Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Good point.Hardly.Fundamentalist Christians abuse Jesus more than they abuse homosexuals.
Christians who hold homosexuality at arms' length are oftentimes of the mindset: Hate the sin, love the sinner.
Christians who hold homosexuality at arms' length are oftentimes of the mindset: Refusing to aid and abet the sin or the sinner is demonstrating the resolve of Goodness in the face of Perversity, Aberration, Filth, Sin, Uncleanness and Wrongdoing.
Christians who hold homosexuality at arms' length are oftentimes of the mindset: We are doing the Lord's work, leading by example, in resistance to Evil; just as Jesus would have done.
Or, as Pope Francis recently said about homosexuals..."Who am I to judge?"
Beats me. I wasn't talking about Jesus shunning. I was talking about Jesus being one who was likely to resist evil."...btw, what 'sinners' did Jesus shun?"
Funny how people who don't know the Bible use it to defend their stupidity. Paul did not contradict anything. Jesus spoke against sexual immorality which homosexuality is.
When did this Jesus speak of homosexuality?
Gee..it's a shame that you've never read the Bible...
As it turns out, yes, He did. As a matter of fact, He spoke very clearly and directly about it.
Matthew 19:4. Here Jesus is answering a question from the Pharisees regarding divorce. However, his answer is very telling concerning the entire issue of sexuality, the purpose of sexuality, marriage and the proper form of marriage. Here are the words of Jesus:
And He answered and said to them, Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? (Matthew 19:4)
Now, I understand that the limp-wrists refer to each other as "Husband and Wife" however, this perversion doesn't qualify - as much as they would have us believe that it does. Marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN. Period.
The 'freedom' of businesses to refuse service to whom they choose looks like this:
...
The actual sign that German businesses put in their shop windows.
Good point.Hardly.
Christians who hold homosexuality at arms' length are oftentimes of the mindset: Hate the sin, love the sinner.
Christians who hold homosexuality at arms' length are oftentimes of the mindset: Refusing to aid and abet the sin or the sinner is demonstrating the resolve of Goodness in the face of Perversity, Aberration, Filth, Sin, Uncleanness and Wrongdoing.
Christians who hold homosexuality at arms' length are oftentimes of the mindset: We are doing the Lord's work, leading by example, in resistance to Evil; just as Jesus would have done.
Or, as Pope Francis recently said about homosexuals..."Who am I to judge?"
Trouble is, (a) Francis does not lead the entire Christian community, (b) much of the large chunk of the community that he does lead does not agree with his latter-day modernistic interpretation, and (c) his perspective is not well-rooted in Church doctrine or teachings.
Beats me. I wasn't talking about Jesus shunning. I was talking about Jesus being one who was likely to resist evil."...btw, what 'sinners' did Jesus shun?"
Source?The extreme right has been adamantly opposed to all background checks to determine if anyone has a history of mental illness. But hardly surprising that you want to blame the left for the obstruction of the extreme right.
Mark Levin: Anyone Who Does Not Filibuster Gun Legislation Is "Voting Against The Constitution." During an April 9 interview with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), The Mark Levin Show host Mark Levin lavished praise on Cruz for his threat to filibuster gun violence prevention legislation, concluding that anyone in the Senate who does not support a filibuster by Cruz and some of his colleagues are "voting against the Constitution." [Cumulus Media Networks, The Mark Levin Show, 4/9/13]
Erick Erickson: "The Only Way To Stop It Is To Filibuster." In an April 9 RedState blog post, Fox News contributor Erick Erickson chastised certain Republican senators for wanting to allow an up or down vote on gun violence prevention legislation, claiming that the legislation can only be stopped by a filibuster:
Several of the Republicans are using the Manchin-Toomey compromise plan as an excuse to cave on the gun filibuster. They claim that Senators Lee, Cruz, and Paul are running ahead of the conference in their insistence on a filibuster.
What they fail to see is that the cloture vote is the vote to stop the gun legislation from passage.
Several Republican Senators intend to vote against the filibuster, but then vote against the overall bill. This is too clever by half. The GOP does not control the Senate as the GOP is want to say every time they don't want to fight.
Their only power to block a gun control bill is to unite and filibuster.
Voting for cloture is voting for the gun control bill because, again, as the GOP reminds us, they are not in the majority. The only way to stop it is to filibuster. [RedState, 4/9/13]
Laura Ingraham: "I Say Thank Goodness" For A Filibuster Of Gun Legislation. During the April 8 edition of her radio show, host and Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham praised a potential filibuster of gun violence prevention legislation by Republicans, thanking them for having the "courage to stand and be reviled."
