An Alabama Pastor's Epic Speech against Gay Marriage (Please finish drinking your beverage first)

[Where_r_my_Keys]

In response to the typically feckless spewage from the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, Silhouette made the following point... It really strikes at the specific danger this idiocy represents and wanted to repost it for the consideration of the Reader:

Silhouette said: "I'm glad you've finally conceded that marriage is a man made construct and as such is subject not as a "right for all to enjoy" but as a privilege that only a few who qualify may enjoy...as set by majority regulation at the state level.. "We" in the United States means "the Majority of the governed" of the separate states.

..and why is it a man made construct? Because long, long LOOONNG ago people realized that children need a best and stable environment in which to thrive so they could survive to adulthood as sane, productive members of society.

With that in mind, the Prince's Trust survey spells out just how damaging to 50% of kids caught up in the gay lifestyle such experimental "marriages" can be: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum"

 

[emilynghiem]

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 'feel' that those laws were too harsh. And the law was 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 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 they were and that by Liberalizing the culture's enforcement, the culture would not see an increase in either.

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 them. Where they claim a right to undermine the viability of your culture, by demanding that their deviancy is perfectly normal and that YOU are a deviant for not accepting them as normal... that THEY have the right to their life, as they live it, to force perversion on you and your children, to undermine the legitimacy of your marriage, by forcing marriage to accept illegitimacy... to promote the acceptance of infidelity and the endless other examples of sexual abnormality as perfectly NORMAL!

In truth, God has not changed, thus as I have stated time and again, 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 the essential element which sustains that viability, with 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.

So lets review your failures:

1) You can't tell us if killing gays and adulterers is 'God's law'. If its 'God's objective law', why run from such a simple question?

2) You can't tell us who said that the Puritans considered God's commandment to execute gays and adulterers to be 'subjective'. So far....there's you. Citing yourself.

3) You can't tell us whose 'God's objective law' you are referring to. Yours? The Puritan's? The Founder's? The Buddhist's? The Muslim's? The Mayan's? The Zoroastrian's? The Hindu's? The Aztec's? The Shintoist's?

As they clearly don't agree.

4) You can't tell us if predation on the sick and old are 'natural law' and thus 'god's law'.....despite it occurring in nature.

So much for your 'objectivity', my little relativist.

Hi Skylar by the old ways that people enforced laws,
the ways of Retributive Justice were judging rejecting and punishing.
This leads to death and destruction and does not solve the problems.

So the point of the NT is to bring in Restorative Justice
that heals the wounds of the past, corrects the causes,
and restores good faith relations, including restitution for wrongs, so there is peace.

What you talk about are the old ways that man is supposed to graduate from
and move forward to Restorative Justice which is the meaning of Christ Jesus.

This is based on forgiveness and correction which must be by free choice.
so that's why we teach from the past, to compare the difference between
retributive and restorative forms of justice, and hopefully choose the path that leads to renewed life, health and peace.

 

[emilynghiem]

And by 'imposing' you mean asking to be treated equally under the law.

No, imposing as in forcing your beliefs on someone else, and that someone else not having a say in the matter. It does work both ways, does it not?

No one is forcing any belief on anyone.

Business's are being told that they can't violate the law.

No, they are being told to violate their religious beliefs. See the difference?

No- business's are being told that they can't violate the law- doesn't matter what the business's owner's religious beliefs are.

If the business owner is a kosher butcher, and he believes that his faith says that he must slaughter his animals in his shop- but local ordinances forbid the killing of livestock in that zone- he can't claim that he can violate the law because of his religion.

A Muslim can't refuse to serve a Jew by claiming that its against his religious beliefs. A Catholic can't refuse to serve a Mormon by claiming it would violate his religious beliefs.

The law is applied equally to all business'

So if the law is that say... well, let's say that the law says that owning a human being is legal and helping those people who are the property of other people, to flee from their bondage... You're saying that it would be wrong for those people who disagree with that, to say... help those who are enslaved, to find freedom?

REALLY?

You're saying that 'THE LAW' is the law and rejecting the law is wrong?

But THAT would mean that the Federal judiciary was wrong, when it overturned the law in the vast majority of the states, which recognized and sustained the natural standard of marriage...

I mean, that's just one person saying that the vast majority of the people were wrong... just like that florist did, except that florist didn't proclaim that EVERYONE in her state couldn't sell flowers to celebrate that which she 'felt' was wrong... she just said "Not me... ."

You seem very confused about this stuff.

Hi Where_r_my_Keys
I would say that a state law that went too far and banned gay marriage from CHURCHES would
be unconstitutional by interfering with free exercise of religion.

If you want to ban marriages from the state laws, do it consistently
and have NO marriage at all, and just civil contracts for all people.
================================================
If you want to get all legal and technical about "personal marriages and relations"
maybe we need a different level of law if people are going to "mandate" on this level.

If you are going to require that gays be included, maybe the peopel of that state can
require that ALL couples go through spiritual healing and counseling to make sure
none of them are sick, abusive, adulterous, lying, committing relationship abuse/fraud, etc.
And require this counseling for ALL couples in advance, similar to how the Catholics require that
before sanctifying marriage. Either all agree on a policy or keep it out of the state and keep it private.
Parties can even organize their own political churches and sanctify couples and manage benefits,
since they are big enough to represent and coordinate on both local, district, state and national levels.
Why not set up means through there and keep it private by their beliefs.

 

[asaratis]

I am off to bed- you can argue that Christians need special exemptions from the law without me.

You can dream that gays deserve the right to impose their ways of life on Christians also. Sleep well. You need it.

A black man kissing a black man is the same as a black man kissing a white woman?
Homosexuality and interracial issues are the same?

I am old enough to remember when the sight of a black man kissing a white woman was considered to be shocking- as shocking as when I used to be shocked by the sight of a man kissing a man.

What was shocking then is not shocking anymore- and why should it be? Why should I be shocked at the sight of a black woman kissing a white man- or a woman kissing a woman? The shock was because both sights were the opposite of what I was raised to expect- and now I am more mature- and not shocked.

The degree to which you are personally shocked at the site of either does not address the difference between the two. I am not shocked by PDA between same sex partners or by interracial couples. I do not condemn or look with disdain on same sex unions.

HOWEVER, to say they are the same as interracial couples requires the redefining of "marriage", something that should not be required in order to grant same sex unions ALL OF THE BENEFITS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TO MARRIED COUPLES...which is what they claim they want.

I am not saying that they are the same- I am saying that rational for either being against the law is the same.

In the states that outlawed mixed race marraiges, the definition of marriage excluded opposite race couples- that changed.

What I have seen homosexual couples claim that they want is to be treated legally the same way my wife and I are treated.

And I think they should be. Just like I think a mixed race couple should be treated just thee same as my wife and I are legally treated.

...and I think homosexual couples should be treated legally the same way my wives and I were legally treated. They just don't NEED to be called "married". At least not in the sense that the government benefits are concerned.

Yet the drive is to make society accept the redefinition by having the government pass a law concerning morality. You can't legislate morality.

My wife and I were legally married- being treated equally is being legally married.

No one is going to be forced into gay marriages- no one else's morality is threatened if Bob and Bill are issued the same marriage license as my wife and I were issued.

To redefine the word puts sodomy on the same moral level as heterosexual couplings. This degrades the meaning of morality for a majority of the population. It really does lower the bar.

Not to say that it hasn't already happened, there will come a day when some person approaches the idea of marrying their dog or cat...or maybe a horse. I mean, all it should take is that they fall in love. The fact that it's not a man and a woman means nothing anything anymore.

 

[Seawytch]

Yes- I did mention ISIS- because an idiot claimed that insane Muslims had control of Iraq.

And?

Hence the irony. You speak of ISIS so casually in a thread pertaining to homosexuality. Yet you remained ignorant or chose not to mention the fact they do more than prevent gay marriage, they kill them.

Again so what? Gays aren't supposed to fight for equal rights here because extremist Muslims want to kill us somewhere else? Extremists in most fundamental monotheistic religions want to kill somebody.

How anti-gay Christians evangelize hate abroad - LA Times

Seawytch if Gays were really for equal rights, where is the support for the people who change their lifestyles
and come out heterosexual? Where is the "equal support" for spiritual healing for all people to come out as they are?

Where is the equal right to believe in traditional marriage without being harassed and demonized as "homophobic"?

What the fuck are you rambling about? I don't give two shits if you like, support, tolerate, accept or despise me. ..just treat my marriage equally under the law. Nobody is trying to treat the people you just listed unequally.

Don't do homophobic and bigoted things and you won't be called homophobic or bigoted.

Seawytch it may not be your intent
but that is what is happening

Businesses where someone didn't want to photograph a gay wedding
or attend a gay wedding in order to deliver a cake are SUED and FINED for wanting to exercise their freedom of choice

How is that not discrimination? to FORCE someone to attend a ceremony that is against their religious beliefs.

This has gone TOO FAR into "reverse discrimination"

You sound like a genuine compassionate person and this is not your intent,
but that's the reality of how this agenda is being pushed too far PAST neutral and into harassing people for their beliefs.

Not all the businesses who wanted to REFRAIN from participating in gay weddings
intended at all to come across as 'bigots' just because their beliefs were different.
But there were assumed and harassed as bigots which, in itself, is bigoted.

Public Accommodation laws and civil marriage are two different things. Religious and civil marriage are also two completely different things. You should research the distinctions.

 

[Impenitent]

Nobody is stopping you from trying to make that happen. Good luck. In the mean time, gays will keep getting married.

I'm not against gays getting married, I support this 100%.
I believe there would be NO opposition if gays didn't create it by pushing too far to make political statements.
Vegans make the same mistakes, when they push so far as to create a backlash against themselves.
Christians are famous for pushing into the public arena, so the same standards should be enforced for all such agenda.

There are GAYS who agree that gay marriage should NOT be pushed in this way because it creates
unnecessary opposition, and greater threats against gay rights.

The Sexually Abnormal have the same rights as everyone else. And all of the caterwauling that they are being deprived of rights is merely noise... .

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is a political organ, designed for one purpose and one purpose only and THAT is the Political Wedge.

NO ONE gives a tinker's dam' if two individuals of the same gender room together... and no one is peeking in their windows to catch them sodomizing one another. So all of the hysteria of 'rights' being usurped is NONSENSE.

What they crave is what they can never have: Legitimacy. And they can't have it because the lifestyle they've chosen is ILLEGITIMATE... it flies in the face of NATURE ITSELF.

They're no more legitimate than a cult which DEMANDS THE RIGHT TO FLY! But instead of building aircraft... which comport the human condition within the laws of nature, in such a way to accommodate the age old problem of LIFT... "The GAY MOVEMENT DEMANDS THE RIGHT TO FLY LIKE A BIRD! They DEMAND EQUAL RIGHTS WITH BIRDS!"

"WHY SHOULD BIRDS BE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN FLAP THEIR ARMS AND FLY?"

At which point, someone takes the time to point out the specific physiology of birds and how that differs from humanity... but to no avail... the Homosexuals DEMAND THE RIGHT TO FLY LIKE A BIRD!

So, the Supreme Court gets sufficiently diluted with idiots, to be sufficiently deluded to 'rule' that indeed the lowly homosexual HAS A RIGHT TO FLY like a bird and that nature has in fact screwed 'em... and therein they are 'granted by the high court: THE RIGHT TO FLY LIKE A BIRD.

So, the next day... they're all out there in the various open fields, flapping their arms like crazy... LEGALLY .. FINALLY... at LEGITIMATE equity with the birds. Yet still flightless... and still naturally, illegitimate; still the butt of the joke, still just a common sexual deviant flapping their arms in impotent protest of nature which obtusely refuses to listen to their pointless plea... for something nature has already given them... which THEY COULD BECOME, the INSTANT THEY DECIDE TO BECOME IT, by simply comporting themselves within the laws that nature set forth to govern human behavior.

Where_r_my_Keys it's more than just legitimacy
the liberals that use the govt for their church require this in order to have the free exercise of their political beliefs.
Same with "right to health care"
They do have equal right to pursue their political beliefs, but just not at the expense of others.
My suggestion is to use the Party structure to form statewide and national networks to exercise their beliefs.

Instead of trying to take away their beliefs from them, set up a way they can have this but to themselves.

See Romans 2:14 where the gentiles "become a law unto themselves." Form their own political religion
and do all the things under their laws, and this doesn't have to impose on anyone else with different beliefs.

I admire you... I honestly do. You have a wonderful optimism about you, that I enjoy being around.

With that said... I can't fully agree with you on you above stated position. And it's not that I don't agree with your position... it's that I don't agree with your judgment regarding the Left.

And please note I did not say, the homosexuals... but 'the Left'.

The Movement is Leftists... and I believe largely separate from the homosexual. The problem is that like the Muslim problem... dealing with "Islam" requires injury to the Muslim.

I wish there was a way to deal with the problem at the individual level. But sadly, the movement has made that, virtually impossible.

Thanks Where_r_my_Keys

As a Democrat, I made my public oath to defend the Constitution (and have regretted it for the longest time!),
unfortunately I am saddled with this very challenge of how to fix a party that has turned against its
own platform of prochoice and equal inclusion of minority views. I have watched fellow Democrats and even
national history get destroyed by Democrat politics, claiming it was representing Blacks and minorities while selling us out.

