Religious conservatives will never abandon Trump

[Seawytch]

So says the person wanting to ban gay marriage. Wanting to legalize discrimination.

Wrong. I have nothing wrong with a State allowing SSM as long as it is done so via legislative action, or if the State constitution allows it, referendum.

My issue is with courts making up the right out of thin air, like they did in Obergfell and forcing States to issue them if they don't want to.

What Obergfell should have done was leave it to the States to ISSUE SSM licenses if they saw fit, but be forced to recognize out of State SSM licenses under full faith and credit.

So, if States have a lot of bigots, they could ban it? How is that "American"?

so if 1 state has 10x the population of another state, that should give them greater voice in our government?

how is *that* american?

Under the one voter, one vote model...or democracy as I like to call it, yes. You think it’s working when a voter’s vote in Wyoming is worth three times that of a voter in California?

so as usual, the standards by which we choose to live will forever be altered but only in a manner which benefits you personally.

The standards by which I judge is one voter, one vote. Do you think it's fair that the vote by a single voter in one state is worth three times that of a voter in another, yes or no?

 

[Ravi]

They may not approve of his life, but unlike the democrats, he will not go after what is important in THEIR lives. Democrats offer nothing to Evangelicals except more attacks on their beliefs and lives.

Voting for a thrice-married, twice divorced man known for extramarital affairs, cavorting with Playboy models, vulgar talk, and an itchy Twitter trigger finger — to say nothing of the accusations of racism and sexual harassment or worse against Trump — certainly opens socially conservative Christians up to charges of hypocrisy. It also arguably makes it harder to reach other Americans, including young people, with their religious missions, or work with fellow Christians in communities of color.

But these consequences pale in comparison to voting for a party that stands opposed to the issues nearest to conservative Christians' hearts. As conservative Christian commentator Erick Erickson put it, the Democratic Party "offers me no home and is deeply hostile to people of faith. The president has shown himself to not share my faith convictions any more than the other side, but the president has shown he is willing to defend my faith convictions and is supportive of them."


Erickson didn't vote for Trump in 2016, but announced earlier this month that he plans to do so in 2020. Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee was one of the most steadfast "Never Trump" social conservatives. He too has said he will endorse Trump in 2020.

Religious conservatives will never abandon Trump

Of course they won't. They are a bunch of hypocrites.

Only god can judge that.

Btw Marty, I had no idea that you were religious. But I'm glad to know you are because I'd love to know how you reconcile your faith with your Libertarian leanings. As far as I can see, they are mutually exclusive. Maybe you aren't Christian so forgive me for the mistake.

I am not religious per se, I am a lapsed Catholic at best. If there is a God, only he can judge.

What I am not is some busybody that tries to impose my morals on others via government fiat.

Being Christian does not equate wanting government to take care of people cradle to grave. There are other ways to help people besides the all powerful government taking care of all our needs.

You seem, in this thread, to be imposing it by religious fiat. A fiat is a fiat is a fiat.

 

[Lysistrata]

They may not approve of his life, but unlike the democrats, he will not go after what is important in THEIR lives. Democrats offer nothing to Evangelicals except more attacks on their beliefs and lives.

Voting for a thrice-married, twice divorced man known for extramarital affairs, cavorting with Playboy models, vulgar talk, and an itchy Twitter trigger finger — to say nothing of the accusations of racism and sexual harassment or worse against Trump — certainly opens socially conservative Christians up to charges of hypocrisy. It also arguably makes it harder to reach other Americans, including young people, with their religious missions, or work with fellow Christians in communities of color.

But these consequences pale in comparison to voting for a party that stands opposed to the issues nearest to conservative Christians' hearts. As conservative Christian commentator Erick Erickson put it, the Democratic Party "offers me no home and is deeply hostile to people of faith. The president has shown himself to not share my faith convictions any more than the other side, but the president has shown he is willing to defend my faith convictions and is supportive of them."


Erickson didn't vote for Trump in 2016, but announced earlier this month that he plans to do so in 2020. Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee was one of the most steadfast "Never Trump" social conservatives. He too has said he will endorse Trump in 2020.

Religious conservatives will never abandon Trump

Evangelicals are religious ? Lol....I'm sorry but having Christian's friends from Catholics to Greek orthodox I think those who call themselves evangelicals are the worst (highly likely bigots or racists, supported, slavery, racism, anti immigrants and anti refugees, gave us the most immoral human being as president) they are not religious.

These people who refer to themselves as "Christians" without any further identifier are trying to mold the Christian faith according to their sickness. They are an insult to every other Christian, Catholic, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Orthodox, and all the rest..

 

[iceberg]

Wrong. I have nothing wrong with a State allowing SSM as long as it is done so via legislative action, or if the State constitution allows it, referendum.

