Gay statists strike again...you will submit!!!!

[Rikurzhen]

This is reasonable but it fails because you misdiagnose what's really going on. If you look at the actual homosexual marriage statistics you see that it's not really all that popular with homosexuals. They're not marrying at anywhere near a proportionate rate to heterosexuals.

This effort is about normalizing homosexuality.

So allowing people to choose their associations also allows some people to see and treat homosexuals as abnormal. So the tit-for-tat arrangement where homosexuals get civil marriage is DOA because that's not what they really want.

Can you provide statistics to support your claim?

I can support every claim I make. You've asked nicely, and so here you go:

In the first half of 2007, Toronto issued a total of 7,513 marriage licences, of which 320 were for same-sex marriage. Of those, 118 were American, 201 were for other-country residents, and – how’s your math? – that leaves, er, one Canadian couple. The shrinkage isn’t for want of a target demographic, for this bustling city of approaching 3 million people is home to Canada’s largest gay and lesbian population, and whatever that is – let’s say conservatively 100,000 (that’s probably a very low estimate) – there have to be many couples. If even 3% of the population was homosexual, and they were marrying at the same rate as heterosexuals, Toronto would have issued 225 same-sex licences by now.

As Mr Beaudoin notes in his article, American politicians might want to take a hard look at these numbers as the 2008 U.S. elections loom with the inevitable question of gay marriage on the table. The conclusion they can fairly draw from the Canadian stats is that gay marriage was never more than an ideological symbol. ​

 

[Seawytch]

Some denominations have been performing same sex marriages which might account for the decline in membership and the rise in membership in more traditional denominations.

Evangelical Churches Still Growing Mainline Protestantism In Decline

Mainline Protestant churches that have seen a fall in membership since the 1970s continued their decline; the Presbyterian Church (USA) reported the greatest membership drop (2.6 percent) of the 25 largest denominations.
Other denominations reporting declines include the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Episcopal Church as well as the more evangelical Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

All these are churches that perform same sex marriage ceremonies.

All growth is in the evangelical churches.

Why Conservative Churches Are Growing David Brooks and the Limits of Sociology ndash AlbertMohler.com
With amazing insight and candor, Kelley spoke for mainline Protestantism when he noted that it had been generally assumed that churches, “if they want to succeed, will be reasonable, rational, courteous, responsible, restrained, and receptive to outside criticism.” These churches would be highly concerned with preserving “a good image in the world” — and that meant especially within the world of the cultural elites. These churches, intending to grow, would be “democratic and gentle in their internal affairs” — as the larger world defines those qualities. These churches will intend to be cooperative with other religious groups in order to meet common goals, and thus “will not let dogmatism, judgmental moralism, or obsessions with cultic purity stand in the way of such cooperation and service.”
Then, Kelley dropped his bomb: “These expectations are a recipe for the failure of the religious enterprise, and arise from a mistaken view of what success in religion is and how it should be fostered and measured.”

The churches that become more liberal will fail. They are failing right now. They can continue to pander to 2% of the population and end up with 2% of the congregation.

Sorry, but that is not what poll are showing.

Why Millennials are Leaving the Church

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Some denominations have been performing same sex marriages which might account for the decline in membership and the rise in membership in more traditional denominations.

Evangelical Churches Still Growing Mainline Protestantism In Decline

Mainline Protestant churches that have seen a fall in membership since the 1970s continued their decline; the Presbyterian Church (USA) reported the greatest membership drop (2.6 percent) of the 25 largest denominations.
Other denominations reporting declines include the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Episcopal Church as well as the more evangelical Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

All these are churches that perform same sex marriage ceremonies.

All growth is in the evangelical churches.

Why Conservative Churches Are Growing David Brooks and the Limits of Sociology ndash AlbertMohler.com
With amazing insight and candor, Kelley spoke for mainline Protestantism when he noted that it had been generally assumed that churches, “if they want to succeed, will be reasonable, rational, courteous, responsible, restrained, and receptive to outside criticism.” These churches would be highly concerned with preserving “a good image in the world” — and that meant especially within the world of the cultural elites. These churches, intending to grow, would be “democratic and gentle in their internal affairs” — as the larger world defines those qualities. These churches will intend to be cooperative with other religious groups in order to meet common goals, and thus “will not let dogmatism, judgmental moralism, or obsessions with cultic purity stand in the way of such cooperation and service.”
Then, Kelley dropped his bomb: “These expectations are a recipe for the failure of the religious enterprise, and arise from a mistaken view of what success in religion is and how it should be fostered and measured.”