INGRAHAM: My question to you is, is there anyone, I mean anyone, today, in Congress or the Senate who speaks with the clarity, and the conviction and the courage, of a Lady Thatcher? One, one person. I know there are people coming up through the ranks. Do you believe for instance, someone like a John McCain, speaking about the filibuster that is coming to stop the gun control bill from being considered. Now the filibuster is going to be led by Mike Lee, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and 12 -- I guess a total of 13, Rand Paul, all of this. They're going to go up there and they're going to stand for the Second Amendment and individual liberty -- the ability to defend oneself.
[...]
And so for Rand Paul and Mike Lee and all the rest to be standing for the Second Amendment, I say thank goodness it is finally happening. Thank goodness we have people of conviction and frankly, courage to stand and be reviled. [Courtside Entertainment Group, The Laura Ingraham Show, 4/8/13]
I have no link.Please provide a link to this alleged "increasingly encroaching and obnoxious and arrogant Gay Agenda"
I'm serving up personal opinion, with respect to how the Gay Rights Agenda is being perceived in mainstream America, beyond the reach of some of polls that have been cited here...
I saw an overwhelming show of support for Chick-Fil-A in 2012 and a public relations disaster for the Gay Lobby, as an outcome of that incident...
I saw an overwhelming show of support for Duck Dynasty cast in 2013 and a public relations disaster for the Gay Lobby, as an outcome of that incident...
These massive outpourings of public support for the OPPONENTS of the Gay Lobby should tell us something about the unreliability of the polls being cited...
Consider them the Canary in the Coal Mine, for our purposes here...
Ignore that Canary to your very great peril...
Still, outpourings of public support for the OPPONENTS of the Gay Lobby don't amount to diddly squat, until it materializes into Law...
And efforts at such Law, on the State level, continue apace...
Which is what we're all doing, haunting this particular thread...
The volume of the noise does not correlate to the actual numbers of people involved. A single car with a booming stereo system passing by can drown out an entire orchestra playing in the park.
So let's put this in perspective. Those "backlashes" are the vocal minority who are opposed to gays. You are correct that it doesn't "amount to diddly squat, until it materializes into Law..." and that is where the rubber meets the road.
So let's recap the opposition to Gay marriage from a legislative perspective. It was a hot button issue in the 1990's and that resulted in DOMA being passed by the anti-gay lobby. Another 30 states chose to enact similar anti-gay marriage laws onto their books.
That was the status quo until the legal challenges to DOMA reached the Supreme Court in the Windsor case. The sheer unconstitutional discriminatory basis for DOMA was overturned by the majority of the court. However that only invalidated DOMA at the federal level. The court did not invalidate the state laws.
But Scalia was so incensed by the overturning of DOMA that he wrote a 26 page dissenting opinion. In one paragraph he provided the explicit wording that could be used in the Windsor decision to overturn the anti-gay marriage laws at the state level. Subsequently 5 of the 7 states that have had their anti-gay marriage laws overturned in lower courts have actually cited Scalia's dissent. The latest state didn't even try to fight it and just conceded that it was unconstitutional. There is every reason to believe that the other 23 states will end up having their laws overturned in next couple of years too.
So this brings us to the current attempt to enact anti-gay legislation. In order to be successful it must avoid the appearance of discrimination. With the Windsor decision now on the books that makes it illegal to discriminate against gays as a class.
This AZ law is a "Hail Mary" pass at attempting to make religious belief into a "protected class" all by itself. But the Constitution specifically forbids state endorsement of any religion whatsoever. So even if it becomes law it will be overturned as soon as it reaches the courts, let alone the Supreme Court.
The fanatical extreme right anti-gay movement is fighting a losing "rear guard" legal battle that flies in the face of the Constitution and individual rights. There is no legitimate basis for encoding discrimination against gays.
Your "Canary in the Coal Mine" metaphor is being misinterpreted. The problem the anti-gay movement faces is that is about to become an endangered species. The demographic shift will continue to work against them as more and more people adopt a realistic approach to treating gays as equal members of society.
The 'freedom' of businesses to refuse service to whom they choose looks like this:
...
The actual sign that German businesses put in their shop windows.
What a self-serving, horseshit equivalency...
Give a whiny, petulant Liberal enough time, and they'll pull out the Godwin card...
That's OK... it was overdue from your side of the aisle, anyway...
Christ, you anti-freedom types are a bunch of babbling baboons.
Your response above says volumes about why you consider yourself to be a "proud Tea Party member".
Your damned straight, sonny. And damned proud of it.
Do you know you're mentally ill?