My issue is with courts making up the right out of thin air, like they did in Obergfell and forcing States to issue them if they don't want to.

What Obergfell should have done was leave it to the States to ISSUE SSM licenses if they saw fit, but be forced to recognize out of State SSM licenses under full faith and credit.

So, if States have a lot of bigots, they could ban it? How is that "American"?

so if 1 state has 10x the population of another state, that should give them greater voice in our government?

how is *that* american?

Under the one voter, one vote model...or democracy as I like to call it, yes. You think it’s working when a voter’s vote in Wyoming is worth three times that of a voter in California?

so as usual, the standards by which we choose to live will forever be altered but only in a manner which benefits you personally.

The standards by which I judge is one voter, one vote. Do you think it's fair that the vote by a single voter in one state is worth three times that of a voter in another, yes or no?

his rules. i was merely pointing out where his rules worked against him.

and you proved it so.

thanks.

 

[martybegan]

The religious basis for segregation was flawed and really just a justification for something that was done for economic reasons.

The religious prohibition on homosexual acts is far more explicit in all of the major religious texts.

Actually, the prohibition on homosexual acts, if one is Christian or Jewish and adheres to these writings, is surrounded by other prohibitions of other behaviors, and mandates for other behaviors, which are no longer followed. I would expect a Christian who is fundamentalist to adhere to everything in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Line by line. Do you do this? Have you ever actually read these books?

I have read them plenty of times. Again, you don't get to decide, and more importantly government doesn't get to decide HOW a religion follows it's precepts.

So you admit that you are a cherrypicker who abuses your scripture to fit your taste. You also applaud government intervention and interference with the religious and moral choices made by women, showing that you are a Big Government guy.

Have fun with your ritual baths, your animal sacrifices, and having sex with your dead childless brother's wife, and not driving or switching the lights on on the Sabbath.
Your religion is a farce.

Not cherrypicking, it's up to the person to decide, and the church in question to interpret.

My issue is with Roe as terrible law, not with abortion per se. however I do have an issue with people trying to convince themselves they aren't killing a living thing.

In my state NY, Abortion would be protected without Roe, and to me that isn't an issue. If Alabama wants to ban it, I don't have an issue with that either.

My religion? This isn't about my Religion, it's about me not being an intolerant bigot about other people's religion.

As stated before, i am a lapsed Catholic at best.

So you support the idea that Big Government at the state level should be allowed to trample on the rights of that state's citizens. It is not for government at any level to make a personal decision for a private citizen. It is for the private citizen to make personal decisions. These decisions have nothing to do with somebody else's religion.

There is nothing intolerant or bigoted against anyone's religion. But no one should be forced by Big Government to make personal decisions according to a religion that she is not an adherent of.

I support that we follow the Constitution as written and not try to add things to it except via the amendment process.

My issue of large government is with the Federal government, and the State I live in. If Alabama wants to ban abortion on demand let them. If it allows us to stay as one country it is a small price to pay. I live in NY, so I have accepted the people here like large intrusive government, and I only stay because of family and friends. If I want to change that, I have to change it via voting in legislators that agree with me.

I always find it comical when progressives get all uppity about "trampling rights" when it comes to made up ones like abortion and SSM when they feel no remorse trampling an explicit right like those under the 2nd amendment.

Also, right now progressivism is more of a religion than not anyway. You have your heretics, your high priests (AOC be praised) and a slavish need to see those opposed to you as evil.

 

[martybegan]

A person still retains constitutional rights even if they want to sell something. Nice strawman attempt, but fail.

So Churches can be forced to perform Same sex wedding ceremonies?

A church is not a business knucklehead

A person can hate any group he wants. But once he opens a business, that BUSINESS must comply with local laws

Why does a person automatically lose their constitutional rights when they try to sell something?

Why is free exercise limited only to Churches (in your opinion).

When we tore down your "Whites Only" signs you racist bigoted assfuck.

The religious basis for segregation was flawed and really just a justification for something that was done for economic reasons.

The religious prohibition on homosexual acts is far more explicit in all of the major religious texts.

Bullshit. Racists are just as sure of their bible passages as homophobes are.

They have far less standing, and like progressives trying to create rights like abortion and SSM, use far more steps of interpetation.

 

[martybegan]

What do the Dems offer them besides persecution?

Sorry, the party of "Bake that cake, peasant" isn't going to win over these people.

No, I don’t expect it would. I wouldn’t expect them as a group to endorse the Democrats.

However if your loyalty is to God (make me laugh harder), your loyalty is to her/him (or just “him” in their case). You don’t compromise that and give your loyalty to someone who doesn’t share your values.

