published Tuesday, March 26th, 2013

The Wedding March

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

261
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
EaTn said...

I believe any couple who can produce offspring be allowed to legally marry. This is the law of nature. I believe any two consenting adults can choose to live together without interference from the law.

March 26, 2013 at 3:59 a.m.
fairmon said...

It is strange why those opposing gay marriage are very willing to continue discriminating against those electing not to marry. Take away the discrimination and there is no issue. There is nothing in the bible that says a couple must have a state license to be married. It is totally to participate in the discrimination against singles along with married straight couples. A single person has a higher tax rate, a higher health care rate, helps educate and feed married folks kids, off sets some of their kids health and auto insurance cost, helps pay spousal survivor benefits and on and on. It is no wonder gays want to be legally married with a license to be a taker like other married people and discriminate against those preferring to be single. Why is no one up in arms over such blatant discrimination against a minority group? No objection is heard because those benefiting from the disparate treatment insist on it and politicians respond. Let them get married but without allowing them to participate in the discriminatory behavior provided those that can produce rug rats.

March 26, 2013 at 5:52 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Hey Clay, I want to marry your daughter and your son and your dog and the corpse of your grandmother--yes, all four! Hearing no objection, it is so ordered: let "marriage equality" reign. Eh? Nature lets all these things happen (along with cannibalism in some species).

You want to draw a line, draw God's line: Adam + Eve. You "omniDarwinists" want to draw a line, draw it at breeding.

A smaller government wouldn't have us picking each others' pockets as fairmon complains of. Jesus is libertarian (and holy holy holy; and generous; and if you want forgiveness of sins and resurrection from the dead, no one else offers these.)

March 26, 2013 at 6:20 a.m.
anniebelle said...

AndrewthehypocriteLohr, why do you insist on projecting your perverted wants on to Clay Bennett? Is that just a right-wing thingy? Or do all hypocrites display this disturbing trait?

March 26, 2013 at 6:53 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

anniebelle,

Andrew is just making a point. I am pretty sure you are smart enough to see that. Is your distortion a left wing thingy?

March 26, 2013 at 7:09 a.m.
joneses said...

Marriage between two men and two women does not exist so what is there to believe in or support? Nothing.

March 26, 2013 at 7:22 a.m.
patriot1 said...

Bennett's depection of this issue is an old, fat, balding white guy (with a GOP button) as opposing same sex marriage. Prop 8 is actually a ballot initative and California Constitutional Ammendment passed with 80% voter participation which proponents of gay marriage now wants the Supremes to overturn.

March 26, 2013 at 7:48 a.m.
Fitzgerald said...

Seriously? Only people who can procreate should be allowed to legally marry? So women past 50 shouldn't be able to? Infertile couples should stay single? And super sick of the "marrying your dog" argument. Slippery slope arguments hold no water. If anyone can give even one single reason why any two adult tax paying citizens should not be able to marry without bringing in one group's particular interpretation of a 2000 year old text written by stone age men, I'd be very surprised. This country WILL have legal marriage equality in our lifetimes, and future generations will look back in history and be ashamed at the hateful opposition of this basic human right.

March 26, 2013 at 8:07 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Well said, Fitz.

March 26, 2013 at 8:19 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Bennett beats the gay marriage thing absolutely to death.

The feds should stay out of it. It should be left up to the States. Liberal states could then hold on to their gay citizens and more conservative states could effectively discourage leftists from diluting their state. Let's be clear, I do not mean to say that all gays are leftists, but gays that want to get the government involved in their relationship are looking for government benefits and as such tend to be leftists.

People in committed relationships, straight, gay, whatever, should consider NOT letting the government get involved in their relationship.

March 26, 2013 at 8:23 a.m.
jesse said...

Going by my own experience in the matrimony dept. i think everybody would be better off if they outlawed marriage totally!

March 26, 2013 at 8:23 a.m.
Fitzgerald said...

Basic rights should certainly not be left up to the states. If left to the states, Mississippi would still have segregated water fountains. And gays aren't out for handouts. They simply want the exact same things you and I get from being legally married. Respect and tax breaks aren't exactly welfare.

March 26, 2013 at 8:40 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Government sponsored relationship contracts are not "basic rights". They are an intrusion on basic rights. The tax deductions and benefits associated with the government contract are carrots used to keep citizens enslaved to the government.

March 26, 2013 at 8:49 a.m.
Leaf said...

I think jesse and fairmon are onto something. How about zero government involvement in marriage? No tax breaks, no incentives, no mention of marriage in the Federal Register at all.

Marriage at its most basic is a contract. Let it be relegated to that status. Let marriage be for all time, for five years, with whomever or whatever the contract states and all parties agree upon. If you want it to be a religious thing, fine. If not, why should the government care?

March 26, 2013 at 8:51 a.m.
Oldhickory said...

