaining and/or promoting moral virtue. Maddow's words "sound" good, mostly to people like Jim, but they are false and self-serving.

She's also wrong about the discrimination crap, in the same way all activists and enablers are. There is nothing wrong with discriminating against behaviors. Naturally, the people who wish to engage in those behaviors will feel put out. Thieves, for example, likely feel very marginalized by society's discrimination against the behavior of theft.

The one shred of truth Jim has managed to admit is that it really doesn't matter how one comes to be homosexual. It doesn't matter how one comes to be a thief, or a liar, or a lazy bum, or a glutton or a host of other things. All that matters is the behavior and whether a given behavior is worthy of encouragement, tolerance or scorn. Homosexual behavior is never worthy of encouragement, it can be tolerated by societies to certain degrees, but it is always worthy of scorn for it's deviancy and immorality.

But homosexuals themselves are not victims of discrimination in the way they want enablers to believe. They are victims of their own twisted attitudes regarding sex. That their desires conflict with truth, facts, logic, righteousness and common sense is on them, not the rest of us.

Jim said...

The Maddow quote is crap and self-serving.

No, it is pure fact.

I have linked before to a study that shows a higher percentage of homosexuality among kids raised by homosexuals.

A study. Which I raised doubts about and which is refuted by a number of articles on the web.

I find it interesting that people like you will find one study that "proves" their position but find that thousands of peer-reviewed studies generatimg a 97% consensus on anthropogenic global warming constitute a hoax.

The idea that public policy, which ultimately influences societal attitudes, won't affect the percentage of homosexuals to heteros is naive at best, but most likely a willful lie.

There is no lie for that which you have no proof.

This logic is supported by the overall situation regarding sexuality in our culture since the 50's and 60's and the "if it feels good, do it" mantras.

I should have known! The f**kin', dirty hippies are the cause. Because before the sixties there was so much less of those things you list.

due to the abdication of society toward maintaining and/or promoting moral virtue.

Clearly the church has failed. Clearly YOU have failed.

There is nothing wrong with discriminating against behaviors.

If you see them, discriminate against them. How are you able to know what those behaviors are? How do you know if Glenn is getting a blow job? The Supreme Court has granted Glenn and everyone else the right to privacy in this matter so neither Glenn nor you need be ashamed.

So what behaviors exactly could you be discriminating against?

Thieves, for example, likely feel very marginalized by society's discrimination against the behavior of theft.

I love how you compare a homosexual to a thief as if homosexual behavior were a crime. It isn't, so you can breathe a sigh of relief. On the other hand, stealing is a crime against persons and society.

All that matters is the behavior and whether a given behavior is worthy of encouragement, tolerance or scorn.

What behavior? The behavior you can't know of unless you are in someone else's bedroom? The behavior the the Supreme Court said is nobody's business, not even the government's?

But homosexuals themselves are not victims of discrimination in the way they want enablers to believe

Of course they are. They can't get married in 37 states (yet). That is discrimination.

It's too bad you have to ruminate constantly that there are people in your community that are happy, successful, well-adjusted, with good and happy families but don't adhere to the moral code you say they must. I'm sure it must be frustrating as hell.

Marshall Art said...

I know you think you're making a point, scoring winning points, but I can deal patiently with your incredible deceitfulness. You like to believe that regurgitating and restating the same falsehoods is an argument. But that only confirms your moral corruption.

The Maddow quote is NOT pure fact. It is pure crap. If a behavior is no longer considered immoral, it is absolutely idiotic to suggest there won't be more of it. This is particularly true considering how common it is for the morally corrupt to speak of "gray areas". If this concept of gray areas and "nothing is black and white" is in any way legitimate, then it stands to reason that not everyone is firmly hetero or homo. There are enough who consider themselves bi-sexual to confirm this. Plus, there are enough who are ambiguous in their position regarding sexual immorality to actually take up the homo activist on the challenge of "don't knock it until you've tried it".

You would have us believe that because there are those who haven't yet considered a behavior then they won't ever consider it in the future. This is incredibly deceitful. People often look back on their lives wondering how they ever believed differently about an issue then they do now. History has shown that some will be swayed by societal pressures and changes in attitudes even after having sworn they would never consider doing so. (Think of lynch mobs, for example.)

Maddow, like all homo activists, make statements they want others to believe in order to further their desires. She has no study, no proofs, no nothing that confirm in the least what she said and you have not provided ANYTHING that contradicts what has been provided by the side with which I align myself.

"A study. Which I raised doubts about and which is refuted by a number of articles on the web."

You have not provided any links to any study that refutes this. What's more, how many studies would be needed by you to be convincing when you don't want to be convinced?

"I find it interesting that people like you will find one study that "proves" their position but find that thousands of peer-reviewed studies generatimg a 97% consensus on anthropogenic global warming constitute a hoax."

This is not the case. There is no study that contradicts the one to which I allude and the example of history supports the study, despite your willingness to ignore the truth.

There are not "thousands" of peer-reviewed studies supporting the 97% consensus claim, which, by the way, is the result of ignoring the research that does not agree or does not offer an opinion on the cause of the warming believed to be so notable. The point here is that, like the 97% consensus claim, some people are willing to buy into anything.

"I should have known!"

Yes. You should have. What's more, it's likely you have known all along but due to your own corrupted nature, you choose to pretend that things were no different in generations past. This requires incredible deceitfulness on your part, which you've established nicely already. Show me that abortion rates were the same pre-1950 as today. Show me that divorce rates were the same. Show me that child mothers existed to the same degree as today.

The church has indeed played a role in the degradation of cultural mores, as has every adult who has not stood strongly for morality and virtue. Sure. Clearly I have failed in doing my part. More clearly, you have failed to even try to maintain the principles of the religion in which you laughingly claim to believe.

Marshall Art said...

"If you see them, discriminate against them."

What an incredibly corrupt individual you are. I don't have to see bad behavior taking place to discriminate against it. Civil law already discriminates against a number of behaviors without the need to wait until it takes place.

"I love how you compare a homosexual to a thief as if homosexual behavior were a crime."

No you don't, liar. But I am comparing homosexual behavior to other sinful behaviors. That it is no longer considered criminal to engage in it is besides the point. And once again, you default to civil law and the opinion of the SCOTUS to determine your morality. But again, we find that SCOTUS was not unanimous in the Lawrence v Texas opinion, and the majority again rendered an opinion based on nothing Constitutional.

"Of course they are."

This is that basic lie upon which the agenda is founded. They are not discriminated against any more than are the incestuous and polygamous. If they are victims of discrimination, so are the incestuous and the polygamists. But the issue is not that they are victims of discrimination, because they are to one extent, but that they are to be regarded as a class akin to gender and race, which is complete bullshit that only a lefty like yourself would eat.

What is frustrating to me, and should be to anyone who claims to be a Christian, or even a good American, is that future generations will be negatively influenced by the selfishness of people like the homosexual community and you. My grandkids and great-grandkids will have to live in a world corrupted by people like you and it grieves me. That it doesn't matter to you doesn't surprise me in the least.

Jim said...

If a behavior is no longer considered immoral, it is absolutely idiotic to suggest there won't be more of it.

That falsely assumes that anybody would engage in homosexual behavior because they can.

there are enough who are ambiguous in their position regarding sexual immorality to actually take up the homo activist on the challenge of "don't knock it until you've tried it".

In your dreams, I suppose.

You would have us believe that because there are those who haven't yet considered a behavior then they won't ever consider it in the future.

No, I would not have you believe that. Are you considering homosexual behavior?

People often look back on their lives wondering how they ever believed differently about an issue then they do now. History has shown that some will be swayed by societal pressures and changes in attitudes even after having sworn they would never consider doing so. (Think of lynch mobs, for example.)

I think the wine is kicking in. This is really straying off the course of relevance.