The churches that become more liberal will fail. They are failing right now. They can continue to pander to 2% of the population and end up with 2% of the congregation.

Sorry, but that is not what poll are showing.

Why Millennials are Leaving the Church

Is your dishonest rooted in your homosexuality or is it the other way around? The poster was talking about ALL church goers, and then you point to one subset and say he's wrong? Dishonest tactic to say the very least

 

[Seawytch]

Nonsense. Make up your mind. Leftists called classical liberals who opposed Public Accommodation on the basis of religious affiliation bigots in the 60s, as Lefty insisted on asserting "protections" based on things beyond benign physiological traits. It was an all or nothing affair. Lefty lied about the classical liberal's real concern and "demagogued" it through, and your still not being honest about what Public Accommodation based on sexual orientation really is.

Take it up with your people. They're the social engineers of lies and hypocrisy.

Doesn't look like you have much of a point there.

Seriously? You're gonna run and hide behind "but, but, but, it was southern Democrats that were racist." That's beyond pathetic.

Either you get rid of all PA laws, or Christians shouldn't be able to discriminate against me, like I can't against them.

 

[Seawytch]

Is your dishonest rooted in your homosexuality or is it the other way around? The poster was talking about ALL church goers, and then you point to one subset and say he's wrong? Dishonest tactic to say the very least

Young people aren't going to church because churches are too political and too anti gay. You're losing members and the old anti gay fogies can't keep membership without the young folks.

Churches will adapt or die.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Nonsense. Make up your mind. Leftists called classical liberals who opposed Public Accommodation on the basis of religious affiliation bigots in the 60s, as Lefty insisted on asserting "protections" based on things beyond benign physiological traits. It was an all or nothing affair. Lefty lied about the classical liberal's real concern and "demagogued" it through, and your still not being honest about what Public Accommodation based on sexual orientation really is.

Take it up with your people. They're the social engineers of lies and hypocrisy.

Doesn't look like you have much of a point there.

Seriously? You're gonna run and hide behind "but, but, but, it was southern Democrats that were racist." That's beyond pathetic.

Either you get rid of all PA laws, or Christians shouldn't be able to discriminate against me, like I can't against them.

They should ALL be done away with. NO ONE should be able to force a private person or company (that includes corporations) to do business with them. Now a government agency? That's a different story.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Is your dishonest rooted in your homosexuality or is it the other way around? The poster was talking about ALL church goers, and then you point to one subset and say he's wrong? Dishonest tactic to say the very least

Young people aren't going to church because churches are too political and too anti gay. You're losing members and the old anti gay fogies can't keep membership without the young folks.

Churches will adapt or die.

That has nothing to do with your dishonesty You posted a poll about millennial and portrayed it to be about church membership in general.

.

 

[Seawytch]

Bodecea, did you ever come up with proof that Christians were using the Bible to justify slavery?

She did...you ignored it. I did. You ignored it. Here it is again:

Defenders of slavery noted that in the Bible, Abraham had slaves. They point to the Ten Commandments, noting that "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, ... nor his manservant, nor his maidservant." In the New Testament, Paul returned a runaway slave, Philemon, to his master, and, although slavery was widespread throughout the Roman world, Jesus never spoke out against it.
​

The Southern Argument for Slavery

Bible passages used to justify slavery:

Psalm 123:2 (New International Version (NIV)): As the eyes of slaves look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maid look to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the LORD our God, till he shows us his mercy.

Ephesians 6:4-6: Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord. Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.

Ephesians 6:5:Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

Ephesians 6:9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

Colossians 3:22:Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

Colossians 4:1:Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

Titus 2:9 Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,

1 Peter 2:18:Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.​

You can't rewrite history because it's inconvenient. Christians were on both sides of the slavery and anti miscegenation issue and the bible was used to justify the pro slavery and pro segregation argument.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Bodecea, did you ever come up with proof that Christians were using the Bible to justify slavery?