Marriages should be left up to the preferences of the persons who want to claim they are married before the eyes of the god they worship or their own personal godless beliefs. States and the Federal governments do not need to regulate or recognize any marriages. Simply amend all the tax laws and other associated laws related to divorce, inheritance, and patient visitation...to remove all preferential treatment to marriage.

March 26, 2013 at 8:55 a.m.
Reardon said...

This argument for government recognition for your spiritual commitment has been co-opted by a complacent media who thinks the government should be the arbiter and God over all things personal and private.

Every Christian should yell blasphemy at the concept of having a license to ordain their spiritual covenant between them and God.

Regardless, marriage isn't a Christian thing. It's a person-to-person-of-whatever-belief thing. Let them decide. Or, let the churches decide who is eligible for their standard of marriage.

Why the f*** does Government have to be involved in EVERYTHING?

March 26, 2013 at 8:55 a.m.
Fitzgerald said...

Nope, the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... " And has ruled similarly many times since. YOu may not think marriage is a basic right, but the law of the land disagrees and trumps you.

March 26, 2013 at 8:55 a.m.
fairmon said...

Fitzgerald said...

gays aren't out for handouts. They simply want the exact same things you and I get from being legally married. Respect and tax breaks aren't exactly welfare.

That may be an oxymoron....if tax breaks aren't hand outs and not discriminatory toward singles what are they? Why should I pay more than a married couple single or gay? Why are married couples provided better social security, survivor benefits, and other benefits than singles?

You can't legislate true respect or morals. Apparently there is no attempt to legislate fairness in the case of electing to be single.

March 26, 2013 at 8:58 a.m.
MTJohn said...

EaTn said...I believe any couple who can produce offspring be allowed to legally marry. This is the law of nature. I believe any two consenting adults can choose to live together without interference from the law.

I don't think anyone should be able to legally marry. Marriage is an issue for which the state has no legitimate authority and, therefore, the word should be struck from all local, state and federal government laws, codes and regulations. With that change, the state should also rescind the authority of churches to validate civil unions.

A civil union does not a marriage make and vice versa.

March 26, 2013 at 9:01 a.m.
limric said...

Fun cartoon today Clay,

Drrraaaggging the ever recalcitrant Republicans along. Like taking ‘Cod liver oil’?

Since the Supreme Court would never interfere with a national election -- and appoint a president; would never consider that non-biological paper documents should be given the same rights and privileges of a biologic, including right to buy politicians and legislation to increase their power; would never approve of the government trashing the Constitution and Bill of Rights and assuming dictatorial power in the name of ‘national security’. I am therefore positive that the Supreme Court would never strike down the right of gay people to live normal married lives, just because we the people approve of it. Nooo – they’d never do that. Would they ??

When push comes to shove, I think the Supreme Court will ultimately strike down California's ban on same sex marriage and DOMA violates the Fifth Amendment because, when you think about it, there's no skin off their back. What is the most important underlying aspect for them to consider? Does it affect Wall Street? No; so they could care less. THUS; Since there's no profit being threatened, they may very well do the right thing.

I like the idea of Jesse’s 8:23 a.m post.

By the way Joneses; You think Marriage between two men and two women does not exist. OK. Neither does god -- So what is there in that for you to believe in or support?

March 26, 2013 at 9:13 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Fitz,

You are confusing the right with inappropriate interference. People have a basic right to associate and forge relationships without government meddling. If marriage is how you choose to arrange your relationship you have a right to do that.

Government injects itself into relationships to gain control. We should all reject government interference in this very important part of our lives.

March 26, 2013 at 9:22 a.m.
alprova said...

BRP wrote: "The feds should stay out of it. It should be left up to the States."

If States were left to do as they please, we would still have blacks picking cotton in Georgia, Tennessee, and Alabama.

"Liberal states could then hold on to their gay citizens and more conservative states could effectively discourage leftists from diluting their state."

Ethnic cleansing, eh? It's about time that some of you right-wing folks wizened up to the fact that you are no longer in power any longer, and likely will not be any time soon.

"Let's be clear, I do not mean to say that all gays are leftists, but gays that want to get the government involved in their relationship are looking for government benefits and as such tend to be leftists."

It goes a little deeper than that. Marital unions permit unlimited family visitation in hospitals, the right to make life and death decisions for their spouses, if the instance ever arises, and yes, financial spousal benefits that everyone should be allowed to receive, no matter their status in life.

"People in committed relationships, straight, gay, whatever, should consider NOT letting the government get involved in their relationship."

If people were more able to live and let live, then the Government would not have to intervene. We are supposed to be a nation that does not allow the majority to oppress a minority of people.

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is something that all people should be allowed to do, so long as they do not harm another soul in that process.

