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

[bodecea]

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.

.

Well, the others are dying off.

 

[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.

.

Well, the others are dying off.

So that absolves SeaWytch of the dishonest debate tactic?

 

[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?

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?

"The homosexual capital of Canada"....

 

[bodecea]

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.

.

Well, the others are dying off.

So that absolves SeaWytch of the dishonest debate tactic?

How is what Seawytch showed you of statistics on church goers "dishonest"?

 

[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.

.

Well, the others are dying off.

So that absolves SeaWytch of the dishonest debate tactic?

How is what Seawytch showed you of statistics on church goers "dishonest"?

Are you serious?

And you've already proven your own dishonesty to me anyway. I don't debate dishonest people.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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

So what's the big deal here?

Most Christians were opposed to slavery in England and America. Christians led the charge against it. The Bible does not condone chattel slavery. Who cares what some thought? Biblical Christianity eventually won the day, and has since won the day against segregation as well. Victory. If you think for a moment that the pagan world would have ever abandoned slavery without the influence of Christianity. . . . The bottom line is this: chattel slavery is a pagan institution that no Christians should have ever gotten entangled with, and fortunately the majority of Christians throughout history understood that and beat it back down for good in the West. The rest of the world eventually followed the West's lead, by the way, as a result of the spread of Christianity via the "evil" of colonialism. The only place it's still practiced to any significant degree is in the Islamic world.

You leftists moan about colonialism. Ever consider the plus side of it?

 

[g5000]

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

So what's the big deal here?

Most Christians were opposed to slavery in England and America. Christians led the charge against it.

Christians also led the charge for it.

 

[g5000]

Did someone mention conservative Christians and slavery?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Did someone mention conservative Christians and slavery?

So what's you're point? Slavery would have ended without the influence of Christianity? Without the triumph of Christianity over the pagan world? You seriously believe that?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I guess the crux of this thread is Christians bad fags good.

LOL pitiful

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said: ↑
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.

Nonsense.

This is naive, ignorant, and reactionary.

 

[g5000]

Did someone mention conservative Christians and slavery?

So what's you're point? Slavery would have ended without the influence of Christianity? Without the triumph of Christianity over the pagan world? You seriously believe that?

My point is that you are an unmitigated moron for believing slavery was a pagan thing.

I suppose you think the "one man/one woman" anti-gay campaign is a pagan thing, too, right?

 

[g5000]

I guess the crux of this thread is Christians bad fags good.

LOL pitiful

No, the point is that there are intolerant Christians who do not get a pass because of the tolerant ones.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said: ↑
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.

Nonsense.

This is naive, ignorant, and reactionary.

How so?

Further , let me ask you this. Who does it help to FORCE people not to discriminate

I mean this is just ridiculous and you know it, yes some of these business owners are responding to requests stupidly. My God just tell the queers your schedule is full don't actually tell them "I don't want your queer dollars" how hard is that to understand; but that is besides the point. NONE of these people who have sued because they couldn't force someone to do business with them couldn't have went somewhere else to spend their money. For that matter, who the hell wants to spend money with people who don't want their money?

I walk into a place of business and feel like they don't want my money, I leave. Let alone if they actually tell me "we don't want your money" are you telling me gays are so stupid they can't figure that one out?

Leaving all that aside for the moment , let's get back to the legal authority to outlaw discrimination. That matter SHOULD have been settled in 1885 when SCOTUS ruled laws against discrimination unconstitutional, but for whatever reason that precedent was reversed, now if you agree with the reversal that's fine, but the mere fact that at one time SCOTUS agreed with says that saying I am incorrect, naive, and reactionary is wrong.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I guess the crux of this thread is Christians bad fags good.

LOL pitiful

No, the point is that there are intolerant Christians who do not get a pass because of the tolerant ones.

oh there are intolerant Christians? Shit alert the media, this is ground shattering news. I bet Christians are the only group in the world that has some intolerant members.......

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Did someone mention conservative Christians and slavery?

So what's you're point? Slavery would have ended without the influence of Christianity? Without the triumph of Christianity over the pagan world? You seriously believe that?

My point is that you are an unmitigated moron for believing slavery was a pagan thing.

I suppose you think the "one man/one woman" anti-gay campaign is a pagan thing, too, right?

Did someone mention conservative Christians and slavery?

So what's you're point? Slavery would have ended without the influence of Christianity? Without the triumph of Christianity over the pagan world? You seriously believe that?

My point is that you are an unmitigated moron for believing slavery was a pagan thing.

I suppose you think the "one man/one woman" anti-gay campaign is a pagan thing, too, right?

Unmitigated moron? Have you gone mad? You know that's not true. That's mindless hatred speaking.

