Christian churches ‘must be made’ to affirm homosexuality

[PratchettFan]

The bigoted, conservative, traditional democratic south founded their "nation" 150 years ago as A Christian nation.

Appealed to "Almighty God' right in their Constitution. They thought they were the chosen people.

Today the Left thinks gays are the chosen people.

No. Just people.

Spoiled brats that can't accept no for an answer on things for which the Constitution grants them nothing related to what they demand.

Yes. That is my opinion of the far right.

Nobody gives a shit about your opinion, s0n.

I have already said that you are free not to care, as am I. But I am not the one complaining that the little kid in the playground is beating me up because he won't let me hit him anymore. I am fine with you not caring and I am fine with you being afraid. Whatever makes you happy. The important thing is that you keep vocalizing your position - which provides a far better argument for the LGBT community than they could ever make for themselves.

 

[paperview]

Yes. So that makes it ok to compromise with evil?

You didn't answer the question. Why did Lee fight for the south?

No, no. I am not going to allow a detour so you can wriggle out. You tell me why and then explain why that made it ok to compromise with evil? Why did he fight against the Christians?

I'm not going to do your homework for you, kid. I asked if you knew why he fought for the south. Do you even know why the war was fought in the first place? It wasn't Fought Over slavery.

The cause and stated purpose of the Confederacy was to preserve, protect, defend and expand slavery - and they elevated the institution to something they glorified on their currency.

Slaves working the field --

The Vice President of the CSA said African Slavery was the Cornerstone.




You can't unstick that ugly off, no matter how you try.

when can you just answer a simple question?

I'm pretty sure I did.

Try reading my post again. Have a child guide you to the first sentence if you need assistance.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The topic is about should churches be forced to affirm homosexuality and you don't have
leg to stand on if you think churches should be forced. That's a fact, Jack

I don't think churches should be forced to accept homosexuality, and neither does the gist of the op-ed you OP'ed, quackerhead.

Sure it does, you're too busy quacking about things you obliviously are clueless about to even realize what the op ed is saying. You're just another "look at how smart I am" left loon trying to impress and failing miserably at it

You've already had your ass smashed by better posters than I on this thread, loopy.

Don't cry about it.

LOL No I haven't and because YOU say so means nothing. You don't even understand the op ed and you've spent post after post getting shellacked due to your ignorance. I bet you lay in bed at night sighing over what a burden your "intelligence" is AHAHAHNAHAHNAHNA

One thing I feel pretty confident about is a lot of people as USBM think the Rabbi and your skanky ass are two of the top ranking stupidest posters of the entire right wing insane asylum here. It's a high bar, but you guys are

Winning!

 

[The Rabbi]

The topic is about should churches be forced to affirm homosexuality and you don't have
leg to stand on if you think churches should be forced. That's a fact, Jack

I don't think churches should be forced to accept homosexuality, and neither does the gist of the op-ed you OP'ed, quackerhead.

Sure it does, you're too busy quacking about things you obliviously are clueless about to even realize what the op ed is saying. You're just another "look at how smart I am" left loon trying to impress and failing miserably at it

You've already had your ass smashed by better posters than I on this thread, loopy.

Don't cry about it.

LOL No I haven't and because YOU say so means nothing. You don't even understand the op ed and you've spent post after post getting shellacked due to your ignorance. I bet you lay in bed at night sighing over what a burden your "intelligence" is AHAHAHNAHAHNAHNA

One thing I feel pretty confident about is a lot of people as USBM think the Rabbi and your skanky ass are two of the top ranking stupidest posters of the entire right wing insane asylum here. It's a high bar, but you guys are

Winning!

And you would be wrong there too. Now run along, little failure.

 

[ogibillm]

Why should gays and lesbians accept no for an answer when they wish to be treated as equal citizens under the law?

What are you going to do when SCOTUS rules in June same sex marriage is legal in every state?

Throw up more gigaloads of butt hurtedness?

The topic is about should churches be forced to affirm homosexuality and you don't have
leg to stand on if you think churches should be forced. That's a fact, Jack

I don't think churches should be forced to accept homosexuality, and neither does the gist of the op-ed you OP'ed, quackerhead.

Sure it does, you're too busy quacking about things you obliviously are clueless about to even realize what the op ed is saying. You're just another "look at how smart I am" left loon trying to impress and failing miserably at it

You've already had your ass smashed by better posters than I on this thread, loopy.