Gay marriage may not be something that most people find appealing, but if people truly believed that we are all to be free to seek liberty and to pursuit that which makes us happy, then they would not work so hard to prevent others who are different from themselves from seeking the same.

March 26, 2013 at 9:24 a.m.
Leaf said...

Then we are all agreed? No more marriage defined separately from any other contract between consenting informed parties? And no tax breaks for anyone? Glad we could solve this issue so quickly and amicably. Let's inform the Supreme Court. If the people on this forum can agree, it must be the right thing to do.

March 26, 2013 at 9:29 a.m.
alprova said...

Gay marriage is coming to all 50 states whether anyone likes it or not.

Marijuana is likely to be legalized shortly thereafter.

People might as well get ready to accept it, or they can stomp their feet, wail and moan, for all the good it will do them.

March 26, 2013 at 9:31 a.m.
patriot1 said...

This is just another issue created by the federal government that they now have to step in to resolve. We would not be having this coversation but for the discrimination as fairmon stated in his post at 5:52.

March 26, 2013 at 9:36 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Leaf said... "Then we are all agreed? No more marriage defined separately from any other contract between consenting informed parties? And no tax breaks for anyone? Glad we could solve this issue so quickly and amicably. Let's inform the Supreme Court. If the people on this forum can agree, it must be the right thing to do."

I am surprised how much consensus there is on this topic. Where are all the people that want the government to legislate our relationships with each other?

March 26, 2013 at 9:37 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

alprova,

It sounds like you are arguing with yourself. If the government was not involved in regulating and licensing marriage there would be no gay marriage debate.

Can't you see that it is the government meddling that has created another problem for the government to "fix" for us?

March 26, 2013 at 9:41 a.m.
conservative said...

People must learn by repetition, repetition, repetition......

"Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen."

"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

March 26, 2013 at 9:52 a.m.
Leaf said...

Oh, never mind.

March 26, 2013 at 10:10 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Your sectarian beliefs don't apply to the rest of us, conservative.

March 26, 2013 at 10:12 a.m.
anniebelle said...

BRP, well EXCUSE ME! I didn't realize you were AndrewtheHypocriteLohr's interpreter. So, this means you share the same perverted thoughts as he projects, HUM?

March 26, 2013 at 10:13 a.m.
Leaf said...

How's the weather down there, Ikeithlu? Snowy and bitter cold here.

March 26, 2013 at 10:14 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Hi, Leaf! Unfortunately I am right here in my TN home, freezing my tush off. Reminds me why we built a boat...now I need to get back to it.

March 26, 2013 at 10:36 a.m.
degage said...

Ike, is your boat still in the keys?

March 26, 2013 at 10:53 a.m.
Fitzgerald said...

Hey Conservative! I can quote the bible too.

Kings 2:23

Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, “Go up, you bald head! Go up, you bald head!” So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the Lord. And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.

Looks like god doesn't like the mocking of baldies. Should we outlaw that too?

The bible is completely and demonstrably irrelevant when creating laws. Eating shrimp is listed as an abomination 4 times more often than homosexuality. I suspect that you don't find shrimp icky, so you can just ignore that part.

March 26, 2013 at 10:59 a.m.
conservative said...

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 1Corinthians 6:9-10

March 26, 2013 at 11:02 a.m.
jesse said...

HEY LEAF!

Ya been burnin any"HOLY WOOD" lately??

I was thinkin last week it might be time to do some worshipin of "The Big Green Egg" , THEN the weather changed my mind!!

March 26, 2013 at 11:07 a.m.
Fitzgerald said...

Harry Potter is real. I have the book to prove it.

Seriously, keep quoting bible verses. You are TOTALLY changing minds. For sure we should make bible based laws. I am sure that will go swimmingly. It's done so well in the past, and worked so well in other countries.

March 26, 2013 at 11:19 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Hi, degage! No, it's in the FL panhandle area.

conservative, I want absolutely nothing to do with your "kingdom of god".

March 26, 2013 at 11:26 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

anniebelle said... "I didn't realize you were AndrewtheHypocriteLohr's interpreter. So, this means you share the same perverted thoughts as he projects, HUM?"

It seems to me that Mr. Lohr presented two scenarios, one was hyperbole to illustrate and the second was his more practical (and many would argue reasonable) proposal. It also seems as though you are trying to discredit Mr. Lohr by attempting to present the hyperbole as his position. Now you are trying to repeat that mischaracterization towards me.

We will have a better chance of having a useful discussion if we all avoid twisting words to try to vilify each other.

March 26, 2013 at 11:30 a.m.
joneses said...

conservative,

Do not waste your time with these liberals as they lack the intellect to understand and know God. Their lack of intellect shows in their belief that the cause of the earth and the universe is "sh!t happens". That is the basis of their scientific research.

March 26, 2013 at 11:32 a.m.
joneses said...