Maddow, like all homo activists

Maddow is not a [homosexual] activist. She is a homosexual.

She has no study, no proofs, no nothing that confirm in the least what she said and you have not provided ANYTHING that contradicts what has been provided by the side with which I align myself.

She has no need to. What she said is plain and simple. Homosexuals exist, public policy will not change that, and attempts to change that are discriminatory.

What's more, how many studies would be needed by you to be convincing when you don't want to be convinced?

More than one.

There are not "thousands" of peer-reviewed studies supporting the 97% consensus claim, which, by the way, is the result of ignoring the research that does not agree or does not offer an opinion on the cause of the warming believed to be so notable.

In other words the thousands of climate scientists who have reviewed the work have failed in their efforts to peer review the work. But those few studies "refuting" anthropogenic global warming funded by the petrochemical industry are valid?

Jim said...

I don't have to see bad behavior taking place to discriminate against it.

Suit yourself. Just do it in the privacy of your own home, like they do. It's illegal to discriminate in the public arena.

No you don't, liar.

Yes I do, murderer.

But I am comparing homosexual behavior to other sinful behaviors.

Sinful, yes, but not illegal.

And once again, you default to civil law and the opinion of the SCOTUS to determine your morality.

Not now, not then. As I've said previously, my position in this thread has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with reality, something you should try to regain a relationship with. Homosexuals exist. To discriminate against them is against the law. To deny them marriage benefits is unconstitutional. SSM does not impact your marriage (unless you're considering crossing over).

the majority again rendered an opinion based on nothing Constitutional.

Except of course the part where they said that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

This is that basic lie upon which the agenda is founded.

The AGENDA! Is that Agenda 22? Or Agenda 69?

They are not discriminated against any more than are the incestuous and polygamous.

Incest is a crime in 49 states. Polygamy is a crime in all 50. Homosexuality is a crime in none. Zero. Criminals may be discriminated against for criminal behavior. Homosexual behavior is not criminal. Homosexuals are a protected class and may not be discriminated against.

but that they are to be regarded as a class akin to gender and race, which is complete bullshit that only a lefty like yourself would eat.

Me, the federal government, most states and municipalities, and most corporations.

My grandkids and great-grandkids will have to live in a world corrupted by people like you and it grieves me.

Oh me oh my. They will live in a world of war, and crime, and disease, dishonesty, commercial and governmental corruption, bigotry, and rising oceans, earthquakes and tornadoes. Maybe you should worry about that and tell them not worry about the homosexual bogey men and women. They'll thank you for it.

BTW, I'm a great American.

Marshall Art said...

"That falsely assumes that anybody would engage in homosexual behavior because they can."

Falsely? Are not homosexuals currently engaging in homosexual behavior simply because they can? Or do you mean that any given individual would not engage if they are not "naturally" attracted to members of the same sex? This, too, is not the case as lesbians do it all the time. What's more, the one homosexual I knew best did exactly that...he "tried" it as he sought to find where he fit in, feeling that he possibly fit in nowhere. THAT wasn't in my dreams. The fact of women choosing lesbian relationships isn't in my dreams. You simply want Maddow's statement to be factual rather than the self-serving crap it is. Too bad.

"No, I would not have you believe that. Are you considering homosexual behavior?"

Projecting, Jim? I'm not surprised.

"Maddow is not a [homosexual] activist. She is a homosexual."

Was your quote from some private conversation in which she took part, or was it a public statement? She was publicly acting in support of the agenda and that is activism.

"What she said is plain and simple."

What she said was simple-minded and something that only simpletons like yourself would find profound. No one has suggested that any policy would reduce homosexuality. And only activists and their enablers regard any stand for traditional morals and virtue as discriminatory as policies in the past that denied blacks access to the same toilets.

""What's more, how many studies would be needed by you to be convincing when you don't want to be convinced?"

More than one."


But you aren't interested in reading them, so what's the point? You aren't interested in anything that contradicts your support of immorality, so what's the point? What's more, it is not my job to do more than provide a sample of what is out there for you to find if truth means anything at all to you. And if you can't see how the effect of reduced moral standards over the last 50-60 years has influenced the behavior of the current generations, there's not a whole lot that could be provided for you to make you understand how tolerating more immorality would only compound the problem.

Marshall Art said...

"In other words the thousands of climate scientists who have reviewed the work have failed in their efforts to peer review the work. But those few studies "refuting" anthropogenic global warming funded by the petrochemical industry are valid?"

Well, if this ain't typical of a lefty, I don't know what is. "Thousands" of studies supporting a leftist favored position versus "a few" studies contradicting it? Bullshit. There's far less of the former and quite a bit more of the latter to which any lefty would ever admit since they lack the honesty. What's more, lefties give far too much weight to peer reviews, which are often political (within the discipline---that is, I'm not referring to Dems vs GOP). Yet, they won't even acknowledge peer reviewed research, such as that done by Mark Regnerus.

"Suit yourself. Just do it in the privacy of your own home, like they do."

If it was just a couple of queers having sex together in the privacy of their own homes, few would care. But they aren't content with that and demand to be treated as if their desires aren't the disorder it is. They want to be regarded as if they were like everyone else, when clearly they are not. They demand the law and the courts force this upon the rest of the culture, whether the rest of the culture wants it or not. And they are working to discriminate legally against anyone who refuses to regard their desires and behaviors on their terms.

"Yes I do, murderer."

How perfectly ironic. In order to rebut the charge that you're a liar, you lie by suggesting I'm a murderer. Thanks for the assist.

"Sinful, yes, but not illegal."

At least you recognize the sinfulness of homosexual behavior. Thanks for the assist.

"Not now, not then." Right now, as always. It is your way as you have shown repeatedly, despite your denials. "As I've said previously, my position in this thread has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with reality, something you should try to regain a relationship with." The reality is that you constantly default to what is legal when the discussion drifts towards what is moral. You don't do it to redirect the discussion towards what's legal, but to divert it from discussion of morality. No one is arguing what is legal, but what has been made legal or what should or shouldn't be legal. "Homosexuals exist." No kidding. "To discriminate against them is against the law." Depends on what is called discrimination. What we are seeing is that anything that even slightly hints at the immorality and mental disorder of homosexuality (both of which is true) is regarded as discriminatory. "To deny them marriage benefits is unconstitutional." No it is not. Claims to that effect have been very poorly defended and only asserted. If it is true, then the same goes for the incestuous and the polygamists. "SSM does not impact your marriage (unless you're considering crossing over)." In desperation you bring up this lame tripe which has never been put forth as an argument against the legal support for the immorality and disorder of homosexuality.

Marshall Art said...

"Except of course the part where they said that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment."

Bastardization of the intent of any amendment does not make an opinion Constitutional. It makes it a bastardization.

"The AGENDA! Is that Agenda 22? Or Agenda 69?"

And like a good little lying enabler, you suggest there is no agenda.

"Incest is a crime in 49 states. Polygamy is a crime in all 50. Homosexuality is a crime in none."

And that's discriminatory. Homosexuality used to be a crime until Lawrence said otherwise, because of the whine about discrimination. But the same arguments are applicable for the incestuous and polygamous, so they are currently victims of the same discrimination.

"Me, the federal government, most states and municipalities, and most corporations."

It doesn't matter how many fools there are, the fact remains that to suggest homos are akin to blacks and women is bullshit. They are not because they don't have to act on their compulsions. What's more, it is ludicrous to suggest that all those fools are agreeing for the same bullshit reasons, and not selfish reasons of their own, such as power (for politicians) or money (for corporations who don't want to deal with the financial waste of frivolous lawsuits by whiny homosexuals).