There is no way out but to fix the problems, and yes it will be through the Party
to reach and reform this whole movement following their leaders.

I am stuck with this until this is resolved by consensus.
There are no shortcuts to fixing the mess, just fixing the mess. ACA included.

Thanks for your encouraging words of support, and realism in what this will take.

God has given me creative resources to use to this end, and with the right people
coming together, this will happen, but in God's timing and by his perfect will. Love never fails.

While I find your grammar to be otherwise impeccable, I would remind you that Democrat is a noun, and that Democratic is an adjective. Since I'm sure you know that, your misuse of the terms is a bit bewildering.

Sorry, I don't know much about the thread, but don't Christians justify their hatred of homosexuals by quoting bible verses?

Nobody is stopping you from trying to make that happen. Good luck. In the mean time, gays will keep getting married.

I'm not against gays getting married, I support this 100%.
I believe there would be NO opposition if gays didn't create it by pushing too far to make political statements.
Vegans make the same mistakes, when they push so far as to create a backlash against themselves.
Christians are famous for pushing into the public arena, so the same standards should be enforced for all such agenda.

There are GAYS who agree that gay marriage should NOT be pushed in this way because it creates
unnecessary opposition, and greater threats against gay rights.

The Sexually Abnormal have the same rights as everyone else. And all of the caterwauling that they are being deprived of rights is merely noise... .

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is a political organ, designed for one purpose and one purpose only and THAT is the Political Wedge.

NO ONE gives a tinker's dam' if two individuals of the same gender room together... and no one is peeking in their windows to catch them sodomizing one another. So all of the hysteria of 'rights' being usurped is NONSENSE.

What they crave is what they can never have: Legitimacy. And they can't have it because the lifestyle they've chosen is ILLEGITIMATE... it flies in the face of NATURE ITSELF.

They're no more legitimate than a cult which DEMANDS THE RIGHT TO FLY! But instead of building aircraft... which comport the human condition within the laws of nature, in such a way to accommodate the age old problem of LIFT... "The GAY MOVEMENT DEMANDS THE RIGHT TO FLY LIKE A BIRD! They DEMAND EQUAL RIGHTS WITH BIRDS!"

"WHY SHOULD BIRDS BE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN FLAP THEIR ARMS AND FLY?"

At which point, someone takes the time to point out the specific physiology of birds and how that differs from humanity... but to no avail... the Homosexuals DEMAND THE RIGHT TO FLY LIKE A BIRD!

So, the Supreme Court gets sufficiently diluted with idiots, to be sufficiently deluded to 'rule' that indeed the lowly homosexual HAS A RIGHT TO FLY like a bird and that nature has in fact screwed 'em... and therein they are 'granted by the high court: THE RIGHT TO FLY LIKE A BIRD.

So, the next day... they're all out there in the various open fields, flapping their arms like crazy... LEGALLY .. FINALLY... at LEGITIMATE equity with the birds. Yet still flightless... and still naturally, illegitimate; still the butt of the joke, still just a common sexual deviant flapping their arms in impotent protest of nature which obtusely refuses to listen to their pointless plea... for something nature has already given them... which THEY COULD BECOME, the INSTANT THEY DECIDE TO BECOME IT, by simply comporting themselves within the laws that nature set forth to govern human behavior.

Where_r_my_Keys it's more than just legitimacy
the liberals that use the govt for their church require this in order to have the free exercise of their political beliefs.
Same with "right to health care"
They do have equal right to pursue their political beliefs, but just not at the expense of others.
My suggestion is to use the Party structure to form statewide and national networks to exercise their beliefs.

Instead of trying to take away their beliefs from them, set up a way they can have this but to themselves.

See Romans 2:14 where the gentiles "become a law unto themselves." Form their own political religion
and do all the things under their laws, and this doesn't have to impose on anyone else with different beliefs.

I admire you... I honestly do. You have a wonderful optimism about you, that I enjoy being around.

With that said... I can't fully agree with you on you above stated position. And it's not that I don't agree with your position... it's that I don't agree with your judgment regarding the Left.

And please note I did not say, the homosexuals... but 'the Left'.

The Movement is Leftists... and I believe largely separate from the homosexual. The problem is that like the Muslim problem... dealing with "Islam" requires injury to the Muslim.

I wish there was a way to deal with the problem at the individual level. But sadly, the movement has made that, virtually impossible.

Thanks Where_r_my_Keys

As a Democrat, I made my public oath to defend the Constitution (and have regretted it for the longest time!),
unfortunately I am saddled with this very challenge of how to fix a party that has turned against its
own platform of prochoice and equal inclusion of minority views. I have watched fellow Democrats and even
national history get destroyed by Democrat politics, claiming it was representing Blacks and minorities while selling us out.

There is no way out but to fix the problems, and yes it will be through the Party
to reach and reform this whole movement following their leaders.

I am stuck with this until this is resolved by consensus.
There are no shortcuts to fixing the mess, just fixing the mess. ACA included.

Thanks for your encouraging words of support, and realism in what this will take.

God has given me creative resources to use to this end, and with the right people
coming together, this will happen, but in God's timing and by his perfect will. Love never fails.

While I find your grammar to be impeccable in all other ways, I see an error that is so consistent, that I think it must be intentional.

There is no Democrat Party. There are no Democrat politics. Democrat is not an adjective, but a noun. Why do you do that.?

Sorry, that's off-topic. I don't know much about its thread. I didn't read it.

But it is my observation that Christians justify their phobias with bible verses. I think this is one: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you ..." No, maybe not that one, but that was used to justify an erroneous belief.

 

[emilynghiem]

I'm not against gays getting married, I support this 100%.
I believe there would be NO opposition if gays didn't create it by pushing too far to make political statements.
Vegans make the same mistakes, when they push so far as to create a backlash against themselves.
Christians are famous for pushing into the public arena, so the same standards should be enforced for all such agenda.

There are GAYS who agree that gay marriage should NOT be pushed in this way because it creates
unnecessary opposition, and greater threats against gay rights.

The Sexually Abnormal have the same rights as everyone else. And all of the caterwauling that they are being deprived of rights is merely noise... .

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is a political organ, designed for one purpose and one purpose only and THAT is the Political Wedge.

NO ONE gives a tinker's dam' if two individuals of the same gender room together... and no one is peeking in their windows to catch them sodomizing one another. So all of the hysteria of 'rights' being usurped is NONSENSE.

What they crave is what they can never have: Legitimacy. And they can't have it because the lifestyle they've chosen is ILLEGITIMATE... it flies in the face of NATURE ITSELF.

They're no more legitimate than a cult which DEMANDS THE RIGHT TO FLY! But instead of building aircraft... which comport the human condition within the laws of nature, in such a way to accommodate the age old problem of LIFT... "The GAY MOVEMENT DEMANDS THE RIGHT TO FLY LIKE A BIRD! They DEMAND EQUAL RIGHTS WITH BIRDS!"

"WHY SHOULD BIRDS BE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN FLAP THEIR ARMS AND FLY?"

At which point, someone takes the time to point out the specific physiology of birds and how that differs from humanity... but to no avail... the Homosexuals DEMAND THE RIGHT TO FLY LIKE A BIRD!

So, the Supreme Court gets sufficiently diluted with idiots, to be sufficiently deluded to 'rule' that indeed the lowly homosexual HAS A RIGHT TO FLY like a bird and that nature has in fact screwed 'em... and therein they are 'granted by the high court: THE RIGHT TO FLY LIKE A BIRD.

So, the next day... they're all out there in the various open fields, flapping their arms like crazy... LEGALLY .. FINALLY... at LEGITIMATE equity with the birds. Yet still flightless... and still naturally, illegitimate; still the butt of the joke, still just a common sexual deviant flapping their arms in impotent protest of nature which obtusely refuses to listen to their pointless plea... for something nature has already given them... which THEY COULD BECOME, the INSTANT THEY DECIDE TO BECOME IT, by simply comporting themselves within the laws that nature set forth to govern human behavior.

Where_r_my_Keys it's more than just legitimacy
the liberals that use the govt for their church require this in order to have the free exercise of their political beliefs.
Same with "right to health care"
They do have equal right to pursue their political beliefs, but just not at the expense of others.
My suggestion is to use the Party structure to form statewide and national networks to exercise their beliefs.

Instead of trying to take away their beliefs from them, set up a way they can have this but to themselves.

See Romans 2:14 where the gentiles "become a law unto themselves." Form their own political religion
and do all the things under their laws, and this doesn't have to impose on anyone else with different beliefs.

I admire you... I honestly do. You have a wonderful optimism about you, that I enjoy being around.

With that said... I can't fully agree with you on you above stated position. And it's not that I don't agree with your position... it's that I don't agree with your judgment regarding the Left.

And please note I did not say, the homosexuals... but 'the Left'.

The Movement is Leftists... and I believe largely separate from the homosexual. The problem is that like the Muslim problem... dealing with "Islam" requires injury to the Muslim.

I wish there was a way to deal with the problem at the individual level. But sadly, the movement has made that, virtually impossible.

Thanks Where_r_my_Keys

As a Democrat, I made my public oath to defend the Constitution (and have regretted it for the longest time!),
unfortunately I am saddled with this very challenge of how to fix a party that has turned against its
own platform of prochoice and equal inclusion of minority views. I have watched fellow Democrats and even
national history get destroyed by Democrat politics, claiming it was representing Blacks and minorities while selling us out.

There is no way out but to fix the problems, and yes it will be through the Party
to reach and reform this whole movement following their leaders.

I am stuck with this until this is resolved by consensus.
There are no shortcuts to fixing the mess, just fixing the mess. ACA included.

Thanks for your encouraging words of support, and realism in what this will take.

God has given me creative resources to use to this end, and with the right people
coming together, this will happen, but in God's timing and by his perfect will. Love never fails.

While I find your grammar to be otherwise impeccable, I would remind you that Democrat is a noun, and that Democratic is an adjective. Since I'm sure you know that, your misuse of the terms is a bit bewildering.

Sorry, I don't know much about the thread, but don't Christians justify their hatred of homosexuals by quoting bible verses?

I'm not against gays getting married, I support this 100%.
I believe there would be NO opposition if gays didn't create it by pushing too far to make political statements.
Vegans make the same mistakes, when they push so far as to create a backlash against themselves.
Christians are famous for pushing into the public arena, so the same standards should be enforced for all such agenda.

There are GAYS who agree that gay marriage should NOT be pushed in this way because it creates
unnecessary opposition, and greater threats against gay rights.

The Sexually Abnormal have the same rights as everyone else. And all of the caterwauling that they are being deprived of rights is merely noise... .

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is a political organ, designed for one purpose and one purpose only and THAT is the Political Wedge.

NO ONE gives a tinker's dam' if two individuals of the same gender room together... and no one is peeking in their windows to catch them sodomizing one another. So all of the hysteria of 'rights' being usurped is NONSENSE.

What they crave is what they can never have: Legitimacy. And they can't have it because the lifestyle they've chosen is ILLEGITIMATE... it flies in the face of NATURE ITSELF.

They're no more legitimate than a cult which DEMANDS THE RIGHT TO FLY! But instead of building aircraft... which comport the human condition within the laws of nature, in such a way to accommodate the age old problem of LIFT... "The GAY MOVEMENT DEMANDS THE RIGHT TO FLY LIKE A BIRD! They DEMAND EQUAL RIGHTS WITH BIRDS!"

"WHY SHOULD BIRDS BE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN FLAP THEIR ARMS AND FLY?"

At which point, someone takes the time to point out the specific physiology of birds and how that differs from humanity... but to no avail... the Homosexuals DEMAND THE RIGHT TO FLY LIKE A BIRD!

So, the Supreme Court gets sufficiently diluted with idiots, to be sufficiently deluded to 'rule' that indeed the lowly homosexual HAS A RIGHT TO FLY like a bird and that nature has in fact screwed 'em... and therein they are 'granted by the high court: THE RIGHT TO FLY LIKE A BIRD.

So, the next day... they're all out there in the various open fields, flapping their arms like crazy... LEGALLY .. FINALLY... at LEGITIMATE equity with the birds. Yet still flightless... and still naturally, illegitimate; still the butt of the joke, still just a common sexual deviant flapping their arms in impotent protest of nature which obtusely refuses to listen to their pointless plea... for something nature has already given them... which THEY COULD BECOME, the INSTANT THEY DECIDE TO BECOME IT, by simply comporting themselves within the laws that nature set forth to govern human behavior.

Where_r_my_Keys it's more than just legitimacy
the liberals that use the govt for their church require this in order to have the free exercise of their political beliefs.
Same with "right to health care"
They do have equal right to pursue their political beliefs, but just not at the expense of others.
My suggestion is to use the Party structure to form statewide and national networks to exercise their beliefs.

Instead of trying to take away their beliefs from them, set up a way they can have this but to themselves.

See Romans 2:14 where the gentiles "become a law unto themselves." Form their own political religion
and do all the things under their laws, and this doesn't have to impose on anyone else with different beliefs.

I admire you... I honestly do. You have a wonderful optimism about you, that I enjoy being around.

With that said... I can't fully agree with you on you above stated position. And it's not that I don't agree with your position... it's that I don't agree with your judgment regarding the Left.

And please note I did not say, the homosexuals... but 'the Left'.