Dr. Billy Graham’s Prayer for Our Nation

“Heavenly Father, we come before You today to ask for Your forgiveness and to seek Your direction and guidance. We know Your Word says, “Woe to those who call evil good…”, but that is exactly what we have done. We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values. We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery. We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare. We have killed the unborn and called it choice. We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable…We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self-esteem. We have abused power and called it politics. We have coveted our neighbor’s possessions and called it ambition. We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment. Search us Oh God, and know our hearts today; cleanse us from sin and set us free. Amen!”

March 26, 2013 at 11:35 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

That is the basis of their scientific research

You wouldn't recognize "scientific research" if it danced the hokey pokey right in front of you.

March 26, 2013 at 11:37 a.m.
Fitzgerald said...

That's cute. In reality, studies show that the more educated one is, and the higher IQ one has, the more likely they are to be liberal. And atheist.

March 26, 2013 at 11:38 a.m.
mtngrl said...

The government IS involved in marriage, and that is not going to change anytime soon. Arguing the contrary is currently just hypothetical, but gay marriage is going to become a reality.

And this has nothing to do with "breeding" as ALohr and EaTN seem to think. Bearing children is not a requirement of any marriage. Neither is marriage a requirement to have children. Gays have been able to adopt for years, why wouldn't you want that to happen in a committed marriage instead of a couple just shacking up? Ya'll are just making up excuses for being bigots.

I have been married for 23 years and we do not have children. Would that mean EaTN would want to invalidate this marriage?

Plus for Andrew - dogs and corpses cannot be consenting adults nor can they enter into legally binding contracts so that is a ridiculous argument that has nothing to do with the subject.

March 26, 2013 at 11:42 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Fitzgerald said... "That's cute. In reality, studies show that the more educated one is, and the higher IQ one has, the more likely they are to be liberal. And atheist."

No doubt something you learned from the liberal media. I am sure they are falling all over themselves to share any study that says otherwise.

http://www.people-press.org/2009/04/02/public-knows-basic-facts-about-financial-crisis/

March 26, 2013 at 11:47 a.m.
joneses said...

ike,

If you attack me I will attack you, you stupid ass dike. If you do not want to be called a stupid ass dike then I suggest you stop attacking me for what I post. It is your choice dike. I will pay as long as you want whore.

March 26, 2013 at 11:59 a.m.
Fitzgerald said...

Would you consider Psychology Today to be liberal media? The article you posted is only relevant to questions about the news, not actual IQ. Seriously, this paranoid obsession with the Liberal Media is borderline crazytown and people who spout that nonsense come across as delusional conspiracists.

What this all boils down to: there is not one SINGLE valid reason why two consenting adults should not be allowed to marry. Not ONE. Those who keep thumping their bible, just remember..... people used the bible to condone slavery and segregation, and used to keep women from having the vote and to stop interracial marriage.

Now look. You are using it to keep two consenting adults from marrying the person they love. Your grandchildren will be disgusted with you, the same way we are disgusted at the notion of forcing blacks to sit at the back of the bus.

March 26, 2013 at 12:01 p.m.
MickeyRat said...

Someone said that a lack of intellect shows a belief that the cause of the earth and the universe is "sh!t happens".

Care to prove otherwise?

Intellectuals, college professors, scientists, engineers etc. all tend to be left leaning and atheist. Think there might be a reason for that, other than the liberal media?

It wasn't all that long ago that conservatives got so riled up about it (at colleges & universities) that, rather than try to understand the reasons, they tried to force their bankrupt ideology into academia. Not unlike...religious dogma. They are quite similar after all.

The term "Liberal Media" is a myth.

March 26, 2013 at 12:03 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Ah, joneses. Always the gentleman. Doesn't take much to get you riled up, especially facts. Care to tell what scientific research you have done and had published?

March 26, 2013 at 12:07 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Fitzgerald said... "You are using it to keep two consenting adults from marrying the person they love."

Who is this "you" you refer to? I have been trying to point out that it is the government that is standing in the way of gay marriage, the same government that liberals want to give more power to. If your government did not inject itself into personal relationships there would be no gay marriage debate. People would just work things out between themselves. Ohhhh, the Anarchy!

March 26, 2013 at 12:08 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Fitzgerald said... "Would you consider Psychology Today to be liberal media?"

I am having a hard time finding the article you are referencing. Can you help?

March 26, 2013 at 12:12 p.m.
joneses said...

mickeyrat,

All? That is not true as Albert Einstein like many brilliant minds believed/believe in God. He actually was interested in how God did it. These college professors you speak of were taught that God does not exist from other college professors who have a liberal agenda to get religion out of the way of their liberal agenda. One of the largest deterrents to liberalism is religion. Liberals are for killing unborn babies, Christians are not, liberals think that a man can marry a man and a women can marry a woman. Christians know this is impossible. I will not ever try to convince you or anyone else that God exist when the proof is all around you. It is my belief that if one does not notice what God has done than so be it, that is their issue, not mine. I believe that there is a greater power than man and man's mind is very limited. Mans mind is so limited he lacks the intellect that keeps him from killing himself. I can see how it would be a miserable life to live knowing that kind of mind is the greatest mind on the planet.