As for the Politics of the situation, lets say Joe Biden is the nominee. You’re stating—correctly—that the Christian Conservatives will support someone who has had multiple affairs over Biden who TTBOOK, never had any.

Biden supports policies harmful to their interests.

You are confusing supporting someone politically with endorsing their behavior.

Trump may violate the rules they live by, but to them his soul is his issue,and thus they know God will judge him as he sees fit.

But what he doesn't do it try to ruin them for their belief structure.

Biden doesn't support policies that are "harmful to their interests". Gay rights, women's reproductive rights, and the right of all people to have unfettered access to health care, have absolutely no impact on the rights of conservative Christians.

If providing services to people whose beliefs you disagree with is so odious to the Christian right that they cannot serve them, then they are free to avoid opening businesses which are open to the "public". In the event they do open their business to the public, then public accommodation laws should be respected as set out in the Bible.

"Bake that fucking cake, peasant"

Actually, the way the SCOTUS ruled, it was make that fucking BBQ, peasant. Stop blaming gays for PA laws.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/a-barbecue-case-that-helped-the-cause-of-civil-rights/2016/08/01/cc5edcd8-5203-11e6-b7de-dfe509430c39_story.html?utm_term=.b8b1d3b03fb5&noredirect=on

An actual public accommodation, i.e. point sales, not a contracted service.

Sorry, but the current in vogue definition of a PA being any times money changes hands is wrong.

 

[martybegan]

"Render unto caesar" doesn't mean blanket acceptance of all laws, and there is a difference between being ASKED to comply with something, and being FORCED to comply.

Sorry, but the days of your political opposition rolling over to fascist wanna-be's like you is OVER.

But government dick suckers like you just LOOOOVE government force, because you are too gutless to do things like this yourself.

So says the person wanting to ban gay marriage. Wanting to legalize discrimination.

Wrong. I have nothing wrong with a State allowing SSM as long as it is done so via legislative action, or if the State constitution allows it, referendum.

My issue is with courts making up the right out of thin air, like they did in Obergfell and forcing States to issue them if they don't want to.

What Obergfell should have done was leave it to the States to ISSUE SSM licenses if they saw fit, but be forced to recognize out of State SSM licenses under full faith and credit.

So, if States have a lot of bigots, they could ban it? How is that "American"?

so if 1 state has 10x the population of another state, that should give them greater voice in our government?

how is *that* american?

Yes, obviously.

Congress is elected based on the population.

Every State gets two Senators.

Thus, people in small states have more say that people in larger states.

You think that Delaware & California should get equal votes?

Yes. California as a State can make whatever laws it wants for people in their State via the State government. Why should California, New York, and even Texas be able to make rules for everyone, when it comes to things inside a State, when small States don't want it?

This is a symptom of the federal government doing things outside it's scope and Constitutional mandate.

 

[martybegan]

"Render unto caesar" doesn't mean blanket acceptance of all laws, and there is a difference between being ASKED to comply with something, and being FORCED to comply.

Sorry, but the days of your political opposition rolling over to fascist wanna-be's like you is OVER.

But government dick suckers like you just LOOOOVE government force, because you are too gutless to do things like this yourself.

So says the person wanting to ban gay marriage. Wanting to legalize discrimination.

Wrong. I have nothing wrong with a State allowing SSM as long as it is done so via legislative action, or if the State constitution allows it, referendum.

My issue is with courts making up the right out of thin air, like they did in Obergfell and forcing States to issue them if they don't want to.

What Obergfell should have done was leave it to the States to ISSUE SSM licenses if they saw fit, but be forced to recognize out of State SSM licenses under full faith and credit.

So, if States have a lot of bigots, they could ban it? How is that "American"?

It's Constitutional. The Constitution is mute on marriage, and thus it is left to the States. You could try the whole 14th amendment route, but SSM is not equal to opposite sex marriage, as SSM is a recent creation of only the last few decades. It is a new concept.

Dumbshit. The 14th Amendment applies to everyone. If you want a heterosexual marriage, nobody is stopping you. Same-sex marriage does not effect you in any way. I don't lose any sleep over how many times that trump or gingrich have been married. How do the marriages of people you don't know effect you? You people who fret about the lives of people you don't know are just kooks.

The 14th amendment's equal protection under the law is not absolute. If it was I would be able to sue NY to allow me to own guns as easy as people can in Texas, or say Arkansas, as the 2nd gives me the RKBA uninfringed.

SSM is a concept from only the past few decades, as such the proper way to deal with it would be to get State legislatures to allow it State by State, and then force all States to recognize them, under full faith and credit, as is done now One doesn't have to meet other requirements, (age, cousin status, etc) is a State you move to if you already have a license from another state that has different ones. SSM in that case, after the license is issued, would be equal, and thus protected.