The Movement is Leftists... and I believe largely separate from the homosexual. The problem is that like the Muslim problem... dealing with "Islam" requires injury to the Muslim.

I wish there was a way to deal with the problem at the individual level. But sadly, the movement has made that, virtually impossible.

Thanks Where_r_my_Keys

As a Democrat, I made my public oath to defend the Constitution (and have regretted it for the longest time!),
unfortunately I am saddled with this very challenge of how to fix a party that has turned against its
own platform of prochoice and equal inclusion of minority views. I have watched fellow Democrats and even
national history get destroyed by Democrat politics, claiming it was representing Blacks and minorities while selling us out.

There is no way out but to fix the problems, and yes it will be through the Party
to reach and reform this whole movement following their leaders.

I am stuck with this until this is resolved by consensus.
There are no shortcuts to fixing the mess, just fixing the mess. ACA included.

Thanks for your encouraging words of support, and realism in what this will take.

God has given me creative resources to use to this end, and with the right people
coming together, this will happen, but in God's timing and by his perfect will. Love never fails.

While I find your grammar to be impeccable in all other ways, I see an error that is so consistent, that I think it must be intentional.

There is no Democrat Party. There are no Democrat politics. Democrat is not an adjective, but a noun. Why do you do that.?

Sorry, that's off-topic. I don't know much about its thread. I didn't read it.

But it is my observation that Christians justify their phobias with bible verses. I think this is one: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you ..." No, maybe not that one, but that was used to justify an erroneous belief.

Hi Impenitent
As I stated before I am trying to stick with addressing DEMOCRATS.
So we stick with terms we AGREE on.
I am not going to go in circles about Democratic Party vs Democrat leaders, etc.

So I will just stick with DEMOCRATS since that is a mutual agreed term
and we both know what we are talking about and it is respecting wherever someone may be coming from.

Are you okay with calling people DEMOCRATS who call themselves DEMOCRATS?

When I talk about parties I will talk about in general PARTY or PARTIES
so I am not singling out any particular one.

How's that?

One group I may feel safe enough identifying with that hasn't gotten too crazy on me yet
is the Texas Democratic Women. I may shorten that to TDW.

Edna Griggs with that group is TRYING to work with me to get my resolutions on the Political Beliefs simple enough to present formally. But the Resolutions committee couldn't understand it. So I will try to start with the TDW and see if I can get at least the WOMEN to come to an understanding on this.

Maybe it's a male "TERRITORIAL" issue to try to bark down this person or disrespect that one to show who's in power and who's going to recognize who.

Maybe this whole ACA with Obama was a showdown to mark his territory in front o fother MALES challenging his authority.

Whatever this is going on, it may be a MALE/Patriarchal thing, and it is DESTROYING THE COUNTRY.

So I am not going to play those games.

I will stick to AGREED common terms, and if people can't stick to agreements to show respect for each other, I don't know what else to do.

I am going to address my fellow DEMOCRATS first, and then decide what to do about the party platform that states political beliefs such as "
Texas Democrats believe health care is a right, not a privilege reserved for those able to pay
for it. Texas Democrats oppose efforts by Republican politicians to repeal health insurance
reform and return America to the disastrous system that has failed small businesses, working
families and drained state and family budgets. Every family deserves health care they can
count on and a system that ensures stability, security, and access to care."

This is biased and fails to acknowledge the equal beliefs in pursuing FREE health care as a spiritual practice and service, and not to be exploited by EITHER business OR politics.

I tried to find where RESEARCH into spiritual healing can be introduced under either the mental health or prison reforms and then this would in turn affect health care and medical funding.

It seems faster to address individuals who are more focused on
SOLUTIONS
and not nitpicking over language, Impenitent.

That is what has prevented me from getting anywhere with the SOLUTIONS that could have saved Sheila Jackson Lee's national historic district from getting destroyed.

The last time I tried to present a SOLUTION coming out of our district,
the resolutions committee got hung up on "reparations vs. restitution" and that had to be fixed. I was left IN TEARS trying to get a single resolution passed about setting up a Constitutional center for education, when people didn't even get why this education was necessary to prevent political OPPRESSION of minorities! And these were DEMOCRATS and they didn't see how this was important. They were MORE concerned that it be worded where it wouldn't be rejected by using a wrong word.

It seems the WOMEN on the resolution committee are the ones who see the importance of inclusion, while the MEN get officious and want to throw their weight around by excluding people.

Trying to address Political Beliefs is even more sensitive, so I need
people who GET THE CONCEPT, not people who nitpick over the literal terms
and haggle over that and miss the CONCEPT.

Thanks Impenitent you point out what is wrong with liberals
if the concern for political correctness is MORE IMPORTANT THAN CONTENT!

Maybe it's a MALE thing, I have no idea why people have to bully and nitpick
trying to find EXCUSES TO EXCLUDE PEOPLE when I am more concerned with INCLUSION.

 

[Impenitent]

The Sexually Abnormal have the same rights as everyone else. And all of the caterwauling that they are being deprived of rights is merely noise... .

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is a political organ, designed for one purpose and one purpose only and THAT is the Political Wedge.

NO ONE gives a tinker's dam' if two individuals of the same gender room together... and no one is peeking in their windows to catch them sodomizing one another. So all of the hysteria of 'rights' being usurped is NONSENSE.

What they crave is what they can never have: Legitimacy. And they can't have it because the lifestyle they've chosen is ILLEGITIMATE... it flies in the face of NATURE ITSELF.

They're no more legitimate than a cult which DEMANDS THE RIGHT TO FLY! But instead of building aircraft... which comport the human condition within the laws of nature, in such a way to accommodate the age old problem of LIFT... "The GAY MOVEMENT DEMANDS THE RIGHT TO FLY LIKE A BIRD! They DEMAND EQUAL RIGHTS WITH BIRDS!"

"WHY SHOULD BIRDS BE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN FLAP THEIR ARMS AND FLY?"

At which point, someone takes the time to point out the specific physiology of birds and how that differs from humanity... but to no avail... the Homosexuals DEMAND THE RIGHT TO FLY LIKE A BIRD!

So, the Supreme Court gets sufficiently diluted with idiots, to be sufficiently deluded to 'rule' that indeed the lowly homosexual HAS A RIGHT TO FLY like a bird and that nature has in fact screwed 'em... and therein they are 'granted by the high court: THE RIGHT TO FLY LIKE A BIRD.

So, the next day... they're all out there in the various open fields, flapping their arms like crazy... LEGALLY .. FINALLY... at LEGITIMATE equity with the birds. Yet still flightless... and still naturally, illegitimate; still the butt of the joke, still just a common sexual deviant flapping their arms in impotent protest of nature which obtusely refuses to listen to their pointless plea... for something nature has already given them... which THEY COULD BECOME, the INSTANT THEY DECIDE TO BECOME IT, by simply comporting themselves within the laws that nature set forth to govern human behavior.

Where_r_my_Keys it's more than just legitimacy
the liberals that use the govt for their church require this in order to have the free exercise of their political beliefs.
Same with "right to health care"
They do have equal right to pursue their political beliefs, but just not at the expense of others.
My suggestion is to use the Party structure to form statewide and national networks to exercise their beliefs.

Instead of trying to take away their beliefs from them, set up a way they can have this but to themselves.

See Romans 2:14 where the gentiles "become a law unto themselves." Form their own political religion
and do all the things under their laws, and this doesn't have to impose on anyone else with different beliefs.

I admire you... I honestly do. You have a wonderful optimism about you, that I enjoy being around.

With that said... I can't fully agree with you on you above stated position. And it's not that I don't agree with your position... it's that I don't agree with your judgment regarding the Left.

And please note I did not say, the homosexuals... but 'the Left'.

The Movement is Leftists... and I believe largely separate from the homosexual. The problem is that like the Muslim problem... dealing with "Islam" requires injury to the Muslim.

I wish there was a way to deal with the problem at the individual level. But sadly, the movement has made that, virtually impossible.

Thanks Where_r_my_Keys

As a Democrat, I made my public oath to defend the Constitution (and have regretted it for the longest time!),
unfortunately I am saddled with this very challenge of how to fix a party that has turned against its
own platform of prochoice and equal inclusion of minority views. I have watched fellow Democrats and even
national history get destroyed by Democrat politics, claiming it was representing Blacks and minorities while selling us out.

There is no way out but to fix the problems, and yes it will be through the Party
to reach and reform this whole movement following their leaders.

I am stuck with this until this is resolved by consensus.
There are no shortcuts to fixing the mess, just fixing the mess. ACA included.

Thanks for your encouraging words of support, and realism in what this will take.

God has given me creative resources to use to this end, and with the right people
coming together, this will happen, but in God's timing and by his perfect will. Love never fails.

While I find your grammar to be otherwise impeccable, I would remind you that Democrat is a noun, and that Democratic is an adjective. Since I'm sure you know that, your misuse of the terms is a bit bewildering.

Sorry, I don't know much about the thread, but don't Christians justify their hatred of homosexuals by quoting bible verses?

The Sexually Abnormal have the same rights as everyone else. And all of the caterwauling that they are being deprived of rights is merely noise... .

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is a political organ, designed for one purpose and one purpose only and THAT is the Political Wedge.

NO ONE gives a tinker's dam' if two individuals of the same gender room together... and no one is peeking in their windows to catch them sodomizing one another. So all of the hysteria of 'rights' being usurped is NONSENSE.

What they crave is what they can never have: Legitimacy. And they can't have it because the lifestyle they've chosen is ILLEGITIMATE... it flies in the face of NATURE ITSELF.

They're no more legitimate than a cult which DEMANDS THE RIGHT TO FLY! But instead of building aircraft... which comport the human condition within the laws of nature, in such a way to accommodate the age old problem of LIFT... "The GAY MOVEMENT DEMANDS THE RIGHT TO FLY LIKE A BIRD! They DEMAND EQUAL RIGHTS WITH BIRDS!"

"WHY SHOULD BIRDS BE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN FLAP THEIR ARMS AND FLY?"

At which point, someone takes the time to point out the specific physiology of birds and how that differs from humanity... but to no avail... the Homosexuals DEMAND THE RIGHT TO FLY LIKE A BIRD!

So, the Supreme Court gets sufficiently diluted with idiots, to be sufficiently deluded to 'rule' that indeed the lowly homosexual HAS A RIGHT TO FLY like a bird and that nature has in fact screwed 'em... and therein they are 'granted by the high court: THE RIGHT TO FLY LIKE A BIRD.

So, the next day... they're all out there in the various open fields, flapping their arms like crazy... LEGALLY .. FINALLY... at LEGITIMATE equity with the birds. Yet still flightless... and still naturally, illegitimate; still the butt of the joke, still just a common sexual deviant flapping their arms in impotent protest of nature which obtusely refuses to listen to their pointless plea... for something nature has already given them... which THEY COULD BECOME, the INSTANT THEY DECIDE TO BECOME IT, by simply comporting themselves within the laws that nature set forth to govern human behavior.

Where_r_my_Keys it's more than just legitimacy
the liberals that use the govt for their church require this in order to have the free exercise of their political beliefs.
Same with "right to health care"
They do have equal right to pursue their political beliefs, but just not at the expense of others.
My suggestion is to use the Party structure to form statewide and national networks to exercise their beliefs.

Instead of trying to take away their beliefs from them, set up a way they can have this but to themselves.

See Romans 2:14 where the gentiles "become a law unto themselves." Form their own political religion
and do all the things under their laws, and this doesn't have to impose on anyone else with different beliefs.

I admire you... I honestly do. You have a wonderful optimism about you, that I enjoy being around.

With that said... I can't fully agree with you on you above stated position. And it's not that I don't agree with your position... it's that I don't agree with your judgment regarding the Left.

And please note I did not say, the homosexuals... but 'the Left'.

The Movement is Leftists... and I believe largely separate from the homosexual. The problem is that like the Muslim problem... dealing with "Islam" requires injury to the Muslim.

I wish there was a way to deal with the problem at the individual level. But sadly, the movement has made that, virtually impossible.

Thanks Where_r_my_Keys

As a Democrat, I made my public oath to defend the Constitution (and have regretted it for the longest time!),
unfortunately I am saddled with this very challenge of how to fix a party that has turned against its
own platform of prochoice and equal inclusion of minority views. I have watched fellow Democrats and even
national history get destroyed by Democrat politics, claiming it was representing Blacks and minorities while selling us out.

There is no way out but to fix the problems, and yes it will be through the Party
to reach and reform this whole movement following their leaders.

I am stuck with this until this is resolved by consensus.
There are no shortcuts to fixing the mess, just fixing the mess. ACA included.

Thanks for your encouraging words of support, and realism in what this will take.

God has given me creative resources to use to this end, and with the right people
coming together, this will happen, but in God's timing and by his perfect will. Love never fails.

While I find your grammar to be impeccable in all other ways, I see an error that is so consistent, that I think it must be intentional.

There is no Democrat Party. There are no Democrat politics. Democrat is not an adjective, but a noun. Why do you do that.?

Sorry, that's off-topic. I don't know much about its thread. I didn't read it.

But it is my observation that Christians justify their phobias with bible verses. I think this is one: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you ..." No, maybe not that one, but that was used to justify an erroneous belief.

Hi Impenitent
As I stated before I am trying to stick with addressing DEMOCRATS.
So we stick with terms we AGREE on.
I am not going to go in circles about Democratic Party vs Democrat leaders, etc.