She did...you ignored it. I did. You ignored it. Here it is again:

Defenders of slavery noted that in the Bible, Abraham had slaves. They point to the Ten Commandments, noting that "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, ... nor his manservant, nor his maidservant." In the New Testament, Paul returned a runaway slave, Philemon, to his master, and, although slavery was widespread throughout the Roman world, Jesus never spoke out against it.
​

The Southern Argument for Slavery

Bible passages used to justify slavery:

Psalm 123:2 (New International Version (NIV)): As the eyes of slaves look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maid look to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the LORD our God, till he shows us his mercy.

Ephesians 6:4-6: Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord. Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.

Ephesians 6:5:Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

Ephesians 6:9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

Colossians 3:22:Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

Colossians 4:1:Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

Titus 2:9 Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,

1 Peter 2:18:Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.​

You can't rewrite history because it's inconvenient. Christians were on both sides of the slavery and anti miscegenation issue and the bible was used to justify the pro slavery and pro segregation argument.

no that is a current day writer giving their OPINION about what people back then thought. Completely dishonest of you to pretend otherwise.

Proof would be an actual quote from someone back then.

 

[Seawytch]

I can support every claim I make. You've asked nicely, and so here you go:

In the first half of 2007, Toronto issued a total of 7,513 marriage licences, of which 320 were for same-sex marriage. Of those, 118 were American, 201 were for other-country residents, and – how’s your math? – that leaves, er, one Canadian couple. The shrinkage isn’t for want of a target demographic, for this bustling city of approaching 3 million people is home to Canada’s largest gay and lesbian population, and whatever that is – let’s say conservatively 100,000 (that’s probably a very low estimate) – there have to be many couples. If even 3% of the population was homosexual, and they were marrying at the same rate as heterosexuals, Toronto would have issued 225 same-sex licences by now.

As Mr Beaudoin notes in his article, American politicians might want to take a hard look at these numbers as the 2008 U.S. elections loom with the inevitable question of gay marriage on the table. The conclusion they can fairly draw from the Canadian stats is that gay marriage was never more than an ideological symbol. ​

Stats from 2007 and from Canada...prove nothing.

 

[Seawytch]

They should ALL be done away with. NO ONE should be able to force a private person or company (that includes corporations) to do business with them. Now a government agency? That's a different story.

And you've called your Congressman to repeal all Federal Public Accommodation laws, right? I shouldn't have to put in a ramp for cripples either, right?

 

[Seawytch]

no that is a current day writer giving their OPINION about what people back then thought. Completely dishonest of you to pretend otherwise.

Proof would be an actual quote from someone back then.

What is dishonest is throwing a rock and then hiding your hand. Nobody is saying that very many Christians today feel that the bible justifies slavery, segregation and anti-miscegenation...but during the Civil War, it was very common to justify your "side" because it had god on it.

In Civil War, the Bible Became a Weapon

 

[Rikurzhen]

I can support every claim I make. You've asked nicely, and so here you go:

In the first half of 2007, Toronto issued a total of 7,513 marriage licences, of which 320 were for same-sex marriage. Of those, 118 were American, 201 were for other-country residents, and – how’s your math? – that leaves, er, one Canadian couple. The shrinkage isn’t for want of a target demographic, for this bustling city of approaching 3 million people is home to Canada’s largest gay and lesbian population, and whatever that is – let’s say conservatively 100,000 (that’s probably a very low estimate) – there have to be many couples. If even 3% of the population was homosexual, and they were marrying at the same rate as heterosexuals, Toronto would have issued 225 same-sex licences by now.

As Mr Beaudoin notes in his article, American politicians might want to take a hard look at these numbers as the 2008 U.S. elections loom with the inevitable question of gay marriage on the table. The conclusion they can fairly draw from the Canadian stats is that gay marriage was never more than an ideological symbol. ​

Stats from 2007 and from Canada...prove nothing.

The prove everything. Are you seriously contending that people in the long ago time of 2007 never wanted to get married? It seems plenty of heterosexuals were getting married in that ancient age.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Clarification on post #835

The Court did not create a new right at all in this instance. It merely extended an existing civil right, as opposed to a civil liberty, by the way, on the basis of an alleged instance of unconstitutional discrimination. In effect, the Court has in the past created new rights, but it has never done so nor can it ever do so legitimately. When that happens, the learned and the faithful know it to be an instance of tyranny.

The Court has never and can never create a new right. All they can create is new protections.

For instance you have the right to life. However , obviously in certain instances the government can infringe on that right. What they can NEVER do is change the fact that you have a right to live.