The issue is forcing States to issue a license that really isn't equal, unlike mixed-race marriages, which have plenty of precedent going back millenia, and were only banned for a relatively short period of time, thus making something that was equal in violation of the 14th.

 

[martybegan]

They may not approve of his life, but unlike the democrats, he will not go after what is important in THEIR lives. Democrats offer nothing to Evangelicals except more attacks on their beliefs and lives.

Voting for a thrice-married, twice divorced man known for extramarital affairs, cavorting with Playboy models, vulgar talk, and an itchy Twitter trigger finger — to say nothing of the accusations of racism and sexual harassment or worse against Trump — certainly opens socially conservative Christians up to charges of hypocrisy. It also arguably makes it harder to reach other Americans, including young people, with their religious missions, or work with fellow Christians in communities of color.

But these consequences pale in comparison to voting for a party that stands opposed to the issues nearest to conservative Christians' hearts. As conservative Christian commentator Erick Erickson put it, the Democratic Party "offers me no home and is deeply hostile to people of faith. The president has shown himself to not share my faith convictions any more than the other side, but the president has shown he is willing to defend my faith convictions and is supportive of them."


Erickson didn't vote for Trump in 2016, but announced earlier this month that he plans to do so in 2020. Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee was one of the most steadfast "Never Trump" social conservatives. He too has said he will endorse Trump in 2020.

Religious conservatives will never abandon Trump

Evangelicals are religious ? Lol....I'm sorry but having Christian's friends from Catholics to Greek orthodox I think those who call themselves evangelicals are the worst (highly likely bigots or racists, supported, slavery, racism, anti immigrants and anti refugees, gave us the most immoral human being as president) they are not religious.

I doubt you know anyone outside your own circle of fart sniffing progressive twats.

 

[martybegan]

What difference does that make?

Christianity is the teachings of Jesus.

Jesus' teachings were based on the OT, and the NT written by his followers after his death.

Inspiration by God or Man for this is up to your own views and beliefs.

So suddenly you've gone from "every word in the Bible is the sacred word of God", to "some parts of the Bible, like the entire New Testament, upon which Christianity is founded, is to be ignored". Here's a clue, Jackass. MEN wrote the Old Testament too. It was written by the prophets, as a history of the Jewish peoples. Within its pages you can find stories of daughters having sex with their fathers, fathers willing to murder their children as sacrifices to God, and God inflicting the Trials of Job upon a man who dared to disobey him.

Jesus teachings weren't based on the Old Testament. The Old Testament prohibits sins and punishes those who sin. Jesus teachings are all about love and the foregiveness of sins. God gave a list of things you shouldn't do, and homosexuality was not along them. Jesus gave a list of things to do, which was to love God, and to love one another. Jesus opposed wealth, and the pursuit of wealth. His Kingdom was the spirtual world. Wealth and money are secular concepts and Jesus was clear that the secular pursuit of money imperilled your immortal soul. One need only to read the Sermon on the Mount to appreciate how utterly different the teaching of Jesus were to the fire and brimstone of the Old Testament.

Still not a reason to say "bake that fucking cake, peasant"

And religion is not a valid reason to refuse to bake the fucking cake, asshole!

It is plenty enough of a valid reason, as people have the right to free exercise, and the government only has the ability to deny that for compelling reasons. And even then it must rectify it in the least intrusive method possible.

This is not a compelling reason, and fining someone hundreds of thousands of dollars and/or forcing them out of business is not the least intrusive method.

You only want this because you hate religious people. Fess up, it's good for the soul.

 

[martybegan]

They may not approve of his life, but unlike the democrats, he will not go after what is important in THEIR lives. Democrats offer nothing to Evangelicals except more attacks on their beliefs and lives.

Religious conservatives will never abandon Trump

Of course they won't. They are a bunch of hypocrites.

Only god can judge that.

Btw Marty, I had no idea that you were religious. But I'm glad to know you are because I'd love to know how you reconcile your faith with your Libertarian leanings. As far as I can see, they are mutually exclusive. Maybe you aren't Christian so forgive me for the mistake.

I am not religious per se, I am a lapsed Catholic at best. If there is a God, only he can judge.

What I am not is some busybody that tries to impose my morals on others via government fiat.

Being Christian does not equate wanting government to take care of people cradle to grave. There are other ways to help people besides the all powerful government taking care of all our needs.

You seem, in this thread, to be imposing it by religious fiat. A fiat is a fiat is a fiat.

When you run to a court and impose your will via 5 of 9 unelected lawyers on shaky progressive grounds, that is fiat.

When you use the proper channels as given in the Constitution, which in the cases of SSM and abortion are the State legislatures, you are not.