Don't cry about it.

Actually every poster on this thread is a better one than you, dunce-o. And no, the Lass has not had her ass smashed. That woul dbe you.
Are you denying that the op ed doesnt suggest churches be coerced in their teachings?

The op claims a first amendment conflict, which means government would be involved.

The op-ed does not call for government intervention. The op then is at best misleading.

 

[Conservative65]

The bigoted, conservative, traditional democratic south founded their "nation" 150 years ago as A Christian nation.

Appealed to "Almighty God' right in their Constitution. They thought they were the chosen people.

Today the Left thinks gays are the chosen people.

No. Just people.

Spoiled brats that can't accept no for an answer on things for which the Constitution grants them nothing related to what they demand.

Yes. That is my opinion of the far right.

One of the big things the left argues about related to spending is the amount on the military and the lack of it on social programs. Last time I looked, establishing and maintaining a military was a delegated power of Congress with no mention of food stamps, marriage, healthcare, etc. in the Constitution. While you may not like the amount spent on the military, that's a different thing that whether or not the power exists.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The topic is about should churches be forced to affirm homosexuality and you don't have
leg to stand on if you think churches should be forced. That's a fact, Jack

I don't think churches should be forced to accept homosexuality, and neither does the gist of the op-ed you OP'ed, quackerhead.

Sure it does, you're too busy quacking about things you obliviously are clueless about to even realize what the op ed is saying. You're just another "look at how smart I am" left loon trying to impress and failing miserably at it

You've already had your ass smashed by better posters than I on this thread, loopy.

Don't cry about it.

Actually every poster on this thread is a better one than you, dunce-o. And no, the Lass has not had her ass smashed. That woul dbe you.
Are you denying that the op ed doesnt suggest churches be coerced in their teachings?

The op claims a first amendment conflict, which means government would be involved.

The op-ed does not call for government intervention. The op then is at best misleading.

Again, who's going to do the forcing? You sissified liberals and the girly men homos? Who? C'mon motormouth, who?

 

[Conservative65]

The topic is about should churches be forced to affirm homosexuality and you don't have
leg to stand on if you think churches should be forced. That's a fact, Jack

I don't think churches should be forced to accept homosexuality, and neither does the gist of the op-ed you OP'ed, quackerhead.

Sure it does, you're too busy quacking about things you obliviously are clueless about to even realize what the op ed is saying. You're just another "look at how smart I am" left loon trying to impress and failing miserably at it

You've already had your ass smashed by better posters than I on this thread, loopy.

Don't cry about it.

LOL No I haven't and because YOU say so means nothing. You don't even understand the op ed and you've spent post after post getting shellacked due to your ignorance. I bet you lay in bed at night sighing over what a burden your "intelligence" is AHAHAHNAHAHNAHNA

One thing I feel pretty confident about is a lot of people as USBM think the Rabbi and your skanky ass are two of the top ranking stupidest posters of the entire right wing insane asylum here. It's a high bar, but you guys are

Winning!

Since none of those that think that amount to a pile of dog shit, neither do their opinions. I find it funny that those like you who are so stupid you can't fathom how stupid you are because you are can claim anything about anyone else.

 

[Conservative65]

Today the Left thinks gays are the chosen people.

No. Just people.

Spoiled brats that can't accept no for an answer on things for which the Constitution grants them nothing related to what they demand.

Yes. That is my opinion of the far right.

Nobody gives a shit about your opinion, s0n.

I have already said that you are free not to care, as am I. But I am not the one complaining that the little kid in the playground is beating me up because he won't let me hit him anymore. I am fine with you not caring and I am fine with you being afraid. Whatever makes you happy. The important thing is that you keep vocalizing your position - which provides a far better argument for the LGBT community than they could ever make for themselves.

That's because they have no argument. "I'm a fag and you should think it's normal" isn't an arugment. It's whining.

 

[ogibillm]

I don't think churches should be forced to accept homosexuality, and neither does the gist of the op-ed you OP'ed, quackerhead.

Sure it does, you're too busy quacking about things you obliviously are clueless about to even realize what the op ed is saying. You're just another "look at how smart I am" left loon trying to impress and failing miserably at it

You've already had your ass smashed by better posters than I on this thread, loopy.