So I will just stick with DEMOCRATS since that is a mutual agreed term
and we both know what we are talking about and it is respecting wherever someone may be coming from.

Are you okay with calling people DEMOCRATS who call themselves DEMOCRATS?

When I talk about parties I will talk about in general PARTY or PARTIES
so I am not singling out any particular one.

How's that?

One group I may feel safe enough identifying with that hasn't gotten too crazy on me yet
is the Texas Democratic Women. I may shorten that to TDW.

Edna Griggs with that group is TRYING to work with me to get my resolutions on the Political Beliefs simple enough to present formally. But the Resolutions committee couldn't understand it. So I will try to start with the TDW and see if I can get at least the WOMEN to come to an understanding on this.

Maybe it's a male "TERRITORIAL" issue to try to bark down this person or disrespect that one to show who's in power and who's going to recognize who.

Maybe this whole ACA with Obama was a showdown to mark his territory in front o fother MALES challenging his authority.

Whatever this is going on, it may be a MALE/Patriarchal thing, and it is DESTROYING THE COUNTRY.

So I am not going to play those games.

I will stick to AGREED common terms, and if people can't stick to agreements to show respect for each other, I don't know what else to do.

I am going to address my fellow DEMOCRATS first, and then decide what to do about the party platform that states political beliefs such as "
Texas Democrats believe health care is a right, not a privilege reserved for those able to pay
for it. Texas Democrats oppose efforts by Republican politicians to repeal health insurance
reform and return America to the disastrous system that has failed small businesses, working
families and drained state and family budgets. Every family deserves health care they can
count on and a system that ensures stability, security, and access to care."

This is biased and fails to acknowledge the equal beliefs in pursuing FREE health care as a spiritual practice and service, and not to be exploited by EITHER business OR politics.

I tried to find where RESEARCH into spiritual healing can be introduced under either the mental health or prison reforms and then this would in turn affect health care and medical funding.

It seems faster to address individuals who are more focused on
SOLUTIONS
and not nitpicking over language, Impenitent.

That is what has prevented me from getting anywhere with the SOLUTIONS that could have saved Sheila Jackson Lee's national historic district from getting destroyed.

The last time I tried to present a SOLUTION coming out of our district,
the resolutions committee got hung up on "reparations vs. restitution" and that had to be fixed. I was left IN TEARS trying to get a single resolution passed about setting up a Constitutional center for education, when people didn't even get why this education was necessary to prevent political OPPRESSION of minorities! And these were DEMOCRATS and they didn't see how this was important. They were MORE concerned that it be worded where it wouldn't be rejected by using a wrong word.

It seems the WOMEN on the resolution committee are the ones who see the importance of inclusion, while the MEN get officious and want to throw their weight around by excluding people.

Trying to address Political Beliefs is even more sensitive, so I need
people who GET THE CONCEPT, not people who nitpick over the literal terms
and haggle over that and miss the CONCEPT.

Thanks Impenitent you point out what is wrong with liberals
if the concern for political correctness is MORE IMPORTANT THAN CONTENT!

Maybe it's a MALE thing, I have no idea why people have to bully and nitpick
trying to find EXCUSES TO EXCLUDE PEOPLE when I am more concerned with INCLUSION.

For not wanting to play that game, you certainly ran up the score!

 

[emilynghiem]

Where_r_my_Keys it's more than just legitimacy
the liberals that use the govt for their church require this in order to have the free exercise of their political beliefs.
Same with "right to health care"
They do have equal right to pursue their political beliefs, but just not at the expense of others.
My suggestion is to use the Party structure to form statewide and national networks to exercise their beliefs.

Instead of trying to take away their beliefs from them, set up a way they can have this but to themselves.

See Romans 2:14 where the gentiles "become a law unto themselves." Form their own political religion
and do all the things under their laws, and this doesn't have to impose on anyone else with different beliefs.

I admire you... I honestly do. You have a wonderful optimism about you, that I enjoy being around.

With that said... I can't fully agree with you on you above stated position. And it's not that I don't agree with your position... it's that I don't agree with your judgment regarding the Left.

And please note I did not say, the homosexuals... but 'the Left'.

The Movement is Leftists... and I believe largely separate from the homosexual. The problem is that like the Muslim problem... dealing with "Islam" requires injury to the Muslim.

I wish there was a way to deal with the problem at the individual level. But sadly, the movement has made that, virtually impossible.

Thanks Where_r_my_Keys

As a Democrat, I made my public oath to defend the Constitution (and have regretted it for the longest time!),
unfortunately I am saddled with this very challenge of how to fix a party that has turned against its
own platform of prochoice and equal inclusion of minority views. I have watched fellow Democrats and even
national history get destroyed by Democrat politics, claiming it was representing Blacks and minorities while selling us out.

There is no way out but to fix the problems, and yes it will be through the Party
to reach and reform this whole movement following their leaders.

I am stuck with this until this is resolved by consensus.
There are no shortcuts to fixing the mess, just fixing the mess. ACA included.

Thanks for your encouraging words of support, and realism in what this will take.

God has given me creative resources to use to this end, and with the right people
coming together, this will happen, but in God's timing and by his perfect will. Love never fails.

While I find your grammar to be otherwise impeccable, I would remind you that Democrat is a noun, and that Democratic is an adjective. Since I'm sure you know that, your misuse of the terms is a bit bewildering.

Sorry, I don't know much about the thread, but don't Christians justify their hatred of homosexuals by quoting bible verses?

Where_r_my_Keys it's more than just legitimacy
the liberals that use the govt for their church require this in order to have the free exercise of their political beliefs.
Same with "right to health care"
They do have equal right to pursue their political beliefs, but just not at the expense of others.
My suggestion is to use the Party structure to form statewide and national networks to exercise their beliefs.

Instead of trying to take away their beliefs from them, set up a way they can have this but to themselves.

See Romans 2:14 where the gentiles "become a law unto themselves." Form their own political religion
and do all the things under their laws, and this doesn't have to impose on anyone else with different beliefs.

I admire you... I honestly do. You have a wonderful optimism about you, that I enjoy being around.

With that said... I can't fully agree with you on you above stated position. And it's not that I don't agree with your position... it's that I don't agree with your judgment regarding the Left.

And please note I did not say, the homosexuals... but 'the Left'.

The Movement is Leftists... and I believe largely separate from the homosexual. The problem is that like the Muslim problem... dealing with "Islam" requires injury to the Muslim.

I wish there was a way to deal with the problem at the individual level. But sadly, the movement has made that, virtually impossible.

Thanks Where_r_my_Keys

As a Democrat, I made my public oath to defend the Constitution (and have regretted it for the longest time!),
unfortunately I am saddled with this very challenge of how to fix a party that has turned against its
own platform of prochoice and equal inclusion of minority views. I have watched fellow Democrats and even
national history get destroyed by Democrat politics, claiming it was representing Blacks and minorities while selling us out.

There is no way out but to fix the problems, and yes it will be through the Party
to reach and reform this whole movement following their leaders.

I am stuck with this until this is resolved by consensus.
There are no shortcuts to fixing the mess, just fixing the mess. ACA included.

Thanks for your encouraging words of support, and realism in what this will take.

God has given me creative resources to use to this end, and with the right people
coming together, this will happen, but in God's timing and by his perfect will. Love never fails.

While I find your grammar to be impeccable in all other ways, I see an error that is so consistent, that I think it must be intentional.

There is no Democrat Party. There are no Democrat politics. Democrat is not an adjective, but a noun. Why do you do that.?

Sorry, that's off-topic. I don't know much about its thread. I didn't read it.

But it is my observation that Christians justify their phobias with bible verses. I think this is one: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you ..." No, maybe not that one, but that was used to justify an erroneous belief.

Hi Impenitent
As I stated before I am trying to stick with addressing DEMOCRATS.
So we stick with terms we AGREE on.
I am not going to go in circles about Democratic Party vs Democrat leaders, etc.

So I will just stick with DEMOCRATS since that is a mutual agreed term
and we both know what we are talking about and it is respecting wherever someone may be coming from.

Are you okay with calling people DEMOCRATS who call themselves DEMOCRATS?

When I talk about parties I will talk about in general PARTY or PARTIES
so I am not singling out any particular one.

How's that?

One group I may feel safe enough identifying with that hasn't gotten too crazy on me yet
is the Texas Democratic Women. I may shorten that to TDW.

Edna Griggs with that group is TRYING to work with me to get my resolutions on the Political Beliefs simple enough to present formally. But the Resolutions committee couldn't understand it. So I will try to start with the TDW and see if I can get at least the WOMEN to come to an understanding on this.

Maybe it's a male "TERRITORIAL" issue to try to bark down this person or disrespect that one to show who's in power and who's going to recognize who.

Maybe this whole ACA with Obama was a showdown to mark his territory in front o fother MALES challenging his authority.

Whatever this is going on, it may be a MALE/Patriarchal thing, and it is DESTROYING THE COUNTRY.

So I am not going to play those games.

I will stick to AGREED common terms, and if people can't stick to agreements to show respect for each other, I don't know what else to do.

I am going to address my fellow DEMOCRATS first, and then decide what to do about the party platform that states political beliefs such as "
Texas Democrats believe health care is a right, not a privilege reserved for those able to pay
for it. Texas Democrats oppose efforts by Republican politicians to repeal health insurance
reform and return America to the disastrous system that has failed small businesses, working
families and drained state and family budgets. Every family deserves health care they can
count on and a system that ensures stability, security, and access to care."

This is biased and fails to acknowledge the equal beliefs in pursuing FREE health care as a spiritual practice and service, and not to be exploited by EITHER business OR politics.

I tried to find where RESEARCH into spiritual healing can be introduced under either the mental health or prison reforms and then this would in turn affect health care and medical funding.

It seems faster to address individuals who are more focused on
SOLUTIONS
and not nitpicking over language, Impenitent.

That is what has prevented me from getting anywhere with the SOLUTIONS that could have saved Sheila Jackson Lee's national historic district from getting destroyed.

The last time I tried to present a SOLUTION coming out of our district,
the resolutions committee got hung up on "reparations vs. restitution" and that had to be fixed. I was left IN TEARS trying to get a single resolution passed about setting up a Constitutional center for education, when people didn't even get why this education was necessary to prevent political OPPRESSION of minorities! And these were DEMOCRATS and they didn't see how this was important. They were MORE concerned that it be worded where it wouldn't be rejected by using a wrong word.

It seems the WOMEN on the resolution committee are the ones who see the importance of inclusion, while the MEN get officious and want to throw their weight around by excluding people.

Trying to address Political Beliefs is even more sensitive, so I need
people who GET THE CONCEPT, not people who nitpick over the literal terms
and haggle over that and miss the CONCEPT.

Thanks Impenitent you point out what is wrong with liberals
if the concern for political correctness is MORE IMPORTANT THAN CONTENT!

Maybe it's a MALE thing, I have no idea why people have to bully and nitpick
trying to find EXCUSES TO EXCLUDE PEOPLE when I am more concerned with INCLUSION.

For not wanting to play that game, you certainly ran up the score!

That's YOUR perception because you keep bringing it up.
If you can't forgive me using the term DEMOCRATS, that is YOUR issue and I cannot resolve it for you.

I AVOID the issue by using a common terms that ALL people can use whether they play this game or not.

I want to get to the ROOT of the issue first, and THEN the issue of terms will follow from that.

Now Impenitent if this Democratic/Democrat Issue IS A BIG DEAL TO YOU to resolve,
SURE, I can call a meeting to address what will it take to FIX this issue.

That will still bring up all the other Political Beliefs that are causing policy conflicts.

"Whether or not to call Democrats by Democratic Party or Democrat Party"
is NOT in the Constitution.

but whether to interpret
* right of the people as 'law abiding citizens" IS a matter directly affecting Second Amendment applications
* free exercise of religion in the First Amendment and equal protection of the laws in the Fourteenth
as including "political beliefs as creeds" IS directly affecting tax returns of the entire nation

So that is more of a Constitutional issue to more people

For your sake, Impenitent, if this one word is preventing you from working with Republicans,
I do hope that by addressing Constitutional issues, that will also be resolved.

If you don't believe me, that resolving Constitutional issues as cited above
will solve this problem, too, then you can add that to the 10 million dollar bet that
my friend may abandon and need someone else to follow up on.

Do you really want to bet 10 million dollars that it is more
important if I use the word Democrats to talk about myself and others
rather than reach an agreement on whether ACA violates equal protections of beliefs and creeds?

I think the ACA is more important to reach an agreement on,
and it will take working through the understanding that
* right to health care and
* rights of states and people
are EQUAL political beliefs, and that resolving Democrats/Democratic is part of that process
but isn't the REAL issue.

The REAL issue is not respecting political beliefs equally by the Constitution.

If you want to take over my friend's bet, be my guest.

Impenitent that would be WONDERFUL if I really DON'T have to teach ANYONE the Constitution as I thought
we needed for an educated, self-governing citizenry.

If all that is needed to MAGICALLY fix all the problems between Republicans and Democrats
is to agree what term to use to refer to the Party as Democratic Party
AND NOT FIX ANYTHING ELSE that's great.

How much do you want to bet the issue is Constitutional respect and inclusion of equal beliefs?