"Oh me oh my. They will live in a world of war, and crime, and disease, dishonesty, commercial and governmental corruption, bigotry, and rising oceans, earthquakes and tornadoes." ...and rampant immorality which levies costs of many kinds upon the culture. To pretend this is not something serious to consider shows just how incredibly stupid and corrupted you are. Such a person can in no way be considered a great American who ignores the ramifications of lower standards of morality and virtue. You can't separate that from all the other ills you list as they are all so often intertwined. Idiot lefties like yourself choose to pretend that we can separate them and then try to find other scapegoats on which to pin blame for those ramifications. You're among the worst of Americans and it sickens me to even consider you an American at all with such a pathetically shallow perspective.

Jim said...

Are not homosexuals currently engaging in homosexual behavior simply because they can?

Uh, no. You can. Do you?

Or do you mean that any given individual would not engage if they are not "naturally" attracted to members of the same sex?

Most of the time, yes. There are exceptions.

the one homosexual I knew best did exactly that...he "tried" it as he sought to find where he fit in, feeling that he possibly fit in nowhere.

Well I don't think your anecdotal evidence is the clincher.

Was your quote from some private conversation in which she took part, or was it a public statement?

No, it was her response to Jim Demint on a television news show panel. She was stating the fact that denying the children of gay parents the dignity of living within a legal marriage household was demeaning to the children and doing so was not going to make gays go away.

And only activists and their enablers regard any stand for traditional morals and virtue as discriminatory

Nobody has any problem with anyone "standing for traditional morals and virtue". Stand all you want. But your "agenda" is depriving gays of the rights and dignity of marriage, and that's not standing for virtue. That's enforcing virtue.

But you aren't interested in reading them, so what's the point?

I have read them. They are not convincing in that they are flawed or contradicted by other valid studies.

And if you can't see how the effect of reduced moral standards over the last 50-60 years has influenced the behavior of the current generations

Old fogies have been saying the same thing at least since ancient Greece.

Yet, they won't even acknowledge peer reviewed research, such as that done by Mark Regnerus.

Oh, they acknowledge it. They call it "bullshit"

They demand the law and the courts force this upon the rest of the culture, whether the rest of the culture wants it or not.

Like the NRA and not passing background checks for gun purchases?

And they are working to discriminate legally against anyone who refuses to regard their desires and behaviors on their terms.

Not so. They are working to require commercial operations that offer goods and services to the public to obey the EXISTING laws regarding discrimination.

Jim said...

In order to rebut the charge that you're a liar, you lie by suggesting I'm a murderer.

So, you can dish it out but you can't take it?

No one is arguing what is legal, but what has been made legal or what should or shouldn't be legal.

Well, yeah!

What we are seeing is that anything that even slightly hints at the immorality and mental disorder of homosexuality (both of which is true) is regarded as discriminatory.

Liar! Anything that denies rights to a protected class is regarded as discriminatory. No slightly. If you offer goods and services to the public, you must offer them without regard to sexual orientation.

Claims to that effect have been very poorly defended and only asserted.

Liar! SCOTUS found that DOMA violated the 5th Amendment, and Walker found that Prop 8 violated the 14th Amendment. Walker was upheld by the 9th Circuit and SCOTUS rejected the appeal.

If it is true, then the same goes for the incestuous and the polygamists

Liar! The state can show a compelling interest in denying them marriage thereby not denying them of due process.

Bastardization of the intent of any amendment does not make an opinion Constitutional.

It does if a majority of justices say it is.

But the same arguments are applicable for the incestuous and polygamous

No they aren't, but let them try.

the fact remains that to suggest [homosexuals] are akin to blacks and women is bullshit.

I suppose that saying that blacks and women being akin to Jews and Mormons is bullshit, too? Because like you can't help being black or female, but you can help being a Jew or a Mormon. Right?

for corporations who don't want to deal with the financial waste of frivolous lawsuits by whiny homosexuals

The company I worked for continues to celebrate diversity of all kinds in the workplace, including sexual orientation and gender identification, because it makes it a stronger company appealing to a broader segment of markets. It values people for who they are and what they can contribute, not what they do in privacy.

You're among the worst of Americans and it sickens me to even consider you an American at all with such a pathetically shallow perspective.

Take some stool softener and maybe you'll feel better.

Marshall Art said...

"Are not homosexuals currently engaging in homosexual behavior simply because they can?

Uh, no."


You're kidding, right? Homos aren't engaging in homosexual behavior because they can? Really? Who's preventing them? Who's preventing YOU?

"Well I don't think your anecdotal evidence is the clincher."

My anecdote supports the proposition that homosexual behavior can be and is a matter of choice, even if one has no inherent attraction with which so many claim to be born.

"She was stating the fact that denying the children of gay parents the dignity of living within a legal marriage household was demeaning to the children and doing so was not going to make gays go away."

She was stating a lie. It is the homosexuals who selfishly put children in that position. No one on this side of the issue demeans them in any way, but your side suggests they are demeaned. It is the same as in the case of bastard children, as if the righteous are blaming the kids for being bastards. It is typical of the morally corrupt to try to blame those defending righteousness for the consequences of their own immorality. Maddow does it here. You, as the pathetic and corrupted individual you are, go along with it. Not surprising.

"Nobody has any problem with anyone "standing for traditional morals and virtue"."

There's really no limit to your dishonesty, is there, Jim? I just saw yet another example of homosexuals and their enablers attacking Christians for their position regarding the sinfulness of homosexual behavior. There are all sorts of examples of intolerance toward those speaking the truth or trying to live according to it.

"But your "agenda" is depriving gays of the rights and dignity of marriage, and that's not standing for virtue. That's enforcing virtue."

And you keep on lying your ass off. Homos are not denied a damned thing other than the "agenda" of protecting the definition of marriage from being corrupted to satisfy 2% of the population regardless of the desires of everyone else. They can avail themselves of the rights and dignity of marriage by finding someone of the opposite sex to marry instead of demanding their perversion be considered no differently.

"They are not convincing in that they are flawed or contradicted by other valid studies."

There are no "valid studies" that support the homosexual side of the issue. That's the point. The studies to which I refer demonstrate the fact that such studies have all been far less than valid and examples of slanted and biased crap. The studies to which I refer you have NOT been shown to be flawed (even if one concedes the impossibility of perfection). You simply deny their validity and pretend they are unconvincing because you are a corrupt individual incapable of honesty.

Marshall Art said...

"Old fogies have been saying the same thing at least since ancient Greece."

When that makes what is true about the last 50-60 years untrue, it might then be a valid and mature statement. Again you deny the truth because there is no truth in you.

"Like the NRA and not passing background checks for gun purchases?"

The other way around would be a better analogy. You don't understand the truth about guns and crime anymore than you do homosexuality.

"They are working to require commercial operations that offer goods and services to the public to obey the EXISTING laws regarding discrimination."

This is another lie on behalf of the morally corrupt. To allow their fictional "rights" to be codified cannot help but infringe upon the actual Constitutionally protected rights of the rest of us. This was predicted, it was acknowledged by their own and it is playing out wherever their demands have been forced upon the populace.

"So, you can dish it out but you can't take it?"

Dish what out? False accusations? You ARE lying. You support and repeat lies. The entire homosexual agenda is based on lies. I dish out the truth and you think you are doing the same by calling me a murderer? That's called "lying". That supports the charge that you're a liar. Deal with it.

"Liar! Anything that denies rights to a protected class is regarded as discriminatory."

This is only true if the lie of their "orientation" being akin to race or gender is put into law. Lefties vote for idiots that support such things. But it doesn't make it discrimination. It makes it a legal lie. The ironic part here is that in just the previous comment you speak as if you understand we are discussing what should be legal and what is immoral. Now, you once again default to the law that is being debated as if it is a rule of morality. Your dishonesty ties you up in knots.

"If you offer goods and services to the public, you must offer them without regard to sexual orientation."

And due to the travesty of codifying the fictional "rights" of homosexuals into law, good people stand accused for acting according to their Constitutional rights. Fictional "rights" clashing with actual rights, all in order to acquiesce to the immoral.