Don't cry about it.

Actually every poster on this thread is a better one than you, dunce-o. And no, the Lass has not had her ass smashed. That woul dbe you.
Are you denying that the op ed doesnt suggest churches be coerced in their teachings?

The op claims a first amendment conflict, which means government would be involved.

The op-ed does not call for government intervention. The op then is at best misleading.

Again, who's going to do the forcing? You sissified liberals and the girly men homos? Who? C'mon motormouth, who?

Forcing probably isn't the right word. That implies that the churches would be changing against their will.

and how many times will you ask this and have it answered?
Church members. Public pressure. Letter campaigns. Picketing. Whatever.

Sort of like how the Episcopalians changed their church.

 

[Conservative65]

No. Just people.

Spoiled brats that can't accept no for an answer on things for which the Constitution grants them nothing related to what they demand.

Why should gays and lesbians accept no for an answer when they wish to be treated as equal citizens under the law?

What are you going to do when SCOTUS rules in June same sex marriage is legal in every state?

Throw up more gigaloads of butt hurtedness?

The topic is about should churches be forced to affirm homosexuality and you don't have
leg to stand on if you think churches should be forced. That's a fact, Jack

I don't think churches should be forced to accept homosexuality, and neither does the gist of the op-ed you OP'ed, quackerhead.

Sure it does, you're too busy quacking about things you obliviously are clueless about to even realize what the op ed is saying. You're just another "look at how smart I am" left loon trying to impress and failing miserably at it

The only one that thinks a lefwinger is smart is another left winger.

 

[PratchettFan]

The bigoted, conservative, traditional democratic south founded their "nation" 150 years ago as A Christian nation.

Appealed to "Almighty God' right in their Constitution. They thought they were the chosen people.

Today the Left thinks gays are the chosen people.

No. Just people.

Spoiled brats that can't accept no for an answer on things for which the Constitution grants them nothing related to what they demand.

Yes. That is my opinion of the far right.

One of the big things the left argues about related to spending is the amount on the military and the lack of it on social programs. Last time I looked, establishing and maintaining a military was a delegated power of Congress with no mention of food stamps, marriage, healthcare, etc. in the Constitution. While you may not like the amount spent on the military, that's a different thing that whether or not the power exists.

I have no idea what you are talking about now. I don't recall talking about the military or food stamps. Frankly, my opinion of the far left is the same as my opinion of the far right. I happen to be a conservative, a Goldwater conservative. Which, of course, makes me a RINO because I don't just toe the party line of the far right. I don't really argue with people on the left because I have no dog in that hunt. Let them police themselves. I am concerned with what has happened to the Conservative movement, which used to populated by intellectual giants such as Goldwater and Buckley. Now it has Limbaugh and Beck. They tossed out true Conservative principles in exchange for money and power, and pander to people who are only interested in being told what they want to hear.

Spoiled brats are all you are going to find on either end of the spectrum.

 

[Conservative65]

Today the Left thinks gays are the chosen people.

No. Just people.

Spoiled brats that can't accept no for an answer on things for which the Constitution grants them nothing related to what they demand.

Yes. That is my opinion of the far right.

One of the big things the left argues about related to spending is the amount on the military and the lack of it on social programs. Last time I looked, establishing and maintaining a military was a delegated power of Congress with no mention of food stamps, marriage, healthcare, etc. in the Constitution. While you may not like the amount spent on the military, that's a different thing that whether or not the power exists.

I have no idea what you are talking about now. I don't recall talking about the military or food stamps. Frankly, my opinion of the far left is the same as my opinion of the far right. I happen to be a conservative, a Goldwater conservative. Which, of course, makes me a RINO because I don't just toe the party line of the far right. I don't really argue with people on the left because I have no dog in that hunt. Let them police themselves. I am concerned with what has happened to the Conservative movement, which used to populated by intellectual giants such as Goldwater and Buckley. Now it has Limbaugh and Beck. They tossed out true Conservative principles in exchange for money and power, and pander to people who are only interested in being told what they want to hear.

Spoiled brats are all you are going to find on either end of the spectrum.

I used it as an example. I thought smart people could relate general principles. I'll make it easy.