 

[martybegan]

They may not approve of his life, but unlike the democrats, he will not go after what is important in THEIR lives. Democrats offer nothing to Evangelicals except more attacks on their beliefs and lives.

Voting for a thrice-married, twice divorced man known for extramarital affairs, cavorting with Playboy models, vulgar talk, and an itchy Twitter trigger finger — to say nothing of the accusations of racism and sexual harassment or worse against Trump — certainly opens socially conservative Christians up to charges of hypocrisy. It also arguably makes it harder to reach other Americans, including young people, with their religious missions, or work with fellow Christians in communities of color.

But these consequences pale in comparison to voting for a party that stands opposed to the issues nearest to conservative Christians' hearts. As conservative Christian commentator Erick Erickson put it, the Democratic Party "offers me no home and is deeply hostile to people of faith. The president has shown himself to not share my faith convictions any more than the other side, but the president has shown he is willing to defend my faith convictions and is supportive of them."


Erickson didn't vote for Trump in 2016, but announced earlier this month that he plans to do so in 2020. Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee was one of the most steadfast "Never Trump" social conservatives. He too has said he will endorse Trump in 2020.

Religious conservatives will never abandon Trump

Evangelicals are religious ? Lol....I'm sorry but having Christian's friends from Catholics to Greek orthodox I think those who call themselves evangelicals are the worst (highly likely bigots or racists, supported, slavery, racism, anti immigrants and anti refugees, gave us the most immoral human being as president) they are not religious.

These people who refer to themselves as "Christians" without any further identifier are trying to mold the Christian faith according to their sickness. They are an insult to every other Christian, Catholic, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Orthodox, and all the rest..

I always find it comical that progressives are far more judgemental than the people they are bitching about being judgemental.

Far less forgiving as well.

"Hate the sinner and the sin, and make sure they are ruined for life" The progressive mantra.

 

[K9Buck]

Actually, I think Conservative Christians should all embrace the party that sanctions infanticide, and gay marriage, promotes sloth, envy, sexual promiscuity, reproductive irresponsibility, and greed, abhors traditional marriage and sexuality, and is openly antagonistic to traditional religious institutions, demanding that they accept their perverted world view or lose their tax-exempt status.

Don't you?

Great post!

 

[candycorn]

Actually, the prohibition on homosexual acts, if one is Christian or Jewish and adheres to these writings, is surrounded by other prohibitions of other behaviors, and mandates for other behaviors, which are no longer followed. I would expect a Christian who is fundamentalist to adhere to everything in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Line by line. Do you do this? Have you ever actually read these books?

I have read them plenty of times. Again, you don't get to decide, and more importantly government doesn't get to decide HOW a religion follows it's precepts.

So you admit that you are a cherrypicker who abuses your scripture to fit your taste. You also applaud government intervention and interference with the religious and moral choices made by women, showing that you are a Big Government guy.

Have fun with your ritual baths, your animal sacrifices, and having sex with your dead childless brother's wife, and not driving or switching the lights on on the Sabbath.
Your religion is a farce.

Not cherrypicking, it's up to the person to decide, and the church in question to interpret.

My issue is with Roe as terrible law, not with abortion per se. however I do have an issue with people trying to convince themselves they aren't killing a living thing.

In my state NY, Abortion would be protected without Roe, and to me that isn't an issue. If Alabama wants to ban it, I don't have an issue with that either.

My religion? This isn't about my Religion, it's about me not being an intolerant bigot about other people's religion.

As stated before, i am a lapsed Catholic at best.

So you support the idea that Big Government at the state level should be allowed to trample on the rights of that state's citizens. It is not for government at any level to make a personal decision for a private citizen. It is for the private citizen to make personal decisions. These decisions have nothing to do with somebody else's religion.

There is nothing intolerant or bigoted against anyone's religion. But no one should be forced by Big Government to make personal decisions according to a religion that she is not an adherent of.

I support that we follow the Constitution as written and not try to add things to it except via the amendment process.

My issue of large government is with the Federal government, and the State I live in. If Alabama wants to ban abortion on demand let them. If it allows us to stay as one country it is a small price to pay. I live in NY, so I have accepted the people here like large intrusive government, and I only stay because of family and friends. If I want to change that, I have to change it via voting in legislators that agree with me.

I always find it comical when progressives get all uppity about "trampling rights" when it comes to made up ones like abortion and SSM when they feel no remorse trampling an explicit right like those under the 2nd amendment.

Also, right now progressivism is more of a religion than not anyway. You have your heretics, your high priests (AOC be praised) and a slavish need to see those opposed to you as evil.

thanks for the chuckle.