BTW, I almost forgot that laughable link to ThinkProgress. Everything in that article is the true bullshit, Regnerus having acknowledged the limitations of his own study. And they were nothing if not completely objective by referring to all who support the Regnerus study as hate groups. Please. Don't waste my time with totally biased crap.

Marshall Art said...

"SCOTUS found that DOMA violated the 5th Amendment, and Walker found that Prop 8 violated the 14th Amendment. Walker was upheld by the 9th Circuit and SCOTUS rejected the appeal."

All poor interpretations that any honest person can easily understand. AND, you once again default to law as your moral basis, despite the fact that SCOTUS was not unanimous on any pro-homosexual issue ever. The 9th is notorious for their liberal bias, so you have nothing here. Neither of those amendments were violated. But common sense and truth were by those foolish justices.

"The state can show a compelling interest in denying them marriage thereby not denying them of due process."

No they can't. They can only parrot the same weak arguments against it put forth by those who only care about "marriage equity" for themselves, the intolerant discriminatory bastards.

"It does if a majority of justices say it is."

And yet again the morally bankrupt Jim defaults to law for his moral instruction. It doesn't make it Constitutional. It only makes it, unfortunately, legal.

"I suppose that saying that blacks and women being akin to Jews and Mormons is bullshit, too? Because like you can't help being black or female, but you can help being a Jew or a Mormon. Right?"

This would still be a crap argument even if the Constitution didn't protect the free exercise of religion. But I'm not surprised a deviant like yourself would equate the free exercise of religion with the free exercise of one's deviant behavior.

"...because it makes it a stronger company appealing to a broader segment of markets." 2-3% of the population constitutes a "broader segment of the market" to you? Keep in mind the windfall experienced by Chik-fil-A.

"It values people for who they are..." Sexual deviants? Yeah. One can't put to high a value on sexual depravity. What about pedophiles? Do they value them for who they are?

You are indeed a sad example of a human being.

Jim said...

You're kidding, right? Homos aren't engaging in homosexual behavior because they can? Really? Who's preventing them? Who's preventing YOU?

You need to either increase you dosage or lay off the weed, man. The above is nonsense.

You suggest that "homosexuals [are] currently engaging in homosexual behavior simply because they can". Anybody engages in ANY kind of sexual behavior not "because they can", but because it corresponds to their sexual orientation or attraction. Nobody is preventing anybody including you. The fact that you "can" engage in homosexual behavior I assume does not compel you to do so. Nor do you engage in heterosexual "behavior" simply because you can but because you are sexually and emotionally attracted to your spouse, who I assume is the opposite sex.

Nor did your gay acquaintance engage in a type of sex because he can; he did it apparently out of curiosity or confusion.

I just saw yet another example of homosexuals and their enablers attacking Christians for their position regarding the sinfulness of homosexual behavior

Dollars to donuts they were not attacking because of the Christians' position regarding sinfulness, but because they were trying to enforce their position on gays. Hope that's not over your head.

They can avail themselves of the rights and dignity of marriage by finding someone of the opposite sex to marry instead of demanding their perversion be considered no differently.

And you can marry someone you are completely not attracted to in order to preserve the sanctity of marriage instead of marrying someone because you lusted after an attractive woman. Lust is a deadly sin, isn't it? But you couldn't control your sinful desires.

Regnerus' study was shown to be flawed. Sorry if you didn't like my link.

Jim said...

infringe upon the actual Constitutionally protected rights of the rest of us.

What constitutional rights would these be? You have no Constitutional right to refuse a person goods or services because of their race, religion, national origin, or sexual orientation. You have the Constitutional right to turn up your nose at gays, but you don't have the right to deny them equal protection or due process (or service). They are endowed by THEIR creator, too.

Your dishonesty ties you up in knots.

No, you are tied in knots like an eel dangling on the end of a fishing line. I've said all during this thread that morality, yours mine, or anybody's doesn't give us the right to deny gay people theirs.

good people stand accused for acting according to their Constitutional rights.

Again, which Constitutional rights would those be?

you once again default to law as your moral basis<

Once again, no. My moral basis and the law are two separate things. Try to get that through your thick skull.

the fact that SCOTUS was not unanimous on any pro-homosexual issue ever.

SCOTUS is hardly ever unanimous on anything. That doesn't make their decisions any less authoritative, reasoned, or legally binding.

The 9th is notorious for their liberal bias

Good. So what?

Neither of those amendments were violated.

Yes. They were. The judge said so, the Court said so, most law professors say so, and I say so.

No they can't.

They can and they have. Regardless, the fact that some people may want to marry because we have allowed another group of people to marry is no reason whatsoever to deny that other group.

yet again the morally bankrupt Jim defaults to law for his moral instruction.

Read for comprehension. My religion provides my moral instruction. It does not provide my civil or criminal code.

This would still be a crap argument even if the Constitution didn't protect the free exercise of religion.

Proving you are simply lost in space. The Constitution guarantees freedom from the government in the exercise of religion. It is the law that forbids a business to discriminate on the basis of religion, not the Constitution. You can discriminate against Jews all you want in your church or in your home but not in your business.

2-3% of the population constitutes a "broader segment of the market" to you?

2-3% of Americans is millions. And gays have money.

What about pedophiles? Do they value them for who they are?

Pedophiles are criminals. Homosexuals are not. Try to stay with us here.

Marshall Art said...

"Nor did your gay acquaintance engage in a type of sex because he can; he did it apparently out of curiosity or confusion."

Everything leading up the above is idiotic. Curiosity, confusion, "orientation" or opportunity. People do what they do because they can. I would refer you also to inhabitants of penitentiaries. They do it because they can. Are they all homosexuals unable to control themselves? Nonsense. You want so badly to classify homosexuals the same way as race or gender.

"Dollars to donuts they were not attacking because of the Christians' position regarding sinfulness, but because they were trying to enforce their position on gays. Hope that's not over your head."

Over my head? Nothing you've posted could be, but the truth is certainly over yours. Such as the only faction doing any forcing is the activists and their enablers. Christians have been harassed and worse when attempting to simply offer another way at homosexual events. THAT is NOT attempting to force anything but their own right to be where they are at the time.

"And you can marry someone you are completely not attracted to..."

More desperate idiocy. Not everyone "falls in love" simply because they were first horny for the person they married. Some of us actually get to know the person and decide that we have found a good mate. I've known couples that married after first having no attraction to each other at all. The attraction developed later on once they did get to know each other. Others seek common interests after having failed to find a mate through the usual means. Why is all this routine stuff so foreign to you?

Homosexuals simply allow their lusts to dictate their choices, rather than their heads. It is true that many heteros do this as well (YOU, I'd wager), and it isn't the best way to go. But only homos insist that their "love" MUST be consummated regardless of the morality of doing so. Indeed, in spite of the IMmorality of doing so.

"Regnerus' study was shown to be flawed."

Only by homo activists and their enablers. Not by objective reviewers.

Marshall Art said...

"What constitutional rights would these be?"

Maybe if you'd indulge in even a cursory study of the Constitution, you wouldn't ask such a stupid question. How about...

Free association
Freedom of speech
Free exercise of one's religion

Or this from the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

While you and the homosexuals you enable whine about rights, you deny the rights of others to their own liberty and the pursuit of their own happiness. For many, this includes starting and running their own businesses and how they run them satisfies their rights to liberty and their pursuit of happiness. But you and the homos you enable don't give a rat's ass about the happiness of others as long as you can insist that the rest of the world enables yours.

No one's denying the equal protection or due process, so you can stop with that load of crap. But the courts had no right to impose upon private citizens that they must provide flowers for the weddings of homosexuals, force photographers to photograph their weddings, force bed and breakfast owners to rent them rooms in which to lie with each other as one would with a member of the opposite sex. Such is at the same time unConstitutional (despite what some black robed idiots might say) and proper moral discrimination.