March 26, 2013 at 12:23 p.m.
joneses said...

That is an opinion Dike. Stop showing your stupidity b!tch.

March 26, 2013 at 12:25 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Thanks once again ikeithlu,

I had read somewhere that Libertarian Democrats and Libertarian Republicans were the smartest of the political leanings and was hoping to find some mention in this article. No such luck!

March 26, 2013 at 12:36 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

That is an opinion Dike. Stop showing your stupidity b!tch

So you haven't done research?

BRP, What seems to set liberals apart from conservatives in my experience is "absolutes". In science there are no "absolutes", no "truth", just a description of reality given the evidence we have right now, subject to change. Liberals are people comfortable with shades of gray and lack of absolutes, conservatives prefer clear divisions.

The last part of the article was interesting. Liberal-dominated media? Well, duh, liberals dominate almost everything. I had to laugh.

March 26, 2013 at 12:37 p.m.
joneses said...

dike,

It is an opinion you moron! You are that stupid? Yes, I did research. It is simple. If God did not create earth and the universe then there is only one other way it was created. It just happened as in "sh!t happens". But the issue with the "sh!t happens" theory is that not one scientist can definitely say how the earth and universe were created. There are theories but theories are not fact. There is your research stupid.

March 26, 2013 at 12:46 p.m.
joneses said...

Study: Conservatives are more intelligent than liberals Liberals Let's look at education. The 2010 CNN election exit polls shows that 58% of college graduates voted Republican with 40% voting Democrat. This 18% point margin strongly proves that Republicans are more educated even with the recognized common knowledge of liberals being "career students" instead of entering society to be a productive member. http://lnk.co/G033Q

Now, let's look at professions according to the 2010 NY Times results. Physicians, Doctors and Dentists: 31% conservative, 17% liberal. Scientists: 32% conservative, 20% liberal. Building Managers: 32% conservative, 10% liberal. Officers: 29% conservative, 10% liberal. Graders and Sorters: 35% conservative, 10% liberal. Religious Workers: 46% conservative, 15% liberal. And to no surprise the professions that are more liberal include professors, authors, artists, journalists, social fields and of course bartending.

March 26, 2013 at 12:48 p.m.
joneses said...

What about success from intelligence? Again let's look at the CNN results. People earning over $100,000: 58% Republicans, 40% Democrat.. http://lnk.co/G033Q Wait! What about I.Q.? According to this study Republicans have the higher I.Q. IQ Men (Women) Republican 100.0 (99.1) Democrat 97.3 (98.1) Independent 94.4 (92.5) http://lnk.co/G032M

Ok. Ok. But what about conservative in the media? Well let's look at the two most popular conservative figures in the media. Rush Limbaugh: 1530 out of 1600 SAT, 147 I.Q. Bill O'Reilly: 1585 out of 1600 SAT, 150 I.Q. http://lnk.co/G04R5 So, what facts did we learn? Conservatives are more educated than liberals. Conservatives have more intellectual professions than liberals. Conservatives are more successful than liberals. Conservatives are more intelligent than liberals. Conservatives in the media are more intelligent than liberals.

March 26, 2013 at 12:49 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Well, aren't you all rainbows and sunshine today.

I was talking about "scientific" research. Reading a bible doesn't count. Do you even know anyone who does and publishes research? How can you pass judgment on science if you don't know how it is done? Your opinion doesn't matter in that case.

March 26, 2013 at 12:50 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Here is a survey of a group that only allows members in the 99.9th percentile of IQ. The “Liberal” verses “Conservative” IQ comparison does not hold up here. The results look VERY Libertarian.

http://www.triplenine.org/poll/index.html

March 26, 2013 at 12:50 p.m.
Easy123 said...

joneses,

"That is not true as Albert Einstein like many brilliant minds believed/believe in God."

Not in the way you're presenting. Einstein's god was very different than any deity created by religion.

"He actually was interested in how God did it."

What does that even mean?

"These college professors you speak of were taught that God does not exist from other college professors who have a liberal agenda to get religion out of the way of their liberal agenda."

FALSE. You have completely conjured state entire assertion up.

"One of the largest deterrents to liberalism is religion."

Then why are so many of them religious?

"Liberals are for killing unborn babies, Christians are not,"

False and false.

"liberals think that a man can marry a man and a women can marry a woman. Christians know this is impossible."

It's not impossible. It's actually happened many times before. You are insanely deluded for believing such nonsense.