 

[asaratis]

I'm not against gays getting married, I support this 100%.
I believe there would be NO opposition if gays didn't create it by pushing too far to make political statements.
Vegans make the same mistakes, when they push so far as to create a backlash against themselves.
Christians are famous for pushing into the public arena, so the same standards should be enforced for all such agenda.

There are GAYS who agree that gay marriage should NOT be pushed in this way because it creates
unnecessary opposition, and greater threats against gay rights.

The Sexually Abnormal have the same rights as everyone else. And all of the caterwauling that they are being deprived of rights is merely noise... .

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is a political organ, designed for one purpose and one purpose only and THAT is the Political Wedge.

NO ONE gives a tinker's dam' if two individuals of the same gender room together... and no one is peeking in their windows to catch them sodomizing one another. So all of the hysteria of 'rights' being usurped is NONSENSE.

What they crave is what they can never have: Legitimacy. And they can't have it because the lifestyle they've chosen is ILLEGITIMATE... it flies in the face of NATURE ITSELF.

They're no more legitimate than a cult which DEMANDS THE RIGHT TO FLY! But instead of building aircraft... which comport the human condition within the laws of nature, in such a way to accommodate the age old problem of LIFT... "The GAY MOVEMENT DEMANDS THE RIGHT TO FLY LIKE A BIRD! They DEMAND EQUAL RIGHTS WITH BIRDS!"

"WHY SHOULD BIRDS BE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN FLAP THEIR ARMS AND FLY?"

At which point, someone takes the time to point out the specific physiology of birds and how that differs from humanity... but to no avail... the Homosexuals DEMAND THE RIGHT TO FLY LIKE A BIRD!

So, the Supreme Court gets sufficiently diluted with idiots, to be sufficiently deluded to 'rule' that indeed the lowly homosexual HAS A RIGHT TO FLY like a bird and that nature has in fact screwed 'em... and therein they are 'granted by the high court: THE RIGHT TO FLY LIKE A BIRD.

So, the next day... they're all out there in the various open fields, flapping their arms like crazy... LEGALLY .. FINALLY... at LEGITIMATE equity with the birds. Yet still flightless... and still naturally, illegitimate; still the butt of the joke, still just a common sexual deviant flapping their arms in impotent protest of nature which obtusely refuses to listen to their pointless plea... for something nature has already given them... which THEY COULD BECOME, the INSTANT THEY DECIDE TO BECOME IT, by simply comporting themselves within the laws that nature set forth to govern human behavior.

Where_r_my_Keys it's more than just legitimacy
the liberals that use the govt for their church require this in order to have the free exercise of their political beliefs.
Same with "right to health care"
They do have equal right to pursue their political beliefs, but just not at the expense of others.
My suggestion is to use the Party structure to form statewide and national networks to exercise their beliefs.

Instead of trying to take away their beliefs from them, set up a way they can have this but to themselves.

See Romans 2:14 where the gentiles "become a law unto themselves." Form their own political religion
and do all the things under their laws, and this doesn't have to impose on anyone else with different beliefs.

I admire you... I honestly do. You have a wonderful optimism about you, that I enjoy being around.

With that said... I can't fully agree with you on you above stated position. And it's not that I don't agree with your position... it's that I don't agree with your judgment regarding the Left.

And please note I did not say, the homosexuals... but 'the Left'.

The Movement is Leftists... and I believe largely separate from the homosexual. The problem is that like the Muslim problem... dealing with "Islam" requires injury to the Muslim.

I wish there was a way to deal with the problem at the individual level. But sadly, the movement has made that, virtually impossible.

Thanks Where_r_my_Keys

As a Democrat, I made my public oath to defend the Constitution (and have regretted it for the longest time!),
unfortunately I am saddled with this very challenge of how to fix a party that has turned against its
own platform of prochoice and equal inclusion of minority views. I have watched fellow Democrats and even
national history get destroyed by Democrat politics, claiming it was representing Blacks and minorities while selling us out.

There is no way out but to fix the problems, and yes it will be through the Party
to reach and reform this whole movement following their leaders.

I am stuck with this until this is resolved by consensus.
There are no shortcuts to fixing the mess, just fixing the mess. ACA included.

Thanks for your encouraging words of support, and realism in what this will take.

God has given me creative resources to use to this end, and with the right people
coming together, this will happen, but in God's timing and by his perfect will. Love never fails.

While I find your grammar to be otherwise impeccable, I would remind you that Democrat is a noun, and that Democratic is an adjective. Since I'm sure you know that, your misuse of the terms is a bit bewildering.

Sorry, I don't know much about the thread, but don't Christians justify their hatred of homosexuals by quoting bible verses?

I'm not against gays getting married, I support this 100%.
I believe there would be NO opposition if gays didn't create it by pushing too far to make political statements.
Vegans make the same mistakes, when they push so far as to create a backlash against themselves.
Christians are famous for pushing into the public arena, so the same standards should be enforced for all such agenda.

There are GAYS who agree that gay marriage should NOT be pushed in this way because it creates
unnecessary opposition, and greater threats against gay rights.

The Sexually Abnormal have the same rights as everyone else. And all of the caterwauling that they are being deprived of rights is merely noise... .

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is a political organ, designed for one purpose and one purpose only and THAT is the Political Wedge.

NO ONE gives a tinker's dam' if two individuals of the same gender room together... and no one is peeking in their windows to catch them sodomizing one another. So all of the hysteria of 'rights' being usurped is NONSENSE.

What they crave is what they can never have: Legitimacy. And they can't have it because the lifestyle they've chosen is ILLEGITIMATE... it flies in the face of NATURE ITSELF.

They're no more legitimate than a cult which DEMANDS THE RIGHT TO FLY! But instead of building aircraft... which comport the human condition within the laws of nature, in such a way to accommodate the age old problem of LIFT... "The GAY MOVEMENT DEMANDS THE RIGHT TO FLY LIKE A BIRD! They DEMAND EQUAL RIGHTS WITH BIRDS!"

"WHY SHOULD BIRDS BE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN FLAP THEIR ARMS AND FLY?"

At which point, someone takes the time to point out the specific physiology of birds and how that differs from humanity... but to no avail... the Homosexuals DEMAND THE RIGHT TO FLY LIKE A BIRD!

So, the Supreme Court gets sufficiently diluted with idiots, to be sufficiently deluded to 'rule' that indeed the lowly homosexual HAS A RIGHT TO FLY like a bird and that nature has in fact screwed 'em... and therein they are 'granted by the high court: THE RIGHT TO FLY LIKE A BIRD.

So, the next day... they're all out there in the various open fields, flapping their arms like crazy... LEGALLY .. FINALLY... at LEGITIMATE equity with the birds. Yet still flightless... and still naturally, illegitimate; still the butt of the joke, still just a common sexual deviant flapping their arms in impotent protest of nature which obtusely refuses to listen to their pointless plea... for something nature has already given them... which THEY COULD BECOME, the INSTANT THEY DECIDE TO BECOME IT, by simply comporting themselves within the laws that nature set forth to govern human behavior.

Where_r_my_Keys it's more than just legitimacy
the liberals that use the govt for their church require this in order to have the free exercise of their political beliefs.
Same with "right to health care"
They do have equal right to pursue their political beliefs, but just not at the expense of others.
My suggestion is to use the Party structure to form statewide and national networks to exercise their beliefs.

Instead of trying to take away their beliefs from them, set up a way they can have this but to themselves.

See Romans 2:14 where the gentiles "become a law unto themselves." Form their own political religion
and do all the things under their laws, and this doesn't have to impose on anyone else with different beliefs.

I admire you... I honestly do. You have a wonderful optimism about you, that I enjoy being around.

With that said... I can't fully agree with you on you above stated position. And it's not that I don't agree with your position... it's that I don't agree with your judgment regarding the Left.

And please note I did not say, the homosexuals... but 'the Left'.

The Movement is Leftists... and I believe largely separate from the homosexual. The problem is that like the Muslim problem... dealing with "Islam" requires injury to the Muslim.

I wish there was a way to deal with the problem at the individual level. But sadly, the movement has made that, virtually impossible.

Thanks Where_r_my_Keys

As a Democrat, I made my public oath to defend the Constitution (and have regretted it for the longest time!),
unfortunately I am saddled with this very challenge of how to fix a party that has turned against its
own platform of prochoice and equal inclusion of minority views. I have watched fellow Democrats and even
national history get destroyed by Democrat politics, claiming it was representing Blacks and minorities while selling us out.

There is no way out but to fix the problems, and yes it will be through the Party
to reach and reform this whole movement following their leaders.

I am stuck with this until this is resolved by consensus.
There are no shortcuts to fixing the mess, just fixing the mess. ACA included.

Thanks for your encouraging words of support, and realism in what this will take.

God has given me creative resources to use to this end, and with the right people
coming together, this will happen, but in God's timing and by his perfect will. Love never fails.

While I find your grammar to be impeccable in all other ways, I see an error that is so consistent, that I think it must be intentional.

There is no Democrat Party. There are no Democrat politics. Democrat is not an adjective, but a noun. Why do you do that.?

Sorry, that's off-topic. I don't know much about its thread. I didn't read it.

But it is my observation that Christians justify their phobias with bible verses. I think this is one: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you ..." No, maybe not that one, but that was used to justify an erroneous belief.

Do you double up on everything you type or just your pedantry?

 

[Impenitent]

The Sexually Abnormal have the same rights as everyone else. And all of the caterwauling that they are being deprived of rights is merely noise... .

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is a political organ, designed for one purpose and one purpose only and THAT is the Political Wedge.

NO ONE gives a tinker's dam' if two individuals of the same gender room together... and no one is peeking in their windows to catch them sodomizing one another. So all of the hysteria of 'rights' being usurped is NONSENSE.

What they crave is what they can never have: Legitimacy. And they can't have it because the lifestyle they've chosen is ILLEGITIMATE... it flies in the face of NATURE ITSELF.

They're no more legitimate than a cult which DEMANDS THE RIGHT TO FLY! But instead of building aircraft... which comport the human condition within the laws of nature, in such a way to accommodate the age old problem of LIFT... "The GAY MOVEMENT DEMANDS THE RIGHT TO FLY LIKE A BIRD! They DEMAND EQUAL RIGHTS WITH BIRDS!"

"WHY SHOULD BIRDS BE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN FLAP THEIR ARMS AND FLY?"

At which point, someone takes the time to point out the specific physiology of birds and how that differs from humanity... but to no avail... the Homosexuals DEMAND THE RIGHT TO FLY LIKE A BIRD!

So, the Supreme Court gets sufficiently diluted with idiots, to be sufficiently deluded to 'rule' that indeed the lowly homosexual HAS A RIGHT TO FLY like a bird and that nature has in fact screwed 'em... and therein they are 'granted by the high court: THE RIGHT TO FLY LIKE A BIRD.

So, the next day... they're all out there in the various open fields, flapping their arms like crazy... LEGALLY .. FINALLY... at LEGITIMATE equity with the birds. Yet still flightless... and still naturally, illegitimate; still the butt of the joke, still just a common sexual deviant flapping their arms in impotent protest of nature which obtusely refuses to listen to their pointless plea... for something nature has already given them... which THEY COULD BECOME, the INSTANT THEY DECIDE TO BECOME IT, by simply comporting themselves within the laws that nature set forth to govern human behavior.

Where_r_my_Keys it's more than just legitimacy
the liberals that use the govt for their church require this in order to have the free exercise of their political beliefs.
Same with "right to health care"
They do have equal right to pursue their political beliefs, but just not at the expense of others.
My suggestion is to use the Party structure to form statewide and national networks to exercise their beliefs.

Instead of trying to take away their beliefs from them, set up a way they can have this but to themselves.

See Romans 2:14 where the gentiles "become a law unto themselves." Form their own political religion
and do all the things under their laws, and this doesn't have to impose on anyone else with different beliefs.

I admire you... I honestly do. You have a wonderful optimism about you, that I enjoy being around.

With that said... I can't fully agree with you on you above stated position. And it's not that I don't agree with your position... it's that I don't agree with your judgment regarding the Left.

And please note I did not say, the homosexuals... but 'the Left'.

The Movement is Leftists... and I believe largely separate from the homosexual. The problem is that like the Muslim problem... dealing with "Islam" requires injury to the Muslim.

I wish there was a way to deal with the problem at the individual level. But sadly, the movement has made that, virtually impossible.

Thanks Where_r_my_Keys

As a Democrat, I made my public oath to defend the Constitution (and have regretted it for the longest time!),
unfortunately I am saddled with this very challenge of how to fix a party that has turned against its
own platform of prochoice and equal inclusion of minority views. I have watched fellow Democrats and even
national history get destroyed by Democrat politics, claiming it was representing Blacks and minorities while selling us out.

There is no way out but to fix the problems, and yes it will be through the Party
to reach and reform this whole movement following their leaders.

I am stuck with this until this is resolved by consensus.
There are no shortcuts to fixing the mess, just fixing the mess. ACA included.

Thanks for your encouraging words of support, and realism in what this will take.

God has given me creative resources to use to this end, and with the right people
coming together, this will happen, but in God's timing and by his perfect will. Love never fails.

While I find your grammar to be otherwise impeccable, I would remind you that Democrat is a noun, and that Democratic is an adjective. Since I'm sure you know that, your misuse of the terms is a bit bewildering.