Slow down.

Yes, I understand this. We're talking about the same principle, and in fact, the government cannot legitimately infringe on these rights either. Due process and infringement are not synonymous. Due process in criminal cases if societal self-defense. Infringement is tyranny.

Civil rights and civil protections are synonymous. And sometimes the terms civil rights/protections and civil liberties are used interchangeably, while the context defines precisely what category of rights are actually being considered.

However, formally, civil rights/protections, on the one hand, and civil liberties, on the other, are two different categories of rights, and one really shouldn't blur the distinction between the two by using them interchangeably. Hence, the caveat in my post in the above "as opposed to civil liberties".

What we're talking about are natural or basic or inherent or inalienable human rights. In the constitutional language of academia and case law natural rights are civil liberties: the stuff of life, liberty and private property. These are enumerated, though not exhaustively, in the Bill of Rights. They are not afforded by the state. They are of a higher order than mere civil rights/protections. They cannot be created, granted, transferred or even taken.

The latter claim requires an explanation. Should one be put to death by the government via due process for a capital crime, for example, in theory the government doesn't actually take/infringe on one's life, as one by his own criminal volition has surrender/forfeited his life . . . to the justice of nature and nature's God. The people are merely the instrument of that justice. Do you follow? In others words, the people exert the use of deadly force in self-defense, as is their inalienable right to do so in the face of the criminal's offense against them, or his assault on them, under natural law.

Let that sink in.

And why in theory is it true that the state can only kill you via due process, but does not actually take the right to life away? Because the right itself is not granted by the state. What an entity cannot grant, it cannot take. Ultimately, and I don't care what atheists say, under natural law, it is understood that one's life and one's right to it ultimately belong to and return to the Creator.

However, in the case of privacy and abortion on demand, as distinguished from abortion proper, it has been argued that these are both civil liberties and civil rights/protections. Whatever. That's the stuff of politics, more at leftist talk. That's all I was alluding to in terms of creation, as these were asserted by the Court. In reality, of course, they are not basic rights at all.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Nonsense. Make up your mind. Leftists called classical liberals who opposed Public Accommodation on the basis of religious affiliation bigots in the 60s, as Lefty insisted on asserting "protections" based on things beyond benign physiological traits. It was an all or nothing affair. Lefty lied about the classical liberal's real concern and "demagogued" it through, and your still not being honest about what Public Accommodation based on sexual orientation really is.

Take it up with your people. They're the social engineers of lies and hypocrisy.

Doesn't look like you have much of a point there.

Seriously? You're gonna run and hide behind "but, but, but, it was southern Democrats that were racist." That's beyond pathetic.

Either you get rid of all PA laws, or Christians shouldn't be able to discriminate against me, like I can't against them.

They should ALL be done away with. NO ONE should be able to force a private person or company (that includes corporations) to do business with them. Now a government agency? That's a different story.

And I agree with that, truly. That would be the best solution of all, but lefty ain't gonna let that happen.

 

[bodecea]

This is reasonable but it fails because you misdiagnose what's really going on. If you look at the actual homosexual marriage statistics you see that it's not really all that popular with homosexuals. They're not marrying at anywhere near a proportionate rate to heterosexuals.

This effort is about normalizing homosexuality.

So allowing people to choose their associations also allows some people to see and treat homosexuals as abnormal. So the tit-for-tat arrangement where homosexuals get civil marriage is DOA because that's not what they really want.

Can you provide statistics to support your claim?

I can support every claim I make. You've asked nicely, and so here you go:

In the first half of 2007, Toronto issued a total of 7,513 marriage licences, of which 320 were for same-sex marriage. Of those, 118 were American, 201 were for other-country residents, and – how’s your math? – that leaves, er, one Canadian couple. The shrinkage isn’t for want of a target demographic, for this bustling city of approaching 3 million people is home to Canada’s largest gay and lesbian population, and whatever that is – let’s say conservatively 100,000 (that’s probably a very low estimate) – there have to be many couples. If even 3% of the population was homosexual, and they were marrying at the same rate as heterosexuals, Toronto would have issued 225 same-sex licences by now.

As Mr Beaudoin notes in his article, American politicians might want to take a hard look at these numbers as the 2008 U.S. elections loom with the inevitable question of gay marriage on the table. The conclusion they can fairly draw from the Canadian stats is that gay marriage was never more than an ideological symbol. ​

So..one city?