"I will not ever try to convince you or anyone else that God exist when the proof is all around you."

No, it isn't. The Christian God is not nature. Nature as god would be a much better replacement for the evil, murderous, jealous, angry god portrayed in the Bible.

"It is my belief that if one does not notice what God has done than so be it, that is their issue, not mine."

It actually is your issue. When you make a claim, the onus is on you to prove it. If you cannot prove your claims, you have lost the argument. But I'm sure you've grown accustomed to losing arguments over the course of your ignorant life.

"I believe that there is a greater power than man and man's mind is very limited."

Your opinion has been duly noted. That is why you will never said in furthering science or discovery. Religion, intelligent design,"god" stops the advancement of science. Once "god" comes into the picture, some of the most intelligent people yield to the ignorance of religion.

"Mans mind is so limited he lacks the intellect that keeps him from killing himself."

That makes no sense whatsoever. Are you talking about suicide? Learn how to make sense.

"I can see how it would be a miserable life to live knowing that kind of mind is the greatest mind on the planet."

The human mind is the greatest mind on the planet. There are no other minds that even compare.

You are scientifically illiterate. You are ignorant on a base level. Read a science book. Learn something. Go back to school. That is the only advice I can give you because, at this point, you are hopelessly ignorant.

March 26, 2013 at 12:54 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

You know, joneses, you'd have more credibility if you checked the stuff you copied and pasted from someone else has working citation links.

March 26, 2013 at 12:56 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Fitz,

Did you read the article you posted?

“In short, discussing correlations between IQ and religiosity without a grasp of the relevant underlying factors is something of a parlor game.”

lkeithlu’s article does a better job of supporting your claim.

March 26, 2013 at 12:58 p.m.
Easy123 said...

If Rush Limbaugh has a 147 IQ and Bill O' Reilly has a 150 IQ, then I'm the Pope. To give everyone a little perspective here, Einstein was said to only have a 160 IQ.

March 26, 2013 at 1:01 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I thought this second article was interesting too, because it compared religious countries with secular, rather than just staying with US and UK.

March 26, 2013 at 1:02 p.m.
Easy123 said...

IGNORANCE:

joneses said...

"It just happened as in "sh!t happens". But the issue with the "sh!t happens" theory is that not one scientist can definitely say how the earth and universe were created. There are theories but theories are not fact. There is your research stupid."

It makes me cringe to think how dumb you really are, jonesy. You have NO CLUE what you are talking about, sir.

March 26, 2013 at 1:04 p.m.
Fitzgerald said...

I would like someone to give me just one single logical reason why two consenting gay adults should not be allowed to marry. One caveat.... you have to keep your religion out of it. So go on.... just one.

March 26, 2013 at 1:06 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

lkeithlu said... "What seems to set liberals apart from conservatives in my experience is "absolutes". In science there are no "absolutes", no "truth", just a description of reality given the evidence we have right now, subject to change. Liberals are people comfortable with shades of gray and lack of absolutes, conservatives prefer clear divisions."

I am not qualified to argue the point for "conservatives", that is why you find me here cheerleading for the libertarian. It seems to me that libertarianism embraces the best of both sides, if you really can identify a "side" without using the simplistic boundaries created by our horrible two party system.

"The last part of the article was interesting. Liberal-dominated media? Well, duh, liberals dominate almost everything. I had to laugh."

That would be funny if it was not so true. Liberals have made no bones about their intention to gain control of the institutions mentioned. They have used the same systematic approach over and over again. The more conservative and libertarian citizens were asleep at the wheel while liberals built a very sophisticated propaganda machine.

March 26, 2013 at 1:07 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

They have used the same systematic approach over and over again.

Can you describe it?

March 26, 2013 at 1:11 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Ah, the ol' "slippery slope" argument. That's a good one for you righties to fall back on. You keep using it, over and over, and it's never panned out, but what they hey...it sounds good anyway, doesn't it?. "If we allow same-sex marriages, whats' next? People will be wanting to marry their dog or their pet goat! If we pass gun laws, what's next? They'll be coming to take away all of our guns! If we raise the minimum wage, what's next? People will expect $20/hr or $30/hr. or even $100/hr.! If we allow embryonic stem cell research, what's next? They'll be coming after sickly infants and old folks! If we let them mandate health insurance, what's next? They'll mandate buying broccoli!"

The world must appear to have a decidedly downward tilt to you conservatives, with an abyss of ruin and chaos at the bottom. How do you guys even get from point A to point B without falling down that slippery slope? Be careful - that next step could be a doozy!

March 26, 2013 at 1:13 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Fitzgerald said... "I would like someone to give me just one single logical reason why two consenting gay adults should not be allowed to marry. One caveat.... you have to keep your religion out of it. So go on.... just one."

Just playing devil's advocate here, this is not my position but I suspect some in Washington might think of these things...