Sorry, I don't know much about the thread, but don't Christians justify their hatred of homosexuals by quoting bible verses?

The Sexually Abnormal have the same rights as everyone else. And all of the caterwauling that they are being deprived of rights is merely noise... .

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is a political organ, designed for one purpose and one purpose only and THAT is the Political Wedge.

NO ONE gives a tinker's dam' if two individuals of the same gender room together... and no one is peeking in their windows to catch them sodomizing one another. So all of the hysteria of 'rights' being usurped is NONSENSE.

What they crave is what they can never have: Legitimacy. And they can't have it because the lifestyle they've chosen is ILLEGITIMATE... it flies in the face of NATURE ITSELF.

They're no more legitimate than a cult which DEMANDS THE RIGHT TO FLY! But instead of building aircraft... which comport the human condition within the laws of nature, in such a way to accommodate the age old problem of LIFT... "The GAY MOVEMENT DEMANDS THE RIGHT TO FLY LIKE A BIRD! They DEMAND EQUAL RIGHTS WITH BIRDS!"

"WHY SHOULD BIRDS BE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN FLAP THEIR ARMS AND FLY?"

At which point, someone takes the time to point out the specific physiology of birds and how that differs from humanity... but to no avail... the Homosexuals DEMAND THE RIGHT TO FLY LIKE A BIRD!

So, the Supreme Court gets sufficiently diluted with idiots, to be sufficiently deluded to 'rule' that indeed the lowly homosexual HAS A RIGHT TO FLY like a bird and that nature has in fact screwed 'em... and therein they are 'granted by the high court: THE RIGHT TO FLY LIKE A BIRD.

So, the next day... they're all out there in the various open fields, flapping their arms like crazy... LEGALLY .. FINALLY... at LEGITIMATE equity with the birds. Yet still flightless... and still naturally, illegitimate; still the butt of the joke, still just a common sexual deviant flapping their arms in impotent protest of nature which obtusely refuses to listen to their pointless plea... for something nature has already given them... which THEY COULD BECOME, the INSTANT THEY DECIDE TO BECOME IT, by simply comporting themselves within the laws that nature set forth to govern human behavior.

Where_r_my_Keys it's more than just legitimacy
the liberals that use the govt for their church require this in order to have the free exercise of their political beliefs.
Same with "right to health care"
They do have equal right to pursue their political beliefs, but just not at the expense of others.
My suggestion is to use the Party structure to form statewide and national networks to exercise their beliefs.

Instead of trying to take away their beliefs from them, set up a way they can have this but to themselves.

See Romans 2:14 where the gentiles "become a law unto themselves." Form their own political religion
and do all the things under their laws, and this doesn't have to impose on anyone else with different beliefs.

I admire you... I honestly do. You have a wonderful optimism about you, that I enjoy being around.

With that said... I can't fully agree with you on you above stated position. And it's not that I don't agree with your position... it's that I don't agree with your judgment regarding the Left.

And please note I did not say, the homosexuals... but 'the Left'.

The Movement is Leftists... and I believe largely separate from the homosexual. The problem is that like the Muslim problem... dealing with "Islam" requires injury to the Muslim.

I wish there was a way to deal with the problem at the individual level. But sadly, the movement has made that, virtually impossible.

Thanks Where_r_my_Keys

As a Democrat, I made my public oath to defend the Constitution (and have regretted it for the longest time!),
unfortunately I am saddled with this very challenge of how to fix a party that has turned against its
own platform of prochoice and equal inclusion of minority views. I have watched fellow Democrats and even
national history get destroyed by Democrat politics, claiming it was representing Blacks and minorities while selling us out.

There is no way out but to fix the problems, and yes it will be through the Party
to reach and reform this whole movement following their leaders.

I am stuck with this until this is resolved by consensus.
There are no shortcuts to fixing the mess, just fixing the mess. ACA included.

Thanks for your encouraging words of support, and realism in what this will take.

God has given me creative resources to use to this end, and with the right people
coming together, this will happen, but in God's timing and by his perfect will. Love never fails.

While I find your grammar to be impeccable in all other ways, I see an error that is so consistent, that I think it must be intentional.

There is no Democrat Party. There are no Democrat politics. Democrat is not an adjective, but a noun. Why do you do that.?

Sorry, that's off-topic. I don't know much about its thread. I didn't read it.

But it is my observation that Christians justify their phobias with bible verses. I think this is one: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you ..." No, maybe not that one, but that was used to justify an erroneous belief.

Do you double up on everything you type or just your pedantry?

No, it's just my ineptness with my I-phone.

 

[emilynghiem]

Where_r_my_Keys it's more than just legitimacy
the liberals that use the govt for their church require this in order to have the free exercise of their political beliefs.
Same with "right to health care"
They do have equal right to pursue their political beliefs, but just not at the expense of others.
My suggestion is to use the Party structure to form statewide and national networks to exercise their beliefs.

Instead of trying to take away their beliefs from them, set up a way they can have this but to themselves.

See Romans 2:14 where the gentiles "become a law unto themselves." Form their own political religion
and do all the things under their laws, and this doesn't have to impose on anyone else with different beliefs.

I admire you... I honestly do. You have a wonderful optimism about you, that I enjoy being around.

With that said... I can't fully agree with you on you above stated position. And it's not that I don't agree with your position... it's that I don't agree with your judgment regarding the Left.

And please note I did not say, the homosexuals... but 'the Left'.

The Movement is Leftists... and I believe largely separate from the homosexual. The problem is that like the Muslim problem... dealing with "Islam" requires injury to the Muslim.

I wish there was a way to deal with the problem at the individual level. But sadly, the movement has made that, virtually impossible.

Thanks Where_r_my_Keys

As a Democrat, I made my public oath to defend the Constitution (and have regretted it for the longest time!),
unfortunately I am saddled with this very challenge of how to fix a party that has turned against its
own platform of prochoice and equal inclusion of minority views. I have watched fellow Democrats and even
national history get destroyed by Democrat politics, claiming it was representing Blacks and minorities while selling us out.

There is no way out but to fix the problems, and yes it will be through the Party
to reach and reform this whole movement following their leaders.

I am stuck with this until this is resolved by consensus.
There are no shortcuts to fixing the mess, just fixing the mess. ACA included.

Thanks for your encouraging words of support, and realism in what this will take.

God has given me creative resources to use to this end, and with the right people
coming together, this will happen, but in God's timing and by his perfect will. Love never fails.

While I find your grammar to be otherwise impeccable, I would remind you that Democrat is a noun, and that Democratic is an adjective. Since I'm sure you know that, your misuse of the terms is a bit bewildering.

Sorry, I don't know much about the thread, but don't Christians justify their hatred of homosexuals by quoting bible verses?

Where_r_my_Keys it's more than just legitimacy
the liberals that use the govt for their church require this in order to have the free exercise of their political beliefs.
Same with "right to health care"
They do have equal right to pursue their political beliefs, but just not at the expense of others.
My suggestion is to use the Party structure to form statewide and national networks to exercise their beliefs.

Instead of trying to take away their beliefs from them, set up a way they can have this but to themselves.

See Romans 2:14 where the gentiles "become a law unto themselves." Form their own political religion
and do all the things under their laws, and this doesn't have to impose on anyone else with different beliefs.

I admire you... I honestly do. You have a wonderful optimism about you, that I enjoy being around.

With that said... I can't fully agree with you on you above stated position. And it's not that I don't agree with your position... it's that I don't agree with your judgment regarding the Left.

And please note I did not say, the homosexuals... but 'the Left'.

The Movement is Leftists... and I believe largely separate from the homosexual. The problem is that like the Muslim problem... dealing with "Islam" requires injury to the Muslim.

I wish there was a way to deal with the problem at the individual level. But sadly, the movement has made that, virtually impossible.

Thanks Where_r_my_Keys

As a Democrat, I made my public oath to defend the Constitution (and have regretted it for the longest time!),
unfortunately I am saddled with this very challenge of how to fix a party that has turned against its
own platform of prochoice and equal inclusion of minority views. I have watched fellow Democrats and even
national history get destroyed by Democrat politics, claiming it was representing Blacks and minorities while selling us out.

There is no way out but to fix the problems, and yes it will be through the Party
to reach and reform this whole movement following their leaders.

I am stuck with this until this is resolved by consensus.
There are no shortcuts to fixing the mess, just fixing the mess. ACA included.

Thanks for your encouraging words of support, and realism in what this will take.

God has given me creative resources to use to this end, and with the right people
coming together, this will happen, but in God's timing and by his perfect will. Love never fails.

While I find your grammar to be impeccable in all other ways, I see an error that is so consistent, that I think it must be intentional.

There is no Democrat Party. There are no Democrat politics. Democrat is not an adjective, but a noun. Why do you do that.?

Sorry, that's off-topic. I don't know much about its thread. I didn't read it.

But it is my observation that Christians justify their phobias with bible verses. I think this is one: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you ..." No, maybe not that one, but that was used to justify an erroneous belief.

Do you double up on everything you type or just your pedantry?

No, it's just my ineptness with my I-phone.

Sorry Impenitent
I forgot you are on your phone

Can I make this simple:

if you want to ask all Conservatives to use the term Democratic Party
would it be fair to ask the Liberals NOT to use the term "prochoice" anymore
because the ACA mandates prove they aren't. And agree they can no longer
use the term "separation of church and state" because they have proved
that by imposing THEIR BELIEFS about "right to health care" and "right to marriage"
as political beliefs, and abusing govt to PUNISH people for "not changing their beliefs,"
they aren't respecting "separation of church and state" or "private beliefs from public policy."

How can we make this fair by asking both sides to solve their part of the problem?

[We can also ask Conservatives to distinguish themselves
and NOT use the term "prolife" unless they are 100% against war,
death penalty, abortion even in cases of rape/incest, and only
reserve this term for the people who truly are consistently prolife so there is no confusion
and no selling out of voters based on fraud or misrepresenting their beliefs.]

 

[Impenitent]

I'm not asking conservatives to use the term "Democratic Party." I expect that level of disrespect from them.

What I am asking for is a fellow Democrat (one who wants a seat at the table among the Texas Democratic Women, yet is somehow spurned by them) to use the term properly.

I suggested that your restorative justice proposal might be seen in a more favorable light by Democrats if you would remove the Republican talking points from it. I had no idea that had already happened.

Semantics is not pedantry. Your choice of words will
have impact. As you well know.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... [We can also ask Conservatives to distinguish themselves and NOT use the term "prolife" unless they are 100% against war,
death penalty, abortion even in cases of rape/incest, and only
reserve this term for the people who truly are consistently prolife so there is no confusion
and no selling out of voters based on fraud or misrepresenting their beliefs.]

War and the Death Penalty imply in near certain terms, defense from those who threaten innocent life... Abortion is a term used exclusively for the killing of purely innocent life.

Being pro-life, in no way excludes one recognizing that among the correlating responsibilities intrinsic to the one's right to their life, is the responsibility to defend innocent life, from those intent upon injuring or taking innocent life. In fact, where one rejects that responsibility, one axiomatically rejects, and therefore forfeits the right to their own life, by default.

In circumstances of rape, the life conceived is innocent life. However, that innocent life was set into the body of the woman, absent her authorization, permission or assent. And given the inherent threat to the life of the female presented by gestation, the woman is morally justified to take the life of that innocent, just as she is morally justified to carry the child through birth and either raise it, as her child, which it is... or give the child its life, but put it up for adoption.

In cases of incest, where the sexual relationship was willful and the woman an adult, she is as responsible for conception as any other woman who willfully engages in coitus and conceives. Where the female is not an adult, the circumstances fall under rape.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No, imposing as in forcing your beliefs on someone else, and that someone else not having a say in the matter. It does work both ways, does it not?

No one is forcing any belief on anyone.

Business's are being told that they can't violate the law.

No, they are being told to violate their religious beliefs. See the difference?

No- business's are being told that they can't violate the law- doesn't matter what the business's owner's religious beliefs are.

If the business owner is a kosher butcher, and he believes that his faith says that he must slaughter his animals in his shop- but local ordinances forbid the killing of livestock in that zone- he can't claim that he can violate the law because of his religion.

A Muslim can't refuse to serve a Jew by claiming that its against his religious beliefs. A Catholic can't refuse to serve a Mormon by claiming it would violate his religious beliefs.

The law is applied equally to all business'

So if the law is that say... well, let's say that the law says that owning a human being is legal and helping those people who are the property of other people, to flee from their bondage... You're saying that it would be wrong for those people who disagree with that, to say... help those who are enslaved, to find freedom?

REALLY?

You're saying that 'THE LAW' is the law and rejecting the law is wrong?

But THAT would mean that the Federal judiciary was wrong, when it overturned the law in the vast majority of the states, which recognized and sustained the natural standard of marriage...

I mean, that's just one person saying that the vast majority of the people were wrong... just like that florist did, except that florist didn't proclaim that EVERYONE in her state couldn't sell flowers to celebrate that which she 'felt' was wrong... she just said "Not me... ."

You seem very confused about this stuff.

Hi Where_r_my_Keys
I would say that a state law that went too far and banned gay marriage from CHURCHES would
be unconstitutional by interfering with free exercise of religion.