Of course the problem with that is this:

If you're a male working for Bank of America and are picked to head up the new office in Mobile, you pack up and leave if you want the job. No problemo, take the promotion.

If you're a female working for Bank of American and are picked to head up the new office in Mobile, you have to decide if you want to practice abstinence and take the promotion or pass up on it and maintain your lifestyle. Because if you get pregnant, your career is finished as you are now forced to carry the pregnancy to birth.

Or what if you're living in Alabama and a bunch of legislators decide for you that you are now bound to carry a pregnancy to term.

 

[martybegan]

I have read them plenty of times. Again, you don't get to decide, and more importantly government doesn't get to decide HOW a religion follows it's precepts.

So you admit that you are a cherrypicker who abuses your scripture to fit your taste. You also applaud government intervention and interference with the religious and moral choices made by women, showing that you are a Big Government guy.

Have fun with your ritual baths, your animal sacrifices, and having sex with your dead childless brother's wife, and not driving or switching the lights on on the Sabbath.
Your religion is a farce.

Not cherrypicking, it's up to the person to decide, and the church in question to interpret.

My issue is with Roe as terrible law, not with abortion per se. however I do have an issue with people trying to convince themselves they aren't killing a living thing.

In my state NY, Abortion would be protected without Roe, and to me that isn't an issue. If Alabama wants to ban it, I don't have an issue with that either.

My religion? This isn't about my Religion, it's about me not being an intolerant bigot about other people's religion.

As stated before, i am a lapsed Catholic at best.

So you support the idea that Big Government at the state level should be allowed to trample on the rights of that state's citizens. It is not for government at any level to make a personal decision for a private citizen. It is for the private citizen to make personal decisions. These decisions have nothing to do with somebody else's religion.

There is nothing intolerant or bigoted against anyone's religion. But no one should be forced by Big Government to make personal decisions according to a religion that she is not an adherent of.

I support that we follow the Constitution as written and not try to add things to it except via the amendment process.

My issue of large government is with the Federal government, and the State I live in. If Alabama wants to ban abortion on demand let them. If it allows us to stay as one country it is a small price to pay. I live in NY, so I have accepted the people here like large intrusive government, and I only stay because of family and friends. If I want to change that, I have to change it via voting in legislators that agree with me.

I always find it comical when progressives get all uppity about "trampling rights" when it comes to made up ones like abortion and SSM when they feel no remorse trampling an explicit right like those under the 2nd amendment.

Also, right now progressivism is more of a religion than not anyway. You have your heretics, your high priests (AOC be praised) and a slavish need to see those opposed to you as evil.

thanks for the chuckle.

Of course the problem with that is this:

If you're a male working for Bank of America and are picked to head up the new office in Mobile, you pack up and leave if you want the job. No problemo, take the promotion.

If you're a female working for Bank of American and are picked to head up the new office in Mobile, you have to decide if you want to practice abstinence and take the promotion or pass up on it and maintain your lifestyle. Because if you get pregnant, your career is finished as you are now forced to carry the pregnancy to birth.

Or what if you're living in Alabama and a bunch of legislators decide for you that you are now bound to carry a pregnancy to term.

The you get a new job if it bothers you that much. Just like if someone would get transferred to NY and didn't want to pay the onerous taxes.

And I do think they invented something called birth control....

Also, if you are the office manager in Mobile you could probably afford to go to another State to get your abortion. One thing I do not agree with is a law that would punish someone for doing something out of State that is banned in State. That is a violation of State sovereignty, that covers the land of the State, not the people when they are not in the State.

hell progressive groups could form charities to handle paying for the trips.

 

[Montrovant]

So says the person wanting to ban gay marriage. Wanting to legalize discrimination.

Wrong. I have nothing wrong with a State allowing SSM as long as it is done so via legislative action, or if the State constitution allows it, referendum.

My issue is with courts making up the right out of thin air, like they did in Obergfell and forcing States to issue them if they don't want to.

What Obergfell should have done was leave it to the States to ISSUE SSM licenses if they saw fit, but be forced to recognize out of State SSM licenses under full faith and credit.

So, if States have a lot of bigots, they could ban it? How is that "American"?

It's Constitutional. The Constitution is mute on marriage, and thus it is left to the States. You could try the whole 14th amendment route, but SSM is not equal to opposite sex marriage, as SSM is a recent creation of only the last few decades. It is a new concept.

Dumbshit. The 14th Amendment applies to everyone. If you want a heterosexual marriage, nobody is stopping you. Same-sex marriage does not effect you in any way. I don't lose any sleep over how many times that trump or gingrich have been married. How do the marriages of people you don't know effect you? You people who fret about the lives of people you don't know are just kooks.