Why not, so long as it has some basis in Christian sacred texts and Church teachings over the past 2000 years or so?Good point.Or, as Pope Francis recently said about homosexuals..."Who am I to judge?"
Trouble is, (a) Francis does not lead the entire Christian community, (b) much of the large chunk of the community that he does lead does not agree with his latter-day modernistic interpretation, and (c) his perspective is not well-rooted in Church doctrine or teachings.
Beats me. I wasn't talking about Jesus shunning. I was talking about Jesus being one who was likely to resist evil."...btw, what 'sinners' did Jesus shun?"
1. So essentially, someone can make up any belief they want about gays and call it 'Christian?...
No, I think I said that Christians who hold homosexuality at arms' length were resisting Evil, just as Jesus would have done."...2. You said Christians who hold homosexuality 'at arm's length' were acting just like Jesus acted...."
Adequately address, above, hopefully."...I asked you what 'sinners' Jesus shunned, which is synonymous with holding something at arm's length, figuratively speaking."
In the case of the former, we are talking about interfering with Freedom of Religion, which is wrong."...It's not a 'Godwin' card it's a perfectly analgous historical reference. Tell me the material difference between a business refusing to serve Jews and a business refusing to serve homosexuals."
Source?The extreme right has been adamantly opposed to all background checks to determine if anyone has a history of mental illness. But hardly surprising that you want to blame the left for the obstruction of the extreme right.
Right-Wing Media Push For GOP Obstruction Of Gun Violence Prevention Efforts | Research | Media Matters for America
That was some halfassed research. In order to make your case you need to show where they oppose the mentally insane from obtaining firearms. Those links just show opposition to the legislation that casts a wide net.Mark Levin: Anyone Who Does Not Filibuster Gun Legislation Is "Voting Against The Constitution." During an April 9 interview with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), The Mark Levin Show host Mark Levin lavished praise on Cruz for his threat to filibuster gun violence prevention legislation, concluding that anyone in the Senate who does not support a filibuster by Cruz and some of his colleagues are "voting against the Constitution." [Cumulus Media Networks, The Mark Levin Show, 4/9/13]
Erick Erickson: "The Only Way To Stop It Is To Filibuster." In an April 9 RedState blog post, Fox News contributor Erick Erickson chastised certain Republican senators for wanting to allow an up or down vote on gun violence prevention legislation, claiming that the legislation can only be stopped by a filibuster:
Several of the Republicans are using the Manchin-Toomey compromise plan as an excuse to cave on the gun filibuster. They claim that Senators Lee, Cruz, and Paul are running ahead of the conference in their insistence on a filibuster.
What they fail to see is that the cloture vote is the vote to stop the gun legislation from passage.
Several Republican Senators intend to vote against the filibuster, but then vote against the overall bill. This is too clever by half. The GOP does not control the Senate as the GOP is want to say every time they don't want to fight.
Their only power to block a gun control bill is to unite and filibuster.
Voting for cloture is voting for the gun control bill because, again, as the GOP reminds us, they are not in the majority. The only way to stop it is to filibuster. [RedState, 4/9/13]
Laura Ingraham: "I Say Thank Goodness" For A Filibuster Of Gun Legislation. During the April 8 edition of her radio show, host and Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham praised a potential filibuster of gun violence prevention legislation by Republicans, thanking them for having the "courage to stand and be reviled."
INGRAHAM: My question to you is, is there anyone, I mean anyone, today, in Congress or the Senate who speaks with the clarity, and the conviction and the courage, of a Lady Thatcher? One, one person. I know there are people coming up through the ranks. Do you believe for instance, someone like a John McCain, speaking about the filibuster that is coming to stop the gun control bill from being considered. Now the filibuster is going to be led by Mike Lee, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and 12 -- I guess a total of 13, Rand Paul, all of this. They're going to go up there and they're going to stand for the Second Amendment and individual liberty -- the ability to defend oneself.
I love that gal.And so for Rand Paul and Mike Lee and all the rest to be standing for the Second Amendment, I say thank goodness it is finally happening. Thank goodness we have people of conviction and frankly, courage to stand and be reviled. [Courtside Entertainment Group, The Laura Ingraham Show, 4/8/13]
Why not, so long as it has some basis in Christian sacred texts and Church teachings over the past 2000 years or so?Good point.
Trouble is, (a) Francis does not lead the entire Christian community, (b) much of the large chunk of the community that he does lead does not agree with his latter-day modernistic interpretation, and (c) his perspective is not well-rooted in Church doctrine or teachings.
Beats me. I wasn't talking about Jesus shunning. I was talking about Jesus being one who was likely to resist evil.