You didn't mention the military or food stamps but you did say that you have the opinion that those on the right are spoiled brats. Spoiled brats expect a yes answer even yes isn't the answer that needs to be given. I used the EXAMPLE of how the left constantly bitches about military spending. I pointed out that maintaining a military, which involves spending, is a delegated power. I also pointed out, an an EXAMPLE, that social welfare spending is nowhere to be found in the same document that specially mentions the military.

Let's tie it together. You claim the right is a bunch of spoiled brats because they don't want to be told no on something specifically in the Constitution yet seem to think the left isn't when they're told no on things for which no Constitutional authority is given.

You're not a RINO you're a CINO. Those you call the far right don't have a party, it's called an ideology. I'm concerned with what happened to those like you that call themselves Conservatives. You claim you are then defend anything but conservatism. What you should say is you are concerned with what happened to conservatism in the manner YOU think it should be.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The OP was a lie- read the actual article that she lied about.

I did.

We have two laws - one for Christians, another VERY different law for our queer overlords.

 

[ogibillm]

The OP was a lie- read the actual article that she lied about.

I did.

We have two laws - one for Christians, another VERY different law for our queer overlords.

really? Cite them

 

[Uncensored2008]

really? Cite them

The legal requirement that Christians back cakes for queers, but queers need not bake cakes for Christians.

 

[ogibillm]

Fail.
Public accomodation laws prohibit discrimination based on faith

 

[hazlnut]

What part of freedom OF religion and separation of Church and state are the homosexuals and left loons not quite grasping?

Christian churches ‘must be made’ to affirm homosexuality, says New York Times columnist

NEW YORK, April 7, 2015 – A New York Times columnist and a corporate leader have agreed that Christian churches “must” be convinced, or coerced, to change their teachings on sexual morality and abandon an “ossified” doctrinal teaching that sex outside heterosexual marriage is immoral.

Frank Bruni wrote that traditional Christianity – whether among evangelicals, Catholics, or Orthodox – provides the greatest resistance to normalizing homosexuality in the United States in a recent column in the New York Times.

“Homosexuality and Christianity don’t have to be in conflict in any church anywhere,” Bruni insisted. “The continued view of gays, lesbians and bisexuals as sinners is a decision. It’s a choice. It prioritizes scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since — as if time had stood still, as if the advances of science and knowledge meant nothing.”

Christian churches must be made to affirm homosexuality says New York Times columnist News LifeSite

Bruni's commentary:

Frank Bruni commentary It s time to cross homosexuality off the list of sins The Columbus Dispatch

I can sum this OP in one sentence: One man has an OPINION that differs than mine.

"Christians" used to back segregation and slavery--both had ample scripture to support them. They'll eventually realize how pathetic they look using one or two lines of scripture (wa-aaaay out of historical context) to justify their homophobia.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Fail.
Public accomodation laws prohibit discrimination based on faith

You seem to have missed that a judge ruled that queers are exempt from acting against their beliefs.

There is no equality under the law.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

What part of freedom OF religion and separation of Church and state are the homosexuals and left loons not quite grasping?

Christian churches ‘must be made’ to affirm homosexuality, says New York Times columnist

NEW YORK, April 7, 2015 – A New York Times columnist and a corporate leader have agreed that Christian churches “must” be convinced, or coerced, to change their teachings on sexual morality and abandon an “ossified” doctrinal teaching that sex outside heterosexual marriage is immoral.

Frank Bruni wrote that traditional Christianity – whether among evangelicals, Catholics, or Orthodox – provides the greatest resistance to normalizing homosexuality in the United States in a recent column in the New York Times.

“Homosexuality and Christianity don’t have to be in conflict in any church anywhere,” Bruni insisted. “The continued view of gays, lesbians and bisexuals as sinners is a decision. It’s a choice. It prioritizes scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since — as if time had stood still, as if the advances of science and knowledge meant nothing.”

Christian churches must be made to affirm homosexuality says New York Times columnist News LifeSite

Bruni's commentary:

Frank Bruni commentary It s time to cross homosexuality off the list of sins The Columbus Dispatch

I can sum this OP in one sentence: One man has an OPINION that differs than mine.

"Christians" used to back segregation and slavery--both had ample scripture to support them. They'll eventually realize how pathetic they look using one or two lines of scripture (wa-aaaay out of historical context) to justify their homophobia.

You're a tad confused