 

[Rikurzhen]

This is reasonable but it fails because you misdiagnose what's really going on. If you look at the actual homosexual marriage statistics you see that it's not really all that popular with homosexuals. They're not marrying at anywhere near a proportionate rate to heterosexuals.

This effort is about normalizing homosexuality.

So allowing people to choose their associations also allows some people to see and treat homosexuals as abnormal. So the tit-for-tat arrangement where homosexuals get civil marriage is DOA because that's not what they really want.

Can you provide statistics to support your claim?

I can support every claim I make. You've asked nicely, and so here you go:

In the first half of 2007, Toronto issued a total of 7,513 marriage licences, of which 320 were for same-sex marriage. Of those, 118 were American, 201 were for other-country residents, and – how’s your math? – that leaves, er, one Canadian couple. The shrinkage isn’t for want of a target demographic, for this bustling city of approaching 3 million people is home to Canada’s largest gay and lesbian population, and whatever that is – let’s say conservatively 100,000 (that’s probably a very low estimate) – there have to be many couples. If even 3% of the population was homosexual, and they were marrying at the same rate as heterosexuals, Toronto would have issued 225 same-sex licences by now.

As Mr Beaudoin notes in his article, American politicians might want to take a hard look at these numbers as the 2008 U.S. elections loom with the inevitable question of gay marriage on the table. The conclusion they can fairly draw from the Canadian stats is that gay marriage was never more than an ideological symbol. ​

So..one city?

One city, the homosexual capital of Canada, where the statistics were broken down. Even with one city, you still need to explain what's going on there and why it's not applicable elsewhere. Do you have statistics for homosexual marriage in San Francisco, American's homosexual capital? Are homosexuals in San Francisco marrying at the same proportion as the heterosexuals of San Francisco?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

They should ALL be done away with. NO ONE should be able to force a private person or company (that includes corporations) to do business with them. Now a government agency? That's a different story.

And you've called your Congressman to repeal all Federal Public Accommodation laws, right? I shouldn't have to put in a ramp for cripples either, right?

Correct, you should not have to.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Nonsense. Make up your mind. Leftists called classical liberals who opposed Public Accommodation on the basis of religious affiliation bigots in the 60s, as Lefty insisted on asserting "protections" based on things beyond benign physiological traits. It was an all or nothing affair. Lefty lied about the classical liberal's real concern and "demagogued" it through, and your still not being honest about what Public Accommodation based on sexual orientation really is.

Take it up with your people. They're the social engineers of lies and hypocrisy.

Doesn't look like you have much of a point there.

Seriously? You're gonna run and hide behind "but, but, but, it was southern Democrats that were racist." That's beyond pathetic.

Either you get rid of all PA laws, or Christians shouldn't be able to discriminate against me, like I can't against them.

Seriously. The classical liberals of the Hayekian era (1940s) and, latter, of the "Goldwater-Reagan revolution" were not the southern Democrat conservatives of Wilsonian progressivism and segregation. That's a fact. The classical liberals of that era who initially opposed Public Accommodation altogether were not motivated by racism. They were motivated by liberty. The Republican Southern strategy was to overthrow the Party’s northwestern "liberal" establishment and then appeal to the southerner's allegiance to the founding ethos of the Republic and reform him without the use of federal legislation. Notwithstanding, most, as a matter of political necessity, eventually relented, right or wrong, on the benign physiological traits of nature. They decided that they couldn't wait as the mood of the country had already shifted and they couldn't wait on southerners to catch up on their own. Also, the position of classical liberals of that era was not monolithic. Many did embrace Public Accommodation from the beginning.

What do you mean "but, but, but”?

Those are the historical facts.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

no that is a current day writer giving their OPINION about what people back then thought. Completely dishonest of you to pretend otherwise.

Proof would be an actual quote from someone back then.

What is dishonest is throwing a rock and then hiding your hand. Nobody is saying that very many Christians today feel that the bible justifies slavery, segregation and anti-miscegenation...but during the Civil War, it was very common to justify your "side" because it had god on it.

In Civil War, the Bible Became a Weapon

And yet still, not one example of a Christian from that time actually doing what you say they did.

Provide a quote, not a third parties opinion of what southern preachers were preaching.