"I've said all during this thread that morality, yours mine, or anybody's doesn't give us the right to deny gay people theirs."

Yet you're quite cool with their morality trumping ours. Real nice, asshole.

"My moral basis and the law are two separate things."

Yet you can't seem to keep them separate in discussions like these. People like Mark, Glenn and myself have always spoken in terms of the morality and how laws that allow immorality were poorly fashioned and enacted. We have always spoken in terms of the immorality of bad legislation and idiotic twisting of the Constitution to allow what is immoral to flourish and thrive and stain our culture.

But YOU can't seem to stay on track and continually respond to our arguments by citing laws we fully understand are in force. We are NOT arguing over what is legal and never have. We argue about what should be based on what both the Constitution and God's Law says.

"That doesn't make their decisions any less authoritative, reasoned, or legally binding."

So again you default to what we haven't argued against. Citing SCOTUS decisions is meaningless in discussions about the logic, morality or Constitutionality of those decisions. Try to pay attention.

Marshall Art said...

"The 9th is notorious for their liberal bias

Good. So what?"


So we get decisions based on personal biases and prejudices instead of solid Constitutional scholarship. That means something to serious Americans.

"Neither of those amendments were violated.

Yes. They were. The judge said so, the Court said so, most law professors say so, and I say so."


So again, Jim, who can't think for himself, or worse, relies on authorized assholes to determine his morality, is happy when activist judges rule his way. And I doubt you polled all law professors to even come close to "most" of them agreeing.

"Regardless, the fact that some people may want to marry because we have allowed another group of people to marry is no reason whatsoever to deny that other group."

Making you an intolerant, bigoted asshole who is denying the rights of fellow Americans. When those "some" want to marry and see that the arguments that led to the other group to marry can be legitimately used on their behalf, which it can, there is no Constitutional justification for denying them. The homos have given ANYBODY the right to redefine marriage to include them as well. You can't argue otherwise any better than you argue on behalf of the homosexuals.

"My religion provides my moral instruction."

Well that's clearly no true seeing as how you support homosexual marriage and abortion rights. But then, you don't understand the Constitution, so it would be foolish of me to assume you understand Scripture. Of course, I'm not assuming there really is "The Religion of Jim".

"The Constitution guarantees freedom from the government in the exercise of religion. It is the law that forbids a business to discriminate on the basis of religion, not the Constitution."

The Constitution prohibits the federal government from establishing a state religion and inhibiting the free expression of religion. No business is the federal gov't. And keep in mind, the issues have all resolved around what a business has been required to do that does not constitute an act of discrimination. The florist had sold flowers to the same asshole the lawsuit sought to "protect". She also hired homosexuals in her business. This is typical of the lawsuits brought against private businesses. In each case, the homos could have simply gone elsewhere, but they sought, instead, to force their morality upon the business owners who chose to live by their faith.

"2-3% of Americans is millions. And gays have money."

Oh, that's right. People like you dispense with morality when the price is right. Proving there are plenty of corrupt people who will provide flowers, take pictures, make wedding cakes and rent rooms for homosexuals never to have to bother with moral people of faith and character.

"Pedophiles are criminals. Homosexuals are not. Try to stay with us here."

Well you and the frog in your pocket forget that homos were considered criminals for engaging in their behaviors as well. But it's convenient that you and your companies do not value all humanity when it suits you. Typical.

Jim said...

People do what they do because they can.

I think you need to educate yourself on the logic and concept of "because". You seem to have not grasped that during your primary education.

Jim said...

People do what they do because they can.

No, people do what they do because they have a motive or are forced to do it. People are ABLE to do something because the CAN, but ability is not motive.

You CAN beat your wife, but you wouldn't do it simply BECAUSE you CAN. Would you?

Christians have been harassed and worse when attempting to simply offer another way at homosexual events.

Because their offer was unwanted, perhaps even harassing?

Why is all this routine stuff so foreign to you?

It isn't foreign. I watch chick flicks. Why couldn't the same "routine" stuff apply to two people of the same sex?

Homosexuals simply allow their lusts to dictate their choices, rather than their heads.

This is pure bigotry. Every bit of your "routine stuff" can apply to two people of the same sex.

But only homos insist that their "love" MUST be consummated regardless of the morality of doing so.

I take it then that you and your spouse were virgins when you married. "Only homos"? I suppose there has never been a heterosexual couple who insisted that their "love" MUST be consummated regardless of the morality of doing so.

Not by objective reviewers.

Of course. Because an objective reviewer MUST agree with Regnerus' methods and conclusion.

you wouldn't ask such a stupid question.

Maybe you wouldn't offer an ignorant answer. Operating a business that provides goods and services to the public necessarily requires adherence to rules and regulations that don't apply to private individuals. You don't need a health inspector in your kitchen at home but you do in your restaurant.

Free association? You can associate with whomever in your private home and private activities. You do not have total freedom of association when it comes to dealing with the public as a business. You must serve Jews. You must serve an Irishman. You must serve Native Americans. You must serve any class included in such laws.

Freedom of speech? Serving the public has nothing to do with freedom of speech. If you operate a business, you serve the public. You can call people "fags" but you can't refuse them service.

Free exercise of one's religion? Nothing in the business code restricts the free exercise of religion. Serving the public commercially is not exercising religion.

For many, this includes starting and running their own businesses and how they run them satisfies their rights to liberty and their pursuit of happiness.

Starting and running a business means adherence to commercial and legal rules and requirements. Health inspections, building inspections, OSHA, Equal Employment, business licenses, payroll taxes, and not discriminating against protected classes.

Be happy in your business but obey the rules. Just like everybody else.

More to come...

Jim said...

the homosexuals you enable

I've never enabled a homosexual in my life, though I did "witness" the wedding of a gay associate and his husband. The democratically elected representatives of our country, states, and municipalities and the courts do some "enabling" when they pass and uphold anti-discrimination laws.

No one's denying the equal protection or due process, so you can stop with that load of crap.

Yes. They are. The courts say they are, so they are.

But the courts had no right to impose upon private citizens that they must provide flowers for the weddings of homosexuals, force photographers to photograph their weddings, force bed and breakfast owners to rent them rooms

A business owner is not a "private citizen".

in which to lie with each other as one would with a member of the opposite sex.

How do you know what goes on in the bedroom of a bed and breakfast? Could be just doing needlepoint.

despite what some black robed idiots might say)

The Supreme Court of the United States?

Yet you're quite cool with their morality trumping ours.

How is "their morality" trumping yours? Are you forced to copulate with a person of the same sex against your will?

Yet you can't seem to keep them separate in discussions like these.

Projecting much? I've done nothing BUT keep them separate.

spoken in terms of the morality and how laws that allow immorality were poorly fashioned and enacted.

Says you.

stain our culture.

Your culture is stained? Must do something about that, Mommie Dearest.

Jim said...

We argue about what should be based on what both the Constitution and God's Law says.

The laws that exist ARE based on the Constitution. The Supreme Court has confirmed this. The laws should not have anything to do with what God's law says.

Citing SCOTUS decisions is meaningless in discussions about the logic, morality or Constitutionality of those decisions.

This is nonsense, of course. Citing SCOTUS decisions is precisely about the Constitutionality of those decisions.

So we get decisions based on personal biases and prejudices instead of solid Constitutional scholarship.

No shit? Have you ever read a Scalia opinion? A Thomas opinion? We have a form of government that includes a judicial system. That judicial system is made up of humans. Those humans grew up in various environments and cultures, were educated at different schools, have different experiences and religions (though a majority of SCOTUS is Catholic, I believe. No bias there). If judges and justices didn't bring their backgrounds, philosophies, and empathies to the bench, there would be no need for them. But we don't live in a nation where jusrisprudence is cut and dried and every judge interprets the Constitution and precedent the same way. That's why we have nine justices instead of one.