If you want to ban marriages from the state laws, do it consistently
and have NO marriage at all, and just civil contracts for all people.
================================================
If you want to get all legal and technical about "personal marriages and relations"
maybe we need a different level of law if people are going to "mandate" on this level.

If you are going to require that gays be included, maybe the peopel of that state can
require that ALL couples go through spiritual healing and counseling to make sure
none of them are sick, abusive, adulterous, lying, committing relationship abuse/fraud, etc.
And require this counseling for ALL couples in advance, similar to how the Catholics require that
before sanctifying marriage. Either all agree on a policy or keep it out of the state and keep it private.
Parties can even organize their own political churches and sanctify couples and manage benefits,
since they are big enough to represent and coordinate on both local, district, state and national levels.
Why not set up means through there and keep it private by their beliefs.

Hello Emily...

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

And to be sure, I am not talking about banning marriage. I am advocating providing a legal means for people to group together, as one legal entity for any legal purpose, which has been done for centuries through incorporation. Where the new collective is legally recognized as one entity, rights and privileges established... with many configurations presently existing to accommodate numerous distinct purposes and where none of those configurations fit, redress the legislature to create one which does.

And this would provide legitimacy of the group, where marriage is inappropriate and given the mono-gender aspect of that particular deviancy and marriage being suited exclusively to the distinct genders, such is the school solution.

Naturally, the Left will not accept that solution, because it doesn't meet the goal of the Left, which is to undermine the US Culture, ripping it from its Judea-Christian mooring. But that is what nature creates civil war to solve.

.

.

.

Now with regard to spiritual healing...

I'm all for people seeking counseling prior to any long term commitment... as such comes with responsibilities that most citizens of the US today have been trained to reject, by the aforementioned advocacy of Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle and for the reason stated.

My wife and I were guided toward counseling prior to marriage and told in no uncertain terms that we should not marry.

She the youngest of four children and the only girl... and me the oldest of three and the only son; we were told that our mutual egos would not be compatible once the RIDICULOUSLY hot sex faded. This from our own Pastor and one who had been close personal friends of my wife's family for decades... LOL! He literally told us that we represented the respective personification of 'the irresistible force and the immovable object' and that we had no chance to remain married and that we would make each other miserable.

That was well over 35 years ago.

And here we are, six near divorces and four children (three biological, one adopted) later... still at each others throats on a daily basis... and still very much in love.

Again... we've joined together; we're one.

We don't ask for anyone's permission for our union and we don't give a red rats ass who thinks what about it. And therein lies the distinction... between being rightly entitled and WANTING to be rightly entitled.

Where one is rightly entitled, they don't ask the government for permission, they don't ask their neighbors for permission, they don't ask the florist 'if they'll sell flowers', or the baker 'if they'll sell a cake'. They just do it... because: they're rightly entitled to do so.

 

[emilynghiem]

No one is forcing any belief on anyone.

Business's are being told that they can't violate the law.

No, they are being told to violate their religious beliefs. See the difference?

No- business's are being told that they can't violate the law- doesn't matter what the business's owner's religious beliefs are.

If the business owner is a kosher butcher, and he believes that his faith says that he must slaughter his animals in his shop- but local ordinances forbid the killing of livestock in that zone- he can't claim that he can violate the law because of his religion.

A Muslim can't refuse to serve a Jew by claiming that its against his religious beliefs. A Catholic can't refuse to serve a Mormon by claiming it would violate his religious beliefs.

The law is applied equally to all business'

So if the law is that say... well, let's say that the law says that owning a human being is legal and helping those people who are the property of other people, to flee from their bondage... You're saying that it would be wrong for those people who disagree with that, to say... help those who are enslaved, to find freedom?

REALLY?

You're saying that 'THE LAW' is the law and rejecting the law is wrong?

But THAT would mean that the Federal judiciary was wrong, when it overturned the law in the vast majority of the states, which recognized and sustained the natural standard of marriage...

I mean, that's just one person saying that the vast majority of the people were wrong... just like that florist did, except that florist didn't proclaim that EVERYONE in her state couldn't sell flowers to celebrate that which she 'felt' was wrong... she just said "Not me... ."

You seem very confused about this stuff.

Hi Where_r_my_Keys
I would say that a state law that went too far and banned gay marriage from CHURCHES would
be unconstitutional by interfering with free exercise of religion.

If you want to ban marriages from the state laws, do it consistently
and have NO marriage at all, and just civil contracts for all people.
================================================
If you want to get all legal and technical about "personal marriages and relations"
maybe we need a different level of law if people are going to "mandate" on this level.

If you are going to require that gays be included, maybe the peopel of that state can
require that ALL couples go through spiritual healing and counseling to make sure
none of them are sick, abusive, adulterous, lying, committing relationship abuse/fraud, etc.
And require this counseling for ALL couples in advance, similar to how the Catholics require that
before sanctifying marriage. Either all agree on a policy or keep it out of the state and keep it private.
Parties can even organize their own political churches and sanctify couples and manage benefits,
since they are big enough to represent and coordinate on both local, district, state and national levels.
Why not set up means through there and keep it private by their beliefs.

Hello Emily...

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. I am not talking about banning marriage, I am advocating providing a legal means for people to group together, as one legal entity for any legal purpose, which has been done for centuries through incorporation. Where the new collective is legally recognized as one entity, rights and privileges established... with many configurations presently existing to accommodate numerous distinct purposes. Which would provide legitimacy of the group, where marriage is inappropriate.

I'm all for people seeking counseling prior to any long term commitment... as such comes with responsibilities that most citizens of the US today have been trained from being able to conceive of such.

My wife and I were counseled prior to marriage and told in no uncertain terms that we should not marry. She the youngest of four children and the only girl... and me the oldest of three and the only son, we were told that our mutual egos would not be compatible once the RIDICULOUSLY hot sex faded; that we represented the respective personification of 'the irresistible force and the immovable object'.

That was well over 35 years ago and here we are, six near divorces and four children (three biological, one adopted) later... still at each others throats, and still very much in love.

Again... we've joined together; we're one. We don't ask for anyone's permission for our union and we don't give a red rats ass who thinks what about it. And therein lies the distinction... between being rightly entitled and WANTING to be rightly entitled.

Where one is rightly entitled, they don't ask the government for permission, they don't ask their neighbors for permission, they don't ask the florist 'if they'll sell flowers', or the baker 'if they'll sell a cake'. They just do it... because: they're rightly entitled to do so.

Hi Where_r_my_Keys
My point is that the same way you had spelled out civil unions
was this the same legal options and process for both same sex and traditional couples?
As long as it is equal that is what the state can endorse if people agree the terms are written equally.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No, they are being told to violate their religious beliefs. See the difference?

No- business's are being told that they can't violate the law- doesn't matter what the business's owner's religious beliefs are.

If the business owner is a kosher butcher, and he believes that his faith says that he must slaughter his animals in his shop- but local ordinances forbid the killing of livestock in that zone- he can't claim that he can violate the law because of his religion.

A Muslim can't refuse to serve a Jew by claiming that its against his religious beliefs. A Catholic can't refuse to serve a Mormon by claiming it would violate his religious beliefs.

The law is applied equally to all business'

So if the law is that say... well, let's say that the law says that owning a human being is legal and helping those people who are the property of other people, to flee from their bondage... You're saying that it would be wrong for those people who disagree with that, to say... help those who are enslaved, to find freedom?

REALLY?

You're saying that 'THE LAW' is the law and rejecting the law is wrong?

But THAT would mean that the Federal judiciary was wrong, when it overturned the law in the vast majority of the states, which recognized and sustained the natural standard of marriage...

I mean, that's just one person saying that the vast majority of the people were wrong... just like that florist did, except that florist didn't proclaim that EVERYONE in her state couldn't sell flowers to celebrate that which she 'felt' was wrong... she just said "Not me... ."

You seem very confused about this stuff.

Hi Where_r_my_Keys
I would say that a state law that went too far and banned gay marriage from CHURCHES would
be unconstitutional by interfering with free exercise of religion.

If you want to ban marriages from the state laws, do it consistently
and have NO marriage at all, and just civil contracts for all people.
================================================
If you want to get all legal and technical about "personal marriages and relations"
maybe we need a different level of law if people are going to "mandate" on this level.

If you are going to require that gays be included, maybe the peopel of that state can
require that ALL couples go through spiritual healing and counseling to make sure
none of them are sick, abusive, adulterous, lying, committing relationship abuse/fraud, etc.
And require this counseling for ALL couples in advance, similar to how the Catholics require that
before sanctifying marriage. Either all agree on a policy or keep it out of the state and keep it private.
Parties can even organize their own political churches and sanctify couples and manage benefits,
since they are big enough to represent and coordinate on both local, district, state and national levels.
Why not set up means through there and keep it private by their beliefs.

Hello Emily...

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

And to be sure, I am not talking about banning marriage. I am advocating providing a legal means for people to group together, as one legal entity for any legal purpose, which has been done for centuries through incorporation. Where the new collective is legally recognized as one entity, rights and privileges established... with many configurations presently existing to accommodate numerous distinct purposes and where none of those configurations fit, redress the legislature to create one which does.

And this would provide legitimacy of the group, where marriage is inappropriate and given the mono-gender aspect of that particular deviancy and marriage being suited exclusively to the distinct genders, such is the school solution.

Naturally, the Left will not accept that solution, because it doesn't meet the goal of the Left, which is to undermine the US Culture, ripping it from its Judea-Christian mooring. But that is what nature creates civil war to solve.

.

.

.

Now with regard to spiritual healing...

I'm all for people seeking counseling prior to any long term commitment... as such comes with responsibilities that most citizens of the US today have been trained to reject, by the aforementioned advocacy of Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle and for the reason stated.

My wife and I were guided toward counseling prior to marriage and told in no uncertain terms that we should not marry.

She the youngest of four children and the only girl... and me the oldest of three and the only son; we were told that our mutual egos would not be compatible once the RIDICULOUSLY hot sex faded. This from our own Pastor and one who had been close personal friends of my wife's family for decades... LOL! He literally told us that we represented the respective personification of 'the irresistible force and the immovable object' and that we had no chance to remain married and that we would make each other miserable.

That was well over 35 years ago.

And here we are, six near divorces and four children (three biological, one adopted) later... still at each others throats on a daily basis... and still very much in love.

Again... we've joined together; we're one.

We don't ask for anyone's permission for our union and we don't give a red rats ass who thinks what about it. And therein lies the distinction... between being rightly entitled and WANTING to be rightly entitled.

Where one is rightly entitled, they don't ask the government for permission, they don't ask their neighbors for permission, they don't ask the florist 'if they'll sell flowers', or the baker 'if they'll sell a cake'. They just do it... because: they're rightly entitled to do so.

Hi Where_r_my_Keys
My point is that the same way you had spelled out civil unions
was this the same legal options and process for both same sex and traditional couples?
As long as it is equal that is what the state can endorse if people agree the terms are written equally.

I see... and I agree that anyone can incorporate. Yes.

But not everyone should... just as not everyone should get married.

And isn't it wonderful that I; Republican and devotee to all that is Conservatism... and you a Democrat ... can both see the wisdom in that simple solution, where each and every would-be 'grievance' that the ANSA Cult has advanced, and which is axiomatically rejected, demonstrating that their 'would-be grievances' were profound deceits... and that their stated intentions were fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant.

So what's the difference between the ANSA Cult and us?

I submit that the distinction is, that you and I are honest brokers... reasonable people searching for a sound, sustainable solution.

Our mutual opposition, are not honest, they attack an institution which is deeply meaningful to people, with thousands of years of tradition and history, resting in unimpeachable, entirely natural, objectively reasoned principle... despite perfectly reasonable alternatives, meeting all of their professed goals... just so that can say 'they're member's too'.

That is wholly subjective, it's hateful, horrid and a manifestation of nothing short of old testament EVIL.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No- business's are being told that they can't violate the law- doesn't matter what the business's owner's religious beliefs are.

If the business owner is a kosher butcher, and he believes that his faith says that he must slaughter his animals in his shop- but local ordinances forbid the killing of livestock in that zone- he can't claim that he can violate the law because of his religion.

A Muslim can't refuse to serve a Jew by claiming that its against his religious beliefs. A Catholic can't refuse to serve a Mormon by claiming it would violate his religious beliefs.

The law is applied equally to all business'

So if the law is that say... well, let's say that the law says that owning a human being is legal and helping those people who are the property of other people, to flee from their bondage... You're saying that it would be wrong for those people who disagree with that, to say... help those who are enslaved, to find freedom?

REALLY?

You're saying that 'THE LAW' is the law and rejecting the law is wrong?

But THAT would mean that the Federal judiciary was wrong, when it overturned the law in the vast majority of the states, which recognized and sustained the natural standard of marriage...

I mean, that's just one person saying that the vast majority of the people were wrong... just like that florist did, except that florist didn't proclaim that EVERYONE in her state couldn't sell flowers to celebrate that which she 'felt' was wrong... she just said "Not me... ."

You seem very confused about this stuff.

Hi Where_r_my_Keys
I would say that a state law that went too far and banned gay marriage from CHURCHES would
be unconstitutional by interfering with free exercise of religion.

If you want to ban marriages from the state laws, do it consistently
and have NO marriage at all, and just civil contracts for all people.
================================================
If you want to get all legal and technical about "personal marriages and relations"
maybe we need a different level of law if people are going to "mandate" on this level.