The 14th amendment's equal protection under the law is not absolute. If it was I would be able to sue NY to allow me to own guns as easy as people can in Texas, or say Arkansas, as the 2nd gives me the RKBA uninfringed.

SSM is a concept from only the past few decades, as such the proper way to deal with it would be to get State legislatures to allow it State by State, and then force all States to recognize them, under full faith and credit, as is done now One doesn't have to meet other requirements, (age, cousin status, etc) is a State you move to if you already have a license from another state that has different ones. SSM in that case, after the license is issued, would be equal, and thus protected.

The issue is forcing States to issue a license that really isn't equal, unlike mixed-race marriages, which have plenty of precedent going back millenia, and were only banned for a relatively short period of time, thus making something that was equal in violation of the 14th.

Same sex marriage is not a concept which began only in the last few decades. It may be rare, but there is evidence of same sex unions as far back as ancient Rome.

 

[martybegan]

Wrong. I have nothing wrong with a State allowing SSM as long as it is done so via legislative action, or if the State constitution allows it, referendum.

My issue is with courts making up the right out of thin air, like they did in Obergfell and forcing States to issue them if they don't want to.

What Obergfell should have done was leave it to the States to ISSUE SSM licenses if they saw fit, but be forced to recognize out of State SSM licenses under full faith and credit.

So, if States have a lot of bigots, they could ban it? How is that "American"?

It's Constitutional. The Constitution is mute on marriage, and thus it is left to the States. You could try the whole 14th amendment route, but SSM is not equal to opposite sex marriage, as SSM is a recent creation of only the last few decades. It is a new concept.

Dumbshit. The 14th Amendment applies to everyone. If you want a heterosexual marriage, nobody is stopping you. Same-sex marriage does not effect you in any way. I don't lose any sleep over how many times that trump or gingrich have been married. How do the marriages of people you don't know effect you? You people who fret about the lives of people you don't know are just kooks.

The 14th amendment's equal protection under the law is not absolute. If it was I would be able to sue NY to allow me to own guns as easy as people can in Texas, or say Arkansas, as the 2nd gives me the RKBA uninfringed.

SSM is a concept from only the past few decades, as such the proper way to deal with it would be to get State legislatures to allow it State by State, and then force all States to recognize them, under full faith and credit, as is done now One doesn't have to meet other requirements, (age, cousin status, etc) is a State you move to if you already have a license from another state that has different ones. SSM in that case, after the license is issued, would be equal, and thus protected.

The issue is forcing States to issue a license that really isn't equal, unlike mixed-race marriages, which have plenty of precedent going back millenia, and were only banned for a relatively short period of time, thus making something that was equal in violation of the 14th.

Same sex marriage is not a concept which began only in the last few decades. It may be rare, but there is evidence of same sex unions as far back as ancient Rome.

As a mainstream legal construct is is only a creation of the past few decades.

The "evidence" isn't about State sanctioning, it's about people buggering others of the same sex, which of course has occurred throughout the millennia.

Even in those cases the relationships were not seen as equal to heterosexual relationships, which had the required ability to procreate, and back then since infant mortality and life spans were so short, procreating had to be done "early and often" to assure enough people in the next generation to continue a given culture/tribe/family/nation etc.

 

[candycorn]

So you admit that you are a cherrypicker who abuses your scripture to fit your taste. You also applaud government intervention and interference with the religious and moral choices made by women, showing that you are a Big Government guy.

Have fun with your ritual baths, your animal sacrifices, and having sex with your dead childless brother's wife, and not driving or switching the lights on on the Sabbath.
Your religion is a farce.

Not cherrypicking, it's up to the person to decide, and the church in question to interpret.

My issue is with Roe as terrible law, not with abortion per se. however I do have an issue with people trying to convince themselves they aren't killing a living thing.

In my state NY, Abortion would be protected without Roe, and to me that isn't an issue. If Alabama wants to ban it, I don't have an issue with that either.

My religion? This isn't about my Religion, it's about me not being an intolerant bigot about other people's religion.

As stated before, i am a lapsed Catholic at best.

So you support the idea that Big Government at the state level should be allowed to trample on the rights of that state's citizens. It is not for government at any level to make a personal decision for a private citizen. It is for the private citizen to make personal decisions. These decisions have nothing to do with somebody else's religion.

There is nothing intolerant or bigoted against anyone's religion. But no one should be forced by Big Government to make personal decisions according to a religion that she is not an adherent of.

I support that we follow the Constitution as written and not try to add things to it except via the amendment process.

My issue of large government is with the Federal government, and the State I live in. If Alabama wants to ban abortion on demand let them. If it allows us to stay as one country it is a small price to pay. I live in NY, so I have accepted the people here like large intrusive government, and I only stay because of family and friends. If I want to change that, I have to change it via voting in legislators that agree with me.