Because we cannot afford it? Allowing gays to marry expands the roles of those eligible for corporate and government benefits to a group that is not universally accepted as entitled to those benefits?

Personally, I do not think government should be regulating and incentivizing personal relationships.

March 26, 2013 at 1:13 p.m.
jesse said...

I.Q. only measures your ability to do well on a certain type of test!

Bobby Ficher had one of the highest I.Q.'s ever scored BUT while he was good at chess, abstract mathematics not so much! Einstiens brain worked a certain way that gave him a talent for math! The Unabomber had an I.Q. in the 180 range but was socially RETARDED!

March 26, 2013 at 1:14 p.m.
joneses said...

And the unabomber was a liberal.

March 26, 2013 at 1:27 p.m.
Fitzgerald said...

Because we cannot afford it? I understand that it is not your opinion, but it's still a terrible argument. Civil rights cannot be denied to a group of people over budget. On a humorous note, it will likely help the economy tremendously. Imagine the weddings that would be thrown.

March 26, 2013 at 1:30 p.m.
Easy123 said...

joneses,

"And the unabomber was a liberal."

No, he wasn't.

He talked extensively about the problems with "Leftism".

A quote from Ted Kaczynski's manifesto:

"One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general."

Sound familiar? He sounds like the psychopaths (joneses, JonRoss, Maximus) that post here.

Read for yourself:

http://www.newshare.com/Newshare/Common/News/unifesto1.html#1

March 26, 2013 at 1:34 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

And Timothy McVeigh was a conservative. Your point?

March 26, 2013 at 1:34 p.m.
Oldhickory said...

The Kingdom of Heaven is within. George Clinton, 1970

March 26, 2013 at 1:35 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Fitzgerald said... "but it's still a terrible argument"

I tried!

March 26, 2013 at 1:36 p.m.
conservative said...

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! - Isaiah 5:20

March 26, 2013 at 1:37 p.m.
Fitzgerald said...

Seriously, keep up the bible quotin'. It really drives a reasonable, logical debate. Totally.

March 26, 2013 at 1:39 p.m.
joneses said...

I am not trying to convince any one of anything and peoples opinion about me have no credibility as why would I put stock in someone who has nothing better to do but sit on their fat ass all day and piss and moan on this board. That in itself is a sign of pure stupidity. You people, and you know who you are, that post all day long thinking you have power over someone else's thinking and choices are a pathetic, misguided bunch. I am out of here as I have better things to do. It is a shame you others have nothing better to do but show the world what a pathetic life you must have. Wow, and I let myself become wrapped up in stupidity like you. I am better than you. Thanks for the lesson and I will leave you all with your miserable, pathetic, little minuscule lives.

March 26, 2013 at 1:39 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Fitz, conservative doesn't read anything but, so he has only the bible to draw from. Not terribly useful in most discussions, being 2000 years out of date.

March 26, 2013 at 1:40 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Don't go away mad, joneses. Just go away.

I'd be embarrassed for you, given how often you've had your arse handed to you just today, but I can't. You deserved it.

March 26, 2013 at 1:41 p.m.
Easy123 said...

joneses,

"I am not trying to convince any one of anything and peoples opinion about me have no credibility as why would I put stock in someone who has nothing better to do but sit on their fat ass all day and piss and moan on this board."

You're one of those people that "sit on their fat ass all day and piss and moan on this board". Do you not realize that?

"That in itself is a sign of pure stupidity."

You are stupidity incarnate.

"You people, and you know who you are, that post all day long thinking you have power over someone else's thinking and choices are a pathetic, misguided bunch."

Show me anyone here that thinks they "have power over someone else's thinking and choices". I bet you can't. YOU are pathetic and misguided. The things you say are fabrications of your mind.

"I am out of here as I have better things to do."

Took you long enough. You've been posting here since 7:22 this morning. I guess you didn't have anything better to do for the past 6 hours, right?

"It is a shame you others have nothing better to do but show the world what a pathetic life you must have."

You have just described yourself, moron. You have posted here for the last 6 hours!

"Wow, and I let myself become wrapped up in stupidity like you. I am better than you."

Are you repeating your self-help tape? You aren't better than a piece of excrement. We are all better than you.

"Thanks for the lesson and I will leave you all with your miserable, pathetic, little minuscule lives."

Actually, we will leave you to your "miserable, pathetic, little minuscule" life. Don't let the door hit you on your dumb ass on the way out! Come back again if you'd like another intellectual shellacking!

March 26, 2013 at 1:48 p.m.
Fitzgerald said...

Aaaaaaand Joneses just showed us what it's like to be a true christian.

March 26, 2013 at 1:50 p.m.
jesse said...

To paraphrase Easy "if jonses and con man are Christians then i'm the Pope!"

March 26, 2013 at 1:55 p.m.
Leaf said...