If you are going to require that gays be included, maybe the peopel of that state can
require that ALL couples go through spiritual healing and counseling to make sure
none of them are sick, abusive, adulterous, lying, committing relationship abuse/fraud, etc.
And require this counseling for ALL couples in advance, similar to how the Catholics require that
before sanctifying marriage. Either all agree on a policy or keep it out of the state and keep it private.
Parties can even organize their own political churches and sanctify couples and manage benefits,
since they are big enough to represent and coordinate on both local, district, state and national levels.
Why not set up means through there and keep it private by their beliefs.

Hello Emily...

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

And to be sure, I am not talking about banning marriage. I am advocating providing a legal means for people to group together, as one legal entity for any legal purpose, which has been done for centuries through incorporation. Where the new collective is legally recognized as one entity, rights and privileges established... with many configurations presently existing to accommodate numerous distinct purposes and where none of those configurations fit, redress the legislature to create one which does.

And this would provide legitimacy of the group, where marriage is inappropriate and given the mono-gender aspect of that particular deviancy and marriage being suited exclusively to the distinct genders, such is the school solution.

Naturally, the Left will not accept that solution, because it doesn't meet the goal of the Left, which is to undermine the US Culture, ripping it from its Judea-Christian mooring. But that is what nature creates civil war to solve.

.

.

.

Now with regard to spiritual healing...

I'm all for people seeking counseling prior to any long term commitment... as such comes with responsibilities that most citizens of the US today have been trained to reject, by the aforementioned advocacy of Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle and for the reason stated.

My wife and I were guided toward counseling prior to marriage and told in no uncertain terms that we should not marry.

She the youngest of four children and the only girl... and me the oldest of three and the only son; we were told that our mutual egos would not be compatible once the RIDICULOUSLY hot sex faded. This from our own Pastor and one who had been close personal friends of my wife's family for decades... LOL! He literally told us that we represented the respective personification of 'the irresistible force and the immovable object' and that we had no chance to remain married and that we would make each other miserable.

That was well over 35 years ago.

And here we are, six near divorces and four children (three biological, one adopted) later... still at each others throats on a daily basis... and still very much in love.

Again... we've joined together; we're one.

We don't ask for anyone's permission for our union and we don't give a red rats ass who thinks what about it. And therein lies the distinction... between being rightly entitled and WANTING to be rightly entitled.

Where one is rightly entitled, they don't ask the government for permission, they don't ask their neighbors for permission, they don't ask the florist 'if they'll sell flowers', or the baker 'if they'll sell a cake'. They just do it... because: they're rightly entitled to do so.

Hi Where_r_my_Keys
My point is that the same way you had spelled out civil unions
was this the same legal options and process for both same sex and traditional couples?
As long as it is equal that is what the state can endorse if people agree the terms are written equally.

I see... and I agree that anyone can incorporate. Yes.

But not everyone should... just as not everyone should get married.

And isn't it wonderful that I; Republican and devotee to all that is Conservatism... and you a Democrat ... can both see the wisdom in that simple solution, where each and every would-be 'grievance' that the ANSA Cult has advanced, and which is axiomatically rejected, demonstrating that their 'would-be grievances' were profound deceits... and that their stated intentions were fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant.

So what's the difference between the ANSA Cult and us?

I submit that the distinction is, that you and I are honest brokers... reasonable people searching for a sound, sustainable solution.

Our mutual opposition, are not honest, they attack an institution which is deeply meaningful to people, with thousands of years of tradition and history, resting in unimpeachable, entirely natural, objectively reasoned principle... despite perfectly reasonable alternatives, meeting all of their professed goals... just so that can say 'they're member's too'.

That is wholly subjective, it's hateful, horrid and a manifestation of nothing short of old testament EVIL.

There is no attack on the institution of marriage. It requires a built in, prerequisite bigotry on your part to assume that same sex marriage harms anyone.

 

[Seawytch]

So if the law is that say... well, let's say that the law says that owning a human being is legal and helping those people who are the property of other people, to flee from their bondage... You're saying that it would be wrong for those people who disagree with that, to say... help those who are enslaved, to find freedom?

REALLY?

You're saying that 'THE LAW' is the law and rejecting the law is wrong?

But THAT would mean that the Federal judiciary was wrong, when it overturned the law in the vast majority of the states, which recognized and sustained the natural standard of marriage...

I mean, that's just one person saying that the vast majority of the people were wrong... just like that florist did, except that florist didn't proclaim that EVERYONE in her state couldn't sell flowers to celebrate that which she 'felt' was wrong... she just said "Not me... ."

You seem very confused about this stuff.

Hi Where_r_my_Keys
I would say that a state law that went too far and banned gay marriage from CHURCHES would
be unconstitutional by interfering with free exercise of religion.

If you want to ban marriages from the state laws, do it consistently
and have NO marriage at all, and just civil contracts for all people.
================================================
If you want to get all legal and technical about "personal marriages and relations"
maybe we need a different level of law if people are going to "mandate" on this level.

If you are going to require that gays be included, maybe the peopel of that state can
require that ALL couples go through spiritual healing and counseling to make sure
none of them are sick, abusive, adulterous, lying, committing relationship abuse/fraud, etc.
And require this counseling for ALL couples in advance, similar to how the Catholics require that
before sanctifying marriage. Either all agree on a policy or keep it out of the state and keep it private.
Parties can even organize their own political churches and sanctify couples and manage benefits,
since they are big enough to represent and coordinate on both local, district, state and national levels.
Why not set up means through there and keep it private by their beliefs.

Hello Emily...

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

And to be sure, I am not talking about banning marriage. I am advocating providing a legal means for people to group together, as one legal entity for any legal purpose, which has been done for centuries through incorporation. Where the new collective is legally recognized as one entity, rights and privileges established... with many configurations presently existing to accommodate numerous distinct purposes and where none of those configurations fit, redress the legislature to create one which does.

And this would provide legitimacy of the group, where marriage is inappropriate and given the mono-gender aspect of that particular deviancy and marriage being suited exclusively to the distinct genders, such is the school solution.

Naturally, the Left will not accept that solution, because it doesn't meet the goal of the Left, which is to undermine the US Culture, ripping it from its Judea-Christian mooring. But that is what nature creates civil war to solve.

.

.

.

Now with regard to spiritual healing...

I'm all for people seeking counseling prior to any long term commitment... as such comes with responsibilities that most citizens of the US today have been trained to reject, by the aforementioned advocacy of Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle and for the reason stated.

My wife and I were guided toward counseling prior to marriage and told in no uncertain terms that we should not marry.

She the youngest of four children and the only girl... and me the oldest of three and the only son; we were told that our mutual egos would not be compatible once the RIDICULOUSLY hot sex faded. This from our own Pastor and one who had been close personal friends of my wife's family for decades... LOL! He literally told us that we represented the respective personification of 'the irresistible force and the immovable object' and that we had no chance to remain married and that we would make each other miserable.

That was well over 35 years ago.

And here we are, six near divorces and four children (three biological, one adopted) later... still at each others throats on a daily basis... and still very much in love.

Again... we've joined together; we're one.

We don't ask for anyone's permission for our union and we don't give a red rats ass who thinks what about it. And therein lies the distinction... between being rightly entitled and WANTING to be rightly entitled.

Where one is rightly entitled, they don't ask the government for permission, they don't ask their neighbors for permission, they don't ask the florist 'if they'll sell flowers', or the baker 'if they'll sell a cake'. They just do it... because: they're rightly entitled to do so.

Hi Where_r_my_Keys
My point is that the same way you had spelled out civil unions
was this the same legal options and process for both same sex and traditional couples?
As long as it is equal that is what the state can endorse if people agree the terms are written equally.

I see... and I agree that anyone can incorporate. Yes.

But not everyone should... just as not everyone should get married.

And isn't it wonderful that I; Republican and devotee to all that is Conservatism... and you a Democrat ... can both see the wisdom in that simple solution, where each and every would-be 'grievance' that the ANSA Cult has advanced, and which is axiomatically rejected, demonstrating that their 'would-be grievances' were profound deceits... and that their stated intentions were fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant.

So what's the difference between the ANSA Cult and us?

I submit that the distinction is, that you and I are honest brokers... reasonable people searching for a sound, sustainable solution.

Our mutual opposition, are not honest, they attack an institution which is deeply meaningful to people, with thousands of years of tradition and history, resting in unimpeachable, entirely natural, objectively reasoned principle... despite perfectly reasonable alternatives, meeting all of their professed goals... just so that can say 'they're member's too'.

That is wholly subjective, it's hateful, horrid and a manifestation of nothing short of old testament EVIL.

There is no attack on the institution of marriage. It requires a built in, prerequisite bigotry on your part to assume that same sex marriage harms anyone.

If same sex marriage has an effect on you, one or both of you is gay.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Where_r_my_Keys
I would say that a state law that went too far and banned gay marriage from CHURCHES would
be unconstitutional by interfering with free exercise of religion.

If you want to ban marriages from the state laws, do it consistently
and have NO marriage at all, and just civil contracts for all people.
================================================
If you want to get all legal and technical about "personal marriages and relations"
maybe we need a different level of law if people are going to "mandate" on this level.

If you are going to require that gays be included, maybe the peopel of that state can
require that ALL couples go through spiritual healing and counseling to make sure
none of them are sick, abusive, adulterous, lying, committing relationship abuse/fraud, etc.
And require this counseling for ALL couples in advance, similar to how the Catholics require that
before sanctifying marriage. Either all agree on a policy or keep it out of the state and keep it private.
Parties can even organize their own political churches and sanctify couples and manage benefits,
since they are big enough to represent and coordinate on both local, district, state and national levels.
Why not set up means through there and keep it private by their beliefs.

Hello Emily...

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

And to be sure, I am not talking about banning marriage. I am advocating providing a legal means for people to group together, as one legal entity for any legal purpose, which has been done for centuries through incorporation. Where the new collective is legally recognized as one entity, rights and privileges established... with many configurations presently existing to accommodate numerous distinct purposes and where none of those configurations fit, redress the legislature to create one which does.

And this would provide legitimacy of the group, where marriage is inappropriate and given the mono-gender aspect of that particular deviancy and marriage being suited exclusively to the distinct genders, such is the school solution.

Naturally, the Left will not accept that solution, because it doesn't meet the goal of the Left, which is to undermine the US Culture, ripping it from its Judea-Christian mooring. But that is what nature creates civil war to solve.

.

.

.

Now with regard to spiritual healing...

I'm all for people seeking counseling prior to any long term commitment... as such comes with responsibilities that most citizens of the US today have been trained to reject, by the aforementioned advocacy of Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle and for the reason stated.

My wife and I were guided toward counseling prior to marriage and told in no uncertain terms that we should not marry.

She the youngest of four children and the only girl... and me the oldest of three and the only son; we were told that our mutual egos would not be compatible once the RIDICULOUSLY hot sex faded. This from our own Pastor and one who had been close personal friends of my wife's family for decades... LOL! He literally told us that we represented the respective personification of 'the irresistible force and the immovable object' and that we had no chance to remain married and that we would make each other miserable.

That was well over 35 years ago.

And here we are, six near divorces and four children (three biological, one adopted) later... still at each others throats on a daily basis... and still very much in love.

Again... we've joined together; we're one.

We don't ask for anyone's permission for our union and we don't give a red rats ass who thinks what about it. And therein lies the distinction... between being rightly entitled and WANTING to be rightly entitled.

Where one is rightly entitled, they don't ask the government for permission, they don't ask their neighbors for permission, they don't ask the florist 'if they'll sell flowers', or the baker 'if they'll sell a cake'. They just do it... because: they're rightly entitled to do so.

Hi Where_r_my_Keys
My point is that the same way you had spelled out civil unions
was this the same legal options and process for both same sex and traditional couples?
As long as it is equal that is what the state can endorse if people agree the terms are written equally.

I see... and I agree that anyone can incorporate. Yes.

But not everyone should... just as not everyone should get married.

And isn't it wonderful that I; Republican and devotee to all that is Conservatism... and you a Democrat ... can both see the wisdom in that simple solution, where each and every would-be 'grievance' that the ANSA Cult has advanced, and which is axiomatically rejected, demonstrating that their 'would-be grievances' were profound deceits... and that their stated intentions were fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant.

So what's the difference between the ANSA Cult and us?

I submit that the distinction is, that you and I are honest brokers... reasonable people searching for a sound, sustainable solution.

Our mutual opposition, are not honest, they attack an institution which is deeply meaningful to people, with thousands of years of tradition and history, resting in unimpeachable, entirely natural, objectively reasoned principle... despite perfectly reasonable alternatives, meeting all of their professed goals... just so that can say 'they're member's too'.

That is wholly subjective, it's hateful, horrid and a manifestation of nothing short of old testament EVIL.

There is no attack on the institution of marriage. It requires a built in, prerequisite bigotry on your part to assume that same sex marriage harms anyone.

If same sex marriage has an effect on you, one or both of you is gay.

???
A. If same sex marriage is in your church or community it affects that community
B. If same sex marriage is pushed nationally in public as a right everyone should recognize or you're considered a bigot, that affects the public, gay or straight
C. If people get harassed or fined for not wanted to participate in a gay wedding that is affecting others

Sorry Seawytch it is being pushed too far where it has become a problem for others