Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I can tell you what doesn't need to be governed.I'm not talking about free speech bro.The only difference I see is you take up social issues that I simply don't care about.
That's perfectly normal. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, or care for that matter.
I don't believe they have a place in political discourse & that the acceptance or rejection of the issues by the public at large is more than enough.
Freedom of speech, Gramps. Like it or not.
I am stating that these issues don't need to be governed by politicians. Hence they have no place in politics
These issues are being debated by citizens... in a forum designed for just that. So clearly these discussions are relevant to politicians governing, beyond the advocacies presented bearing upon the preference for a given politician... .
What in your mind needs to be governed?
Who Sally wants to bump uglies with or marry.
Congress should create a law that says ANY business can REFUSE to serve ANY customer for ANY reason.
Making homosexuality illegal is NOT the proper recourse to protect a dumb business person.
The Puritans executed for sodomy and adultery.
The Founders executed for sodomy but not adultery.
Modern Christians don't execute for either. Or call for the executions for either. Nor do you.
The Puritans specifically cited the Bible and its commandments for the reason they executed both adulterers and those engaged in sodomy. Then...
I can tell you what doesn't need to be governed.I'm not talking about free speech bro.The only difference I see is you take up social issues that I simply don't care about.
That's perfectly normal. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, or care for that matter.
I don't believe they have a place in political discourse & that the acceptance or rejection of the issues by the public at large is more than enough.
Freedom of speech, Gramps. Like it or not.
I am stating that these issues don't need to be governed by politicians. Hence they have no place in politics
These issues are being debated by citizens... in a forum designed for just that. So clearly these discussions are relevant to politicians governing, beyond the advocacies presented bearing upon the preference for a given politician... .
What in your mind needs to be governed?
Who Sally wants to bump ugliest with or marry.
Congress should create a law that says ANY business can REFUSE to serve ANY customer for ANY reason.
Making homosexuality illegal is NOT the proper recourse to protect a dumb business person.
Congress could start by revoking the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
The Republicans have the majority- and could pass that legislation anytime they wanted to.
I can tell you what doesn't need to be governed.I'm not talking about free speech bro.The only difference I see is you take up social issues that I simply don't care about.
That's perfectly normal. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, or care for that matter.
I don't believe they have a place in political discourse & that the acceptance or rejection of the issues by the public at large is more than enough.
Freedom of speech, Gramps. Like it or not.
I am stating that these issues don't need to be governed by politicians. Hence they have no place in politics
These issues are being debated by citizens... in a forum designed for just that. So clearly these discussions are relevant to politicians governing, beyond the advocacies presented bearing upon the preference for a given politician... .
What in your mind needs to be governed?
Who Sally wants to bump uglies with or marry.
Congress should create a law that says ANY business can REFUSE to serve ANY customer for ANY reason.
Making homosexuality illegal is NOT the proper recourse to protect a dumb business person.
But that wasn't the question.
Homosexuality is a perversion of human reasoning... as is theft, murder, libel... .
I can tell you what doesn't need to be governed.I'm not talking about free speech bro.That's perfectly normal. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, or care for that matter.
Freedom of speech, Gramps. Like it or not.
I am stating that these issues don't need to be governed by politicians. Hence they have no place in politics
These issues are being debated by citizens... in a forum designed for just that. So clearly these discussions are relevant to politicians governing, beyond the advocacies presented bearing upon the preference for a given politician... .
What in your mind needs to be governed?
Who Sally wants to bump ugliest with or marry.
Congress should create a law that says ANY business can REFUSE to serve ANY customer for ANY reason.
Making homosexuality illegal is NOT the proper recourse to protect a dumb business person.
Congress could start by revoking the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
The Republicans have the majority- and could pass that legislation anytime they wanted to.
Can't. It is a certainty that Obama will veto it, naturally.
Oh, I could never convince Keyes of anything. His argument is based on his own infallibility on any topic he discusses. You can't penetrate that kind of mentality using reason, logic, or evidence.
Did you really just equate queers to murderers?I can tell you what doesn't need to be governed.I'm not talking about free speech bro.The only difference I see is you take up social issues that I simply don't care about.
That's perfectly normal. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, or care for that matter.
I don't believe they have a place in political discourse & that the acceptance or rejection of the issues by the public at large is more than enough.
Freedom of speech, Gramps. Like it or not.
I am stating that these issues don't need to be governed by politicians. Hence they have no place in politics
These issues are being debated by citizens... in a forum designed for just that. So clearly these discussions are relevant to politicians governing, beyond the advocacies presented bearing upon the preference for a given politician... .
What in your mind needs to be governed?
Who Sally wants to bump uglies with or marry.
Congress should create a law that says ANY business can REFUSE to serve ANY customer for ANY reason.
Making homosexuality illegal is NOT the proper recourse to protect a dumb business person.
But that wasn't the question.
Homosexuality is a perversion of human reasoning... as is theft, murder, libel... .
Theft perversions of theft, libel and murder are illegal.