Yeah, I'm waiting on the real spring to come so I can worship at the smoky wooden pagan altar. Maybe I'll slide on down to Ike's boat and pirate it with a smokey joe travel altar and ablutions by Beam. I know it's a 40' single screw steel Bruce Roberts in Florida with absent owners. How many boats could there possibly be in Florida? Should be easy to find.

I didn't read anyone's links because I'm too lazy. However I recall a study about the size of the amigdyla (sp?) correlating to conservatism. Interesting.

My view on it, is that a mix of conservatives and liberals and libertarians and whatever are good for the continuation of the species, and that is why we evolved the way we did. It's all about adaptibility. The libertarians are the pioneers, traveling into new lands with nothing but a musket and a mule, taming the wilderness. The liberals are the optimists and risk-takers, building things and advancing science. The conservatives are the planners, the savers, who survive during the lean times.

Obviously I've painted with a broad brush, but I think there's some truth in there somewhere. Maybe.

March 26, 2013 at 2 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Libertarians think they are so noble and on-point with their talk of keeping the government out of everything and leaving things like even civil rights up to the states. But state governments don't necessarily make better decisions than the federal government and in fact oftentimes make worse decisions. Anyway, civil rights should not be left up to a majority vote by state. It would be ludicrous for a black person to have the right to eat at a restaurant in Oregon but not in Mississippi. Likewise it would be ridiculous, not to mention unjust, for a gay couple to have legal rights as a couple in New York but then decide to move to Georgia, where their union would not be sanctioned.

Libertarians think they take the higher ground by leaving everything up to individual choice but when society itself is unjust and does not do the right thing, at some point government must intervene. That is what representative government is all about. The libertarians' call for individual freedom is nothing but a cop-out. Refusing to take a stand for people's rights and saying, "Let the states decide" is cowardly and unprincipled, and libertarians will never amount to anything more than a fringe party because they have nothing of substance to offer. The libertarian vision of individual freedom is the "freedom" of anarchy.

March 26, 2013 at 2 p.m.

States license marriage, and state governments (as does the federal government) bestow special benefits upon married couples. As long as marriage is regulated by law, the law must be applied equally.

I offer you Amendments 9, 10, and 14 Section 1:

9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Gay couples have the right to love one another. They have the right to freely associate. They have the right to contract.

Though, in my opinion, it would be better if government got out of the marriage business, altogether, if governments are issuing licenses to enter into the marriage contract, and if couples benefit from these licenses, then the law must be applied equally. There must be equal protection.

Religious oppression is wrong whether it is committed by the Taliban in Afghanistan, or committed by fundamentalist Christians in the Bible Belt. Bigotry in Christ's name is no better than bigotry in the name of Allah. None are free until all are free.

March 26, 2013 at 2:03 p.m.
conservative said...

"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; MALE and FEMALE He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY, and fill the earth, and subdue it." Do you see why God made men and women?

March 26, 2013 at 2:06 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

If that's the case, then why do you and your ilk demonize sex? That passage doesn't mention marriage. Should infertile men and women be allowed to marry? They can't multiply just as homosexual couples can't.

Don't worry, I won't wait for you to not respond and lose the argument. I'll go ahead and call it now.

March 26, 2013 at 2:10 p.m.
mtngrl said...

The earth is full, and has been subdued....

March 26, 2013 at 2:10 p.m.
Fitzgerald said...

Atheists are allowed to legally marry. No god involved. Therefore, god has no bearing on gays legally marrying. Besides, hetero couples who cannot be "fruitful and multiply" can legally marry. Your argument is invalid.

March 26, 2013 at 2:15 p.m.
whatsthefuss said...

I think Clay looks good in a dress or is it a "THINGY"?

March 26, 2013 at 2:17 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Regarding the con-man's comment on the nature of God:

Actually, God is entirely an invention of man. Man has created the sort of God that he THINKS exists. God has been and always will be forever silent in the affairs of us humans and we will be forever IMAGINING who/what God really is, or IF he is. Every word in the Bible is the product of man's imagination. Everything ever uttered about the nature of God comes from man's imagination. Man has created God in his own image.

March 26, 2013 at 2:21 p.m.
patriot1 said...

Bigotry? Where does bigotry come in to play on this?

March 26, 2013 at 2:27 p.m.
Leaf said...

If god did not exist it would be necessary to invent him. - Voltaire

March 26, 2013 at 2:28 p.m.
alprova said...

BRP wrote: "It sounds like you are arguing with yourself. If the government was not involved in regulating and licensing marriage there would be no gay marriage debate."

But the fact of the matter is that state and local governments ARE involved in regulating, licensing, and rejecting people from being allowed to marry, which is why there is a debate ongoing.

"Can't you see that it is the government meddling that has created another problem for the government to "fix" for us?"

Can't you see that