You know, in addition to discussing Public Accommodation at both the federal and state level, we've had a scholarly discussion ranging from the moonbat depravity of leftist freaks (where I even upset the all-too delicate sensibilities of conservatives, like I give a damn anymore, due to my contempt for fascist pussies), to the organizational powers of the Republic's government, to the foundational imperative governing the limits of those powers, and to the history of the early Progressive Era and that of the rebirth of classical liberalism. We even talked about slavery and the southern Christians who used the Bible to justify it . . . for some reason. In all of that I read some of the most monstrously depraved attitudes I ever seen, some of the most woefully ignorant, irrational and deceitful trash I ever seen.

But I must say, this post of yours takes the prize. Yep. In spite of it all, this post is the most eerily depraved and incoherent rash of barking madness to appear on this thread.

g5000 what is going on with you? Six months ago you were making sense. Has the cheese slid off your cracker? Tell me you haven't become one of those atheists whose hatred for theism and Christianity is so pathologically severe that all commonsense and historical truth have been driven out of you. Say it isn't so.

Seriously. Something's going on. You’re better than this. Way better. Something's out of wake. Your posts of late are way off the mark. You've always been infinitely more thoughtful and interesting than this.
Come on, man. What are we supposed to do with this? Lately you've been posting like that guy with the Bart Simpson avatar.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Can we get another gay bashing thread, stat! I don't think we've damaged our brand enough....

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

.

Can we get another gay bashing thread, stat! I don't think we've damaged our brand enough....

God. The Creator of the Universe.

Which is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, thankfully.

No. It was made legally and constitutionally irrelevant by judges who divorced the Constitution from the foundational, sociopolitical philosophy of the Republic's founding, which is propounded in the Declaration of Independence, just as judges have been systematically divorcing the Constitution, beginning, most especially, in the 1940s, from the Bill of Rights, the formally enumerated, though not exhaustively so, inalienable rights endowed by God.

And you just sit here and cry about it.

Well, if it were possible, perhaps conservatives could reach through the screen and slap the stupidity out of you loons. Now that would improve the political landscape and, consequently, produce an increasingly more sensible electorate, one stupid leftist slapped back into reality at a time.

 

[Seawytch]

Cute.

It's annoying when you strike your previous post above my response and then claim that I'm confusing the issues. No. You didn't expressly say that "Public Accommodation was a a right", and I never said that you did. You claimed that the homosexual's (undefined) rights, incoherently related to Pennsylvania Public Accommodation, are not universally upheld and insinuated that I oppose homosexual's rights being universally upheld, which is false.

No, actually I didn't. Are you having conversations in your head outside the the thread? I said PA laws protect Christians from discrimination. That's all I said.

Now, come on. I just got through telling you in another post that Public Accommodation based on religious affiliation can be problematical, as it, unlike sensibly defined protections based on the benign physiological traits of nature, is subject to abusive interpretations.

That doesn't change their existence, your saying they can be problematic. They still exist, "problematic" or not.

Nevertheless, my "child-like brain" is telling me a number things right now. But let's zero in on the fact that you just shifted from Pennsylvania Public Accommodation to federal Public Accommodation. See. That's the problem with striking your post above my response. You're confusing the issues.

Biblical Christians can and will continue to refuse the impositions of homofascism regardless of what any federal or state law asserts, and federal Public Accommodation does not protect religion as such, any more than public accommodation codes in any of the several states protect religion as such. They allegedly protect persons affiliated with religion, whatever that's supposed to mean in the real world.

Yes, I'm sure some churches will be among the last to accept gays and lesbians...you know, 'cause that's what Jesus would do. There are still churches that are not accepting of interracial relationships. They, as churches, are free to do that. Businesses are not.

What does it mean in the "real world" that Christians are protected by Public Accommodation laws? Surely you can figure that one out. It means that you can discriminate against me in Public Accommodation but I can't against you, that's what it means.

No. The fact of the matter is that homosexuals do have INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS that are recognized, though not exhaustively, in the Bill of Rights, just like everyone else, and even the redundantly repugnant aspects of federal Public Accommodation do in fact protect homosexuals, though, no doubt, that blows your mind.

Gee...everyone has rights in the Bill of Rights. Wow, stop the presses. No shit?
And? What does that have to do with the fact that ya'll didn't start whining about PA laws until some protected gays?

Finally, Public Accommodation based on sexual orientation is what "protects," in effect, religion as such, and that is an unambiguously outrageous assault on religious liberty. Oh, the irony.

People like theDoctorsIn, Clayton Jones and a few of the other leftists on this thread know why that's true too. They just will not speak its name, as it were, as to do so is to concede the fact of their depraved indifference to the INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS of others.

Note: While it is my wont to call these people something else in this instance, as I still believe we should keep it real, I'll tone my rhetoric down a bit in deference to the general consensus. But make no mistake about it, there are posts on this thread written by leftists who are not merely confused. They know damn well they are lying.

What are you babbling about?

Here's the deal....work on getting all Public Accommodation laws struck down. I'll support you 100%, but until then, I'll work to get gays added to them.

 

[Seawytch]

Correct, you should not have to.

Right...so you've called your Congressman to have all Public Accommodation laws repealed at the Federal level, right? (States rights and all)