What is distinct about the perversion of homosexuality which would excuse it from legislative forbiddance?
I can tell you what doesn't need to be governed.I'm not talking about free speech bro.That's perfectly normal. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, or care for that matter.
Freedom of speech, Gramps. Like it or not.
I am stating that these issues don't need to be governed by politicians. Hence they have no place in politics
These issues are being debated by citizens... in a forum designed for just that. So clearly these discussions are relevant to politicians governing, beyond the advocacies presented bearing upon the preference for a given politician... .
What in your mind needs to be governed?
Who Sally wants to bump ugliest with or marry.
Congress should create a law that says ANY business can REFUSE to serve ANY customer for ANY reason.
Making homosexuality illegal is NOT the proper recourse to protect a dumb business person.
Congress could start by revoking the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
The Republicans have the majority- and could pass that legislation anytime they wanted to.
Can't. It is a certainty that Obama will veto it, naturally.
Nope. Homosexuality takes nothing from anyone. It harms no one.
Your inability to refute the point is becoming tediously familiar.
The issue is your inability to recognize when your point has been refuted.
Let me show you, in specific terms where that happened:
We set God's law into our laws? That explains Roe v Wade then, I guess.
That was your point.
What Roe demonstrates, is the destructive nature of subjectivity upon the viability of Justice, which can only be secured through objectivism... as Roe provides for the illusion of a right without responsibility... standing in diametric opposition to nature law... thus explaining the catastrophe upon the culture that has come to the US Culture as a direct result of it.
As noted, that was me, refuting your point. We know this because that is where you fled from the point...
That's a gibberish non-answer. Roe v Wade is the law of the land, thus, according to you, it must have come from God.
That was you conceding to me that you had no means to sustain your failed attempt at a point.
See how that works?
The Puritans executed for sodomy and adultery.
The Founders executed for sodomy but not adultery.
Modern Christians don't execute for either. Or call for the executions for either. Nor do you.
The Puritans specifically cited the Bible and its commandments for the reason they executed both adulterers and those engaged in sodomy. Then...
Nope. Homosexuality takes nothing from anyone. It harms no one.
No? Well that would come as a surprise to the 1.5 million people that contracted the HIV and died of AIDs in 2013, as a direct result of their sexually abnormal behavior.
Your inability to refute the point is becoming tediously familiar.
The issue is your inability to recognize when your point has been refuted.
Let me show you, in specific terms where that happened:
We set God's law into our laws? That explains Roe v Wade then, I guess.
That was your point.
What Roe demonstrates, is the destructive nature of subjectivity upon the viability of Justice, which can only be secured through objectivism... as Roe provides for the illusion of a right without responsibility... standing in diametric opposition to nature law... thus explaining the catastrophe upon the culture that has come to the US Culture as a direct result of it.
As noted, that was me, refuting your point. We know this because that is where you fled from the point...
That's a gibberish non-answer. Roe v Wade is the law of the land, thus, according to you, it must have come from God.
That was you conceding to me that you had no means to sustain your failed attempt at a point.
See how that works?
No, that's you posting 2 pounds of gibberish in a one pound bag and THINKING you've refuted my point.
If Roe v Wade is the law, where did it come from?
Haven't you seen the whole thread about the passing of the Keystone pipe legislation even though Obama is going to veto it?
Republicans have no will to overturn the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
I doubt they will even pander to their libertarian and/or racist constituents by pretending that they will.
The Puritans executed for sodomy and adultery.
The Founders executed for sodomy but not adultery.
Modern Christians don't execute for either. Or call for the executions for either. Nor do you.
Hmm... Now let's see... The Puritans executed for sodomy and adultery, and this on the basis that such was a manifestation of evil and destructive to the community; having recognized this as self-evident and confirmed by the scriptures.
Then... because of the dire nature of that reasoning, some came to subjectively 'feel' that those laws were too harsh. And the laws were (subjectively) liberalized and the executions of both sodomites and adulterers were eventually, set aside.
Now... God's law, being objective, determined that homosexuality and adultery were destructive to mankind, thus destructive to civilization. Over time, SUBJECTIVE PEOPLE liberalized the enforcement of God's law.
Now... Objectivity was set aside for the easier subjectivity, on the SUBJECTIVE premise that the objectivity was too harsh and the threats claimed by God's objective law were overstated, that sodomy and adultery were not as destructive as God claimed; the subjective Liberals said that by liberalizing the culture's enforcement, the culture would not see an increase in either, if the standards were subjectively lowered.
So... the question is, which was true? God's Objective Law or The Liberal Subjective reduction in the enforcement of those laws?
Which is fairly easy to determine...
Let's consult the reader, shall we?
Reader:
In your own observation of the passing cultural scene, do you find that the liberalization of the sodomy laws, have increased or decreased the effect that sodomites have on your culture?
Have the removal of laws against Adultery; which existed and passed from existence long before you or I were born... did removing those laws cause the culture to see in increase in adultery or a decrease... ?