Jim, who can't think for himself

You just quoted me as saying "I say so."

relies on authorized assholes to determine his morality

Christ on a crutch, you are daft.

is happy when activist judges rule his way.

I'm sure you are just as happy when activist judges rule your way.

Making you an intolerant, bigoted asshole who is denying the rights of fellow Americans.

Not so. Do you know of anybody who is trying to legalize polygamy or incestual marriage.

This is known as the slippery slope fallacy. Why didn't we allow men to marry dogs when the Court ruled in Loving that mixed couples could not be denied marriage?

Of course, I'm not assuming there really is "The Religion of Jim".

Hmmm, that's an interesting thought, though.

they sought, instead, to force their morality upon the business owners who chose to live by their faith.

No they sought to have these businesses operate by the rules.

People like you dispense with morality when the price is right.

I have nothing to do with it. It was the company I worked for. That company also seeks out Chinese Americans, Mexican Americans, and other groups to do business with. Are you saying that companies should not do business with people because some think they do the dirty nasty behind closed doors?

never to have to bother with moral people of faith and character.

So you would not do business with a Democratic politician, I take it. Or a Wall Street banker. Or someone who performs oral sex with his opposite sex spouse.

homos were considered criminals for engaging in their behaviors as well.

Yes, but that's no longer the case.

your companies do not value all humanity when it suits you.

Like you, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Mark said...

Jim, you are being willfully ignorant. You know the truth but you deny it. You know what God says about homosexuality yet you continue to insist it is normal and natural. God made ALL people heterosexual. You know this. You are only being argumentative. I'm done with you. You are wrong and you know it. I suggest you get on your knees and ask God's forgiveness for mocking Him.

Jim said...

Jim, you are being willfully ignorant.

No. I am not. I have done a lot of research for this thread and even read some of the material your side has offered. The fact that your submissions are unconvincing is not an indication of ignorance or being "unteachable".

you continue to insist it is normal and natural.

I've said that it occurs in nature, but I challenge you to quote where I have said that it is normal or natural.

God made ALL people heterosexual. You know this.

I won't know this until you cite for me the scripture which says it.

You are only being argumentative.

No. I'm pointing out the fallacies of your argument.

"I'm done with you." equals "My arguments cannot win".

I suggest you get on your knees and ask God's forgiveness for mocking Him.

I ask God's forgiveness often but never for mocking Him. I've never done that.

Marshall Art said...

"The fact that your submissions are unconvincing is not an indication of ignorance or being "unteachable"."

Actually they are. I won't say that every line of ours has been the best, but every link that I've ever offered cannot be rejected simply because Jim is unconvinced. You don't want to be convinced. That's different.

"The laws that exist ARE based on the Constitution. The Supreme Court has confirmed this. The laws should not have anything to do with what God's law says."

This is evidence you don't want to be convinced. The laws that exist are based on interpretations of some of the members of the SCOTUS. Those opinions are contradicted by the other members who took another position, as well as by reasonable and rational citizens that are objective in their study of the Constitution.

"Citing SCOTUS decisions is precisely about the Constitutionality of those decisions."

No. Citing SCOTUS only presents what some members of the court believes the Constitution says. Big distinction.

"No shit? Have you ever read a Scalia opinion? A Thomas opinion?"

Yes. And I find that far more often than the leftists on the court, these two consistently show a far better understanding of what the authors of the Constitution intended without their own personal biases having any noticeable effect. I know this to be true because their opinions align with what my understanding of the Constitution says. And I guarantee you that if I felt the Constitution allowed for Kennedy's interpretations, it wouldn't matter that I know homosexual behavior is sinful. I'd still support the decision. But a decision that states opposition is only bigotry? Can't see that as a valid interpretation of anything but his own personal position.

"But we don't live in a nation where jusrisprudence is cut and dried and every judge interprets the Constitution and precedent the same way."

My objection does not reflect this notion at all. But we do know that some justices think of foreign decisions and believe that is the correct way to decide cases. It is not. Original intent is.

"
Jim, who can't think for himself

You just quoted me as saying "I say so."

relies on authorized assholes to determine his morality

Christ on a crutch, you are daft.

is happy when activist judges rule his way.

I'm sure you are just as happy when activist judges rule your way."


"I say so" does not confirm you don't think for yourself.

You consistently refer to what is law, what some SCOTUS decision was and other such sources are when we discuss moral points. You default to such when you can't argue against Biblical evidence of what constitutes morality. I again remind you that what is law is not in question.

When you can find where I've sided with an activist judge, please link to it. But I know you will simply say that any judge who decides in a way I think is correct is being an activist. The fact, however, is that I have never objected to a decision that is clearly based on what the Constitution says and the original intention of the authors of it. That cannot be activism except activism for truth.

Marshall Art said...

"Do you know of anybody who is trying to legalize polygamy or incestual marriage."

We've been through this and I've linked to articles that demonstrate this movement. Don't pretend otherwise.

"No they sought to have these businesses operate by the rules."

Rules they are using to force their morality upon people of faith. What's more, these rules are not Constitutional nor are they what was intended by the founders.

"I have nothing to do with it. It was the company I worked for."

But by your arguments you have indicated you are the very same type, who puts morality aside for profit.

"Are you saying that companies should not do business with people because some think they do the dirty nasty behind closed doors?"

I'm saying companies should have sole decision making authority to do business (or not) with whomever they choose. And yes, people should alter their business dealings based on the immorality of the people seeking to do business with them. This is how we shape the character of our society and improve the culture...by blatant acts of disapproval of bad behaviors.

"So you would not do business with a Democratic politician..."

I don't know with any certainty that all Dem politicians are immoral. Some might be truly moral but not very bright. But hey, if you want to bring up stupid examples to justify your corrupt position, go for it. It just validates my low opinion of you.

"homos were considered criminals for engaging in their behaviors as well.

Yes, but that's no longer the case.

your companies do not value all humanity when it suits you.

Like you, I have no idea what you are talking about."


The point here is that criminal behavior does not justify the concept of not valuing a person's life or business. I don't devalue homosexuals because of their behavior. I do acknowledge that they have devalued their own character by their unwillingness to deny their compulsions. But also, the companies to which you refer only seem to care about the buck and the pretense of valuing homosexuals isn't impressive or convincing.

"You CAN beat your wife, but you wouldn't do it simply BECAUSE you CAN."

Yes I can and quite easily. But I CAN also refuse to beat her, so I do refuse, because I CAN refuse. I don't need to anyway because she does nothing for which I feel a beating is justified.

Marshall Art said...

"Because their offer was unwanted, perhaps even harassing?"

No, because homosexuals are uncomfortable with opposing points of view due to the righteousness of it and what that means to them personally. Imagine if someone merely tried to preach in public that men shouldn't love and respect their wives. Since they preach the truth, who would care? Those who preach the truth at homosexual gatherings (on public land, mind you) might make the homosexuals uncomfortable, but that's only because they can't escape the truth in their own minds.

"Every bit of your "routine stuff" can apply to two people of the same sex."

Except that it begins with and is based on a disordered attraction. No chance is given to the possibility that one of the opposite sex is out there, but only same sex partners will do.

"I suppose there has never been a heterosexual couple who insisted that their "love" MUST be consummated regardless of the morality of doing so."

I actually answered this in the same paragraph as the one this comment tries to argue against. The difference is that there is a moral context for heterosexual behavior. There never is for homosexual behavior. So during those times when it isn't acceptable, not every hetero couple consummates their love. Much more rare these days, but it still happens.

"Because an objective reviewer MUST agree with Regnerus' methods and conclusion."

I guess he wouldn't have to, but if he wanted to be honest he would agree.

"Operating a business that provides goods and services to the public necessarily requires adherence to rules and regulations that don't apply to private individuals. You don't need a health inspector in your kitchen at home but you do in your restaurant."