I always find it comical when progressives get all uppity about "trampling rights" when it comes to made up ones like abortion and SSM when they feel no remorse trampling an explicit right like those under the 2nd amendment.

Also, right now progressivism is more of a religion than not anyway. You have your heretics, your high priests (AOC be praised) and a slavish need to see those opposed to you as evil.

thanks for the chuckle.

Of course the problem with that is this:

If you're a male working for Bank of America and are picked to head up the new office in Mobile, you pack up and leave if you want the job. No problemo, take the promotion.

If you're a female working for Bank of American and are picked to head up the new office in Mobile, you have to decide if you want to practice abstinence and take the promotion or pass up on it and maintain your lifestyle. Because if you get pregnant, your career is finished as you are now forced to carry the pregnancy to birth.

Or what if you're living in Alabama and a bunch of legislators decide for you that you are now bound to carry a pregnancy to term.

The you get a new job if it bothers you that much. Just like if someone would get transferred to NY and didn't want to pay the onerous taxes.

And I do think they invented something called birth control....

Also, if you are the office manager in Mobile you could probably afford to go to another State to get your abortion. One thing I do not agree with is a law that would punish someone for doing something out of State that is banned in State. That is a violation of State sovereignty, that covers the land of the State, not the people when they are not in the State.

hell progressive groups could form charities to handle paying for the trips.

Again, this is something that would never be asked of the male gender. For women the specter of a bunch of politicians stating what you can do with your body is a bit more personal. I would ask you to give it some thought but clearly, you’re not much into the whole thinking business.

 

[martybegan]

Not cherrypicking, it's up to the person to decide, and the church in question to interpret.

My issue is with Roe as terrible law, not with abortion per se. however I do have an issue with people trying to convince themselves they aren't killing a living thing.

In my state NY, Abortion would be protected without Roe, and to me that isn't an issue. If Alabama wants to ban it, I don't have an issue with that either.

My religion? This isn't about my Religion, it's about me not being an intolerant bigot about other people's religion.

As stated before, i am a lapsed Catholic at best.

So you support the idea that Big Government at the state level should be allowed to trample on the rights of that state's citizens. It is not for government at any level to make a personal decision for a private citizen. It is for the private citizen to make personal decisions. These decisions have nothing to do with somebody else's religion.

There is nothing intolerant or bigoted against anyone's religion. But no one should be forced by Big Government to make personal decisions according to a religion that she is not an adherent of.

I support that we follow the Constitution as written and not try to add things to it except via the amendment process.

My issue of large government is with the Federal government, and the State I live in. If Alabama wants to ban abortion on demand let them. If it allows us to stay as one country it is a small price to pay. I live in NY, so I have accepted the people here like large intrusive government, and I only stay because of family and friends. If I want to change that, I have to change it via voting in legislators that agree with me.

I always find it comical when progressives get all uppity about "trampling rights" when it comes to made up ones like abortion and SSM when they feel no remorse trampling an explicit right like those under the 2nd amendment.

Also, right now progressivism is more of a religion than not anyway. You have your heretics, your high priests (AOC be praised) and a slavish need to see those opposed to you as evil.

thanks for the chuckle.

Of course the problem with that is this:

If you're a male working for Bank of America and are picked to head up the new office in Mobile, you pack up and leave if you want the job. No problemo, take the promotion.

If you're a female working for Bank of American and are picked to head up the new office in Mobile, you have to decide if you want to practice abstinence and take the promotion or pass up on it and maintain your lifestyle. Because if you get pregnant, your career is finished as you are now forced to carry the pregnancy to birth.

Or what if you're living in Alabama and a bunch of legislators decide for you that you are now bound to carry a pregnancy to term.

The you get a new job if it bothers you that much. Just like if someone would get transferred to NY and didn't want to pay the onerous taxes.

And I do think they invented something called birth control....

Also, if you are the office manager in Mobile you could probably afford to go to another State to get your abortion. One thing I do not agree with is a law that would punish someone for doing something out of State that is banned in State. That is a violation of State sovereignty, that covers the land of the State, not the people when they are not in the State.

hell progressive groups could form charities to handle paying for the trips.

Again, this is something that would never be asked of the male gender. For women the specter of a bunch of politicians stating what you can do with your body is a bit more personal. I would ask you to give it some thought but clearly, you’re not much into the whole thinking business.

Considering the male gender doesn't have a "choice" anyway in this situation, I honestly don't care.

There are plenty of pro-life women who understand exactly the point you are making, and they are still pro-life. Why do you have to frame this as a "all-men" vs "all-women" conflict?

Oh, right, because hacks gotta hack.