Another way to look at it, is have families been made stronger or weaker by the subjective removal of the cultural discipline against sodomy and adultery?
Which at the end of the day, simply brings us to which, objective reasoning or subjective reasoning... which has served the culture better?
Now... you should prepare yourself for the Relativists onslaught, wherein they rain hate upon those with opinions different from their own.
Where they claim a right to undermine the viability of your culture, by demanding that their deviancy is perfectly normal and quite literally... that YOU are a deviant for not accepting deviancy as normal. THEY further claim a right to their life, as they live it; with no responsibility on their part to not exercise their rights to the detriment of your means to exercise your own.
What's more they claim the right to force perversion upon you and your children; to undermine the legitimacy of your marriage, by forcing the lowering of the marriage standards, to accept illegitimacy... to promote the acceptance of infidelity and to force you to accept the endless other examples of sexual abnormality, as perfectly NORMAL!
In truth, God has not changed, thus as I have stated time and again, God... Nature is objective... and the concerted studied and adherence to nature; OKA: Religion, is likewise OBJECTIVE.
This while the nature of the human being is SUBJECTIVE.
The former viable, the objectivity being the essential element which sustains that human viability and the latter being destructive... .
Thus the necessity for the human being to focus upon the objectivity in nature, through the study of such; religion... which by virtue of the nature of the inherent evil common to humanity, can only slow the decay... what the above cited contributor is doing is what that evil does... conflating truth with falsity, demanding that the objectivity of natural law, equates with the human subjectivity... which is a deceit, fraudulently advanced, as a means to influence the ignorant.
To know the truth, you need simply ask yourself, if the liberalization of sodomy and adultery laws have improved the culture or made things worse.
Now here is the best part... You know that such have not made the culture worse, but made the culture MUCH WORSE.
Where you recognize the obvious, and perhaps... despite your own experience in adultery and/or sodomy such has been destructive to you and your own life... and by extension, made the plight of the culture: WORSE, you're practicing objective reasoning.
Where you see the obvious and rationalize that adultery has not been destructive and that removal of sodomy laws has not caused the sodomites to further infect the culture with their perverse reasoning... you're practicing subjective reasoning, OKA: Delusion... a presentation of psychosis, AKA: a mental disorder... .
See how that works?
The Puritans specifically cited the Bible and its commandments for the reason they executed both adulterers and those engaged in sodomy. Then...
Subjectivity, in defense of the assertion that your reasoning is subjective?
LOL! Not the way I'd have gone... but 'to each their own.'
And don't think that I don't appreciate it! (You've done the very best you can... .)
.
.
.
Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
Your inability to refute the point is becoming tediously familiar.
The issue is your inability to recognize when your point has been refuted.
Let me show you, in specific terms where that happened:
We set God's law into our laws? That explains Roe v Wade then, I guess.
That was your point.
What Roe demonstrates, is the destructive nature of subjectivity upon the viability of Justice, which can only be secured through objectivism... as Roe provides for the illusion of a right without responsibility... standing in diametric opposition to nature law... thus explaining the catastrophe upon the culture that has come to the US Culture as a direct result of it.
As noted, that was me, refuting your point. We know this because that is where you fled from the point...
That's a gibberish non-answer. Roe v Wade is the law of the land, thus, according to you, it must have come from God.
That was you conceding to me that you had no means to sustain your failed attempt at a point.
See how that works?
No, that's you posting 2 pounds of gibberish in a one pound bag and THINKING you've refuted my point.
If Roe v Wade is the law, where did it come from?
ROFLMNAO!
Your re-concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
More people died of syphilis before a treatment/cure was found and syphilis was definitely not a 'gay' disease, if there were even such a thing.
Haven't you seen the whole thread about the passing of the Keystone pipe legislation even though Obama is going to veto it?
Uh yeah, they are acting on the will of their constituencies... for once.
Republicans have no will to overturn the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Why should they?
I doubt they will even pander to their libertarian and/or racist constituents by pretending that they will.
Well, you have nothing to worry about then, do you?
Promiscuity is relatively unhealthy.
Marriage is about having children and raising them. Homosexuality is only about sex.Haven't you seen the whole thread about the passing of the Keystone pipe legislation even though Obama is going to veto it?
Uh yeah, they are acting on the will of their constituencies... for once.
Republicans have no will to overturn the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Why should they?
I doubt they will even pander to their libertarian and/or racist constituents by pretending that they will.
Well, you have nothing to worry about then, do you?
I am not worried about much of anything.
There are those who seem to have suddenly discovered that there exists Public Accomodation laws in the United States- because in some states they apply to homosexuals too- and are suddenly outraged by PA laws- again because in some states they apply to homosexuals.
If anyone objects to those laws- then they should be trying to get them repealed- but instead they just complain when the law is enforced- when homosexuals are involved.
Meanwhile- when it comes to gay marriage in America- I am very pleased by the progress that has been made.
In a few years, this battle will seem as archaic and backward as the battle against mixed race marriage.