Doing business with the public does not mean the business is not a private enterprise. This is why the Civil Rights Act was flawed as Rand Paul explains it is. The requirement of health inspectors has nothing to do with it. As a consumer, I would prefer a restaurant adhere to established codes of conduct regarding the preparation of food. But to whom that business serves the food is up to the owner. However, I wouldn't care if a restaurant I didn't patronize didn't deal with inspectors. They wouldn't be open long if they ran their business poorly.

As to what follows the above highlighted quote, you are wrong on all the other rights being denied business owners. I totally understand what they are expected to do, but those expectations are not Constitutional (and please don't tell me what SCOTUS said about it---that doesn't make it Constitutional, it only makes it the law). As real Christians know, for example, expressing one's religion is a lifestyle and that expression manifests in all aspects of their lives, including their business lives. That is, until those rights are trumped by the fictitious rights of morally corrupt individuals.

Marshall Art said...

"I've never enabled a homosexual in my life, though I did "witness" the wedding of a gay associate and his husband."

You're doing it in this discussion and all others like it as you argue in defense of their "rights" and against those who stand for traditional values and truth. You did it when you "witnessed" a homosexual wedding unless by witnessing it you mean you merely sat through it and saw it happen. I doubt that's all you did. Did you stand up and clap at the end of the ceremony, throwing rice or some equivalent gesture? That's enabling. Did you go to the reception and eat and drink and tap your wine glass with your fork? That's enabling. Did you give them a card or some kind of acknowledgement of your wish for their future happiness? That's enabling.

"Yes. They are. The courts say they are, so they are."

And yet again, you allow the courts to dictate your morality. Go ahead. Try to be clever and use the Lord's name in vain again. Deny all you want but you time and time again default to the law as an answer to what is right and wrong, what is constitutional or not, what is moral. You can't think for yourself.

"A business owner is not a "private citizen"."

Absolutely he is.

"How do you know what goes on in the bedroom of a bed and breakfast?"

Ah. Another asshole comment. If a guy comes into my establishment and says, "My husband and I need a room for the night" just their being in the same room is akin to lying with a male as one would with a female. I don't need to know the details.

"despite what some black robed idiots might say)

The Supreme Court of the United States?"


No. Only the ones who rule like idiots.

"How is "their morality" trumping yours? Are you forced to copulate with a person of the same sex against your will?"

This isn't an asshole question as much as just plain stupid and purposely ignoring previous explanations of how this is occurring in our society. When a photographer if forced to photograph a celebration of sinful behavior, it is one group's morality trumping that of another. Even their activists acknowledge that this must happen. Try to be honest.

I've covered pretty much every idiotic comment and question with a few exceptions for the most asshole examples. But I've got to wonder, what kind of "Christian" thinks it clever or cool to say something like, "Christ on a crutch..."?

Jim said...

but every link that I've ever offered cannot be rejected simply because Jim is unconvinced.

I didn't necessarily "reject" them. I simply did not find them convincing.

Those opinions are contradicted by the other members who took another position, as well as by reasonable and rational citizens that are objective in their study of the Constitution.

The most astute thing you've offered in a while. But this goes for both "sides". Kagan and Kennedy are AT LEAST as reasonable, objective, and objective as Scalia or Thomas.

Citing SCOTUS only presents what some members of the court believes the Constitution says.

Which is the foundation of US law.

And I find that far more often than the leftists on the court, these two consistently show a far better understanding of what the authors of the Constitution intended without their own personal biases having any noticeable effect.

Many others disagree.

I know this to be true because their opinions align with what my understanding of the Constitution says.

What law school did you get YOUR degree from?

But a decision that states opposition is only bigotry?

Proving again that you don't understand the concept that laws cannot be arbitrary and must have a compelling social reason to exist. It might be democratic, but a law that says all people must part their hair on the left cannot stand. No court would uphold it. You can't pass a law to ban citizens from legal marriage without a non-arbitrary compelling social interest. If bigotry is the basis of a law, then it is arbitrary and does not satisfy a compelling social interest.

But we do know that some justices think of foreign decisions and believe that is the correct way to decide cases.

Proving also that you simply are too ignorant to understand jurisprudence and the way law is studied and evaluated. Justices do not base US law on foreign law, but they do use foreign law or foreign judicial decisions as a means of comparison or for guidance (common law) when US jurisprudence is vague or ambiguous. A good example is the Second Amendment which is quite ambiguous, but extra-US history and law are used to attempt to understand the founders' intent.

You consistently refer to what is law,

I've believe I've made no secret that I'm concerned with the law and not morality. I don't care to argue morality because it's not relevant when it comes to deciding what consenting adult Americans can and can't do except the immorality of trying to legally force one's morality on others.

When you can find where I've sided with an activist judge,

Where do you stand on the recent decision regarding the Voting Rights Act?

Jim said...

We've been through this and I've linked to articles that demonstrate this movement.

I believe those articles were about decriminalization, not legalization.

these rules are not Constitutional nor are they what was intended by the founders.

The "founders" were not around when the 14th Amendment was passed, so original intent does not apply.

who puts morality aside for profit.

You have no basis for this assertion. I'm not in the profit business.

I'm saying companies should have sole decision making authority to do business (or not) with whomever they choose.

So the Civil Rights Act should not exist?

by blatant acts of disapproval of bad behaviors.

What behaviors? And how are they "blatant"? Are you talking about public sex acts?

I don't devalue homosexuals because of their behavior.

Spit take.

I don't need to anyway because she does nothing for which I feel a beating is justified.

But she might?

Is there anything that you do "simply" because you can?

Jim said...

Those who preach the truth at homosexual gatherings (on public land, mind you) might make the homosexuals uncomfortable

Nobody has any obligation to stand by passively and listen to the preaching.

based on a disordered attraction

Your opinion.

No chance is given to the possibility that one of the opposite sex is out there

Moot. They are not interested.

The difference is that there is a moral context for heterosexual behavior.

Not for unmarried couples or adulterers.

but if he wanted to be honest he would agree.

Not if he had evidence to the contrary.

This is why the Civil Rights Act was flawed as Rand Paul explains it is.

Rand Paul the opthalmologist? Pffft.

that doesn't make it Constitutional

Yes, it does.

Did you stand up and clap at the end of the ceremony, throwing rice or some equivalent gesture?

Damn right I did. But I didn't rent the venue, pay for flowers or the doves, take pictures, drive the limos, recite the liturgy, or pay for the food. So I didn't really enable anything.

Did you give them a card or some kind of acknowledgement of your wish for their future happiness? That's enabling.

Well I guess I did enable them to make expressos.

And yet again, you allow the courts to dictate your morality

Jiminy Christmas, you are daft. My church and faith dictate my morality. The courts dictate the law.

just their being in the same room is akin to lying with a male as one would with a female.

So when your scared little boy came into your bed during a thunderstorm, that akin to lying with a male as one would with a female?

Only the ones who rule like idiots.

Scalia, Thomas, Alito?

a celebration of sinful behavior,

I have yet to hear of a photographer being asked to photograph sinful behavior. Have you?

Marshall Art said...

Just a quick check of Jim's predictable goofiness, I came across this

"You can't pass a law to ban citizens from legal marriage without a non-arbitrary compelling social interest."

There was no law passed to ban any citizen from marrying. The laws stated what the word "marriage" means, which is what it always meant throughout human history: the union of one man and one woman.

Jim said...

There was no law passed to ban any citizen from marrying.

Semantics. The law effectively bars homosexuals from marrying the person they love. These laws exist for no socially compelling reason other than to satisfy someone's bigotry.

Marshall Art said...

It is not semantics. It is the reality. Indeed, all decisions courts have made in support of SSM is based on a definition that has never been commonly used by anyone over the course of human history. Laws like DOMA simply understand that the corrupt have forced a definition to be codified. It was never necessary before activists began playing semantic games with the word "marriage".