1. So essentially, someone can make up any belief they want about gays and call it 'Christian?...
Are not the schisms and separations between various branches of Christianity the result of Group A or B holding and interpreting both sacred texts and teachings in a manner that suits them?
Or should all Protestants throw out the King James Bible because they made up (and/or reinterpreted) any belief they wanted to about the universe and spiritulity and the godhead at-large, never mind a narrow-range issue like homosexuality, and set down those new or revised beliefs in a revised and unauthorized version of the Bible?
No, I think I said that Christians who hold homosexuality at arms' length were resisting Evil, just as Jesus would have done."...2. You said Christians who hold homosexuality 'at arm's length' were acting just like Jesus acted...."
Jesus called prostitution 'sin'. He forgave and loved the sinner after telling her to sin no more.
Other than interacting with a prostitute in order to convince her to refrain from sinning, it seems logical to posit that Jesus would not associate with prostitutes who were 'active' in such a lifestyle; otherwise, he would be endorsing or legitimizing such sinful behaviors.
It's easy enough to replace the word 'prostitution' with 'homosexuality' and bring the concept forward 2000 years, without stretching either the imagination nor credibility.
Adequately address, above, hopefully."...I asked you what 'sinners' Jesus shunned, which is synonymous with holding something at arm's length, figuratively speaking."
You mispelled "spot on".Ironic!Christ, you anti-freedom types are a bunch of babbling baboons.
The 'freedom' of businesses to refuse service to whom they choose looks like this:
...
The actual sign that German businesses put in their shop windows.
What a self-serving, horseshit equivalency...
Give a whiny, petulant Liberal enough time, and they'll pull out the Godwin card...
That's OK... it was overdue from your side of the aisle, anyway...
Hardly.Arizona is a homophobic state. Using religion to discriminate is just what Jesus had in mind, don't you think?
Fundamentalist Christians abuse Jesus more than they abuse homosexuals.
Christians who hold homosexuality at arms' length are oftentimes of the mindset: Hate the sin, love the sinner.
Christians who hold homosexuality at arms' length are oftentimes of the mindset: Refusing to aid and abet the sin or the sinner is demonstrating the resolve of Goodness in the face of Perversity, Aberration, Filth, Sin, Uncleanness and Wrongdoing.
Christians who hold homosexuality at arms' length are oftentimes of the mindset: We are doing the Lord's work, leading by example, in resistance to Evil; just as Jesus would have done.
Quite true."...Jesus never admonished businesses to refuse service to 'sinners'. That is a wholly fabricated, aftermarket if you will, belief that some so-called Christians have latched onto out their own biases..."
Quite true. But Freedom of Religion is an inviolable right that the Constitution has protected for far, far longer than it has been operative in shielding homosexuals."...Religion is not a magic bullet that can shoot holes in the Constitution."
Why not, so long as it has some basis in Christian sacred texts and Church teachings over the past 2000 years or so?Good point.
Trouble is, (a) Francis does not lead the entire Christian community, (b) much of the large chunk of the community that he does lead does not agree with his latter-day modernistic interpretation, and (c) his perspective is not well-rooted in Church doctrine or teachings.
Beats me. I wasn't talking about Jesus shunning. I was talking about Jesus being one who was likely to resist evil.
1. So essentially, someone can make up any belief they want about gays and call it 'Christian?...
Are not the schisms and separations between various branches of Christianity the result of Group A or B holding and interpreting both sacred texts and teachings in a manner that suits them?
Or should all Protestants throw out the King James Bible because they made up (and/or reinterpreted) any belief they wanted to about the universe and spiritulity and the godhead at-large, never mind a narrow-range issue like homosexuality, and set down those new or revised beliefs in a revised and unauthorized version of the Bible?
No, I think I said that Christians who hold homosexuality at arms' length were resisting Evil, just as Jesus would have done."...2. You said Christians who hold homosexuality 'at arm's length' were acting just like Jesus acted...."
Jesus called prostitution 'sin'. He forgave and loved the sinner after telling her to sin no more.
Other than interacting with a prostitute in order to convince her to refrain from sinning, it seems logical to posit that Jesus would not associate with prostitutes who were 'active' in such a lifestyle; otherwise, he would be endorsing or legitimizing such sinful behaviors.
It's easy enough to replace the word 'prostitution' with 'homosexuality' and bring the concept forward 2000 years, without stretching either the imagination nor credibility.
Adequately address, above, hopefully."...I asked you what 'sinners' Jesus shunned, which is synonymous with holding something at arm's length, figuratively speaking."