"These laws exist for no socially compelling reason other than to satisfy someone's bigotry."

Like all pro-homo activists and enablers, you are too morally corrupt to accept the truly socially compelling reasons for maintaining the true definition of marriage. But the irony of your quoted comment above is that you must distort the meaning of the word "bigotry" to even hope for that comment to be true.

Jim said...

based on a definition that has never been commonly used by anyone over the course of human history.

Up until 1903 the definition of transportation did not include powered flight.

activists began playing semantic games with the word "marriage".

It's not the word. It's the family and spousal rights associated with it.

accept the truly socially compelling reasons for maintaining the true definition of marriage

And those socially compelling reasons would be....?

you must distort the meaning of the word "bigotry" to even hope for that comment to be true

Just because your bigotry is based on the Bible does not mean it is any less bigoted.

Marshall Art said...

"I didn't necessarily "reject" them. I simply did not find them convincing."

Of course you didn't. You don't want to find them convincing. But the fact is that the data is overwhelmingly on the side of traditional marriage. This link talks about how the types of studies one which YOU might rely are crap compared to those I put forth. Kinda shows that your "convincing" is more a matter of what you WANT to be true, rather than an honest acknowledgement of what IS true. (There's also a nice list of links to other articles---don't pretend it's too much work to educate yourself, like you did the last time I offered this source.)

"Kagan and Kennedy are AT LEAST as reasonable, objective, and objective as Scalia or Thomas."

It's clear you don't understand the meanings of the words "reasonable" and "objective", particular in light of the charge that they are neither in their opinions.

"But a decision that states opposition is only bigotry?

Proving again that you don't understand...does not satisfy a compelling social interest."


Nothing in your response addressed the point. Kennedy claimed that only bigotry was the basis of opposition. This is blatantly and outrageously false. Indeed, it is a lie.

"Proving also that you simply are too ignorant to understand jurisprudence and the way law is studied and evaluated. Justices do not base US law on foreign law..."

Nonsense. SCOTUS decisions are supposed to be based on interpretations of the US Constitution only, not foreign laws or decisions. It is YOU who lacks understanding. What's more, Ginsburg has stated a belief that we could learn from what other nations have done. This is not the way it is supposed to be.

"I've believe I've made no secret that I'm concerned with the law and not morality."

Crystal clear. My point exactly. You're not concerned about morality.

"I don't care to argue morality because it's not relevant when it comes to deciding what consenting adult Americans can and can't do except the immorality of trying to legally force one's morality on others."

Which is what is required in order to placate the activists and their enablers. They are doing all the forcing.

"The "founders" were not around when the 14th Amendment was passed, so original intent does not apply."

Original intent always applies or we risk altering the entire American experiment. Amendments that contradict principles of the founding are not worth keeping. Think "prohibition".

Marshall Art said...

"I'm saying companies should have sole decision making authority to do business (or not) with whomever they choose.

So the Civil Rights Act should not exist?"


Paying attention is not a strong suit of yours, is it? There's a difference between the government regarding everyone equal under the law, and business owners being forced to operate as if they are government entities.

"What behaviors? And how are they "blatant"? Are you talking about public sex acts?"

Boy, are you stupid! I referred to blatant acts of disapproval, and you confuse it with the bad behavior of which one disapproves. Try to pay attention here: A photographer refuses to hire out for the purpose of recording a celebration of a lesbian union. THAT is an act of disapproval of the lesbian union, which is bad behavior. Another way to look at it is to think of the attitudes about smoking. Private businesses, without the force of law, could deny the right to smoke in their buildings. This would be a blatant act of disapproval for the bad behavior of smoking. It would lend its voice to all others who also disapprove. YOUR position, as a supporter of "protected class" status for homos and all it entails, prevents private individuals from adding their voice of disapproval for this bad behavior simply because they are a business. 1st Amendment infringement.

"I don't devalue homosexuals because of their behavior.

Spit take."


Typical. Lefties always need to believe that to oppose a behavior is to oppose the person engaged in the behavior. That is, that because we find a behavior objectionable, sinful, unhealthy or immoral, that by golly, we must hate the person and believe them unworthy of life. Project much?

"Is there anything that you do "simply" because you can?"

Yes. Of course. You seem to imply that one is beyond the strength of one's compulsions. But to say that one does anything because they can is only say that because one can, one does. Why one does is a separate issue. Again, try to pay attention.

"Nobody has any obligation to stand by passively and listen to the preaching."

True. They can walk away, proclaim themselves uninterested, ignore. Trying to forcibly remove someone walking about with a sign proclaiming God's saving power is not something anyone has the right to do.

"based on a disordered attraction

Your opinion."


Self-evident fact the activists and their enablers choose to ignore and/or falsely claim otherwise.

Marshall Art said...

"No chance is given to the possibility that one of the opposite sex is out there

Moot. They are not interested."


And so they give no chance to the possibility that one of the opposite sex is out there. They are not interested because they put the carnal above what matters most.

"The difference is that there is a moral context for heterosexual behavior.

Not for unmarried couples or adulterers."


Duh. Neither the unmarried having sexual relations nor the adulterers are behaving within a moral context. Yet a moral context does exist for them. Not so for those looking to engage in homosexual behavior.

"but if he wanted to be honest he would agree.

Not if he had evidence to the contrary."


Too bad there isn't any.

"This is why the Civil Rights Act was flawed as Rand Paul explains it is.

Rand Paul the opthalmologist? Pffft."


Yeah. Do you suppose that the Constitution is so difficult to understand for an opthamologist?

"So I didn't really enable anything."

Of course you did. You help provide a sense that their union is appropriate and moral. You aid in the pretense of it all by your encouragement and good wishes for their future. People like you have helped to make it possible for these sad individuals to act out their disordered and immoral desires by supporting their choices as no different than normal unions. You're an enabler.

"My church and faith dictate my morality."

If this were true, you wouldn't be enabling homosexuals at their "weddings" and supporting their cause by your lame attempts to argue against traditional and CHRISTIAN values and teachings about human sexuality. But instead, you disregard the teachings of your faith where these and other issues are concerned, and worse, constantly default to what has been made legal.

"So when your scared little boy came into your bed during a thunderstorm, that akin to lying with a male as one would with a female?"

This is how corrupt you are to suggest such a thing. The above would be akin to lying with one's frightened child like a protecting and comforting parent, you twisted bastard.

"I have yet to hear of a photographer being asked to photograph sinful behavior. Have you?"

Liar. But we're not talking about pornographers here. We're talking the celebration of sinful behavior that is a homosexual "wedding". Try paying attention.

Marshall Art said...

"Up until 1903 the definition of transportation did not include powered flight."

It still doesn't. The means of conveyance has nothing to do with the definition of transportation. But the definition of "marriage" has always been the union of one man and one woman.

"It's not the word. It's the family and spousal rights associated with it."

This is stupid. Family and spousal rights have always revolved around the traditional definition of "marriage". The activists need to alter that definition to include their altered definitions of "family" and "spouse".

"And those socially compelling reasons would be....?"

I'll list them again so you can inanely ignore and dismiss them again some other time.

"Just because your bigotry is based on the Bible does not mean it is any less bigoted."

And once again, there is no bigotry when the intolerance is toward a behavior, especially one so blatantly immoral and twisted. More to the point, this position, based as it is on Scripture (as well as on logic and common sense from a biological standpoint), is one of concern for those who risk their salvation over their sexual preference. It is no different than how a Christian would feel about whoring and prostitution, for example. But the corrupt, like yourself, choose to see the righteous leaning in the worst possible light rather than to concede the truth they stand behind.

Jim said...

Maybe you can get 50 more posts out of this

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 311 of 311   Newer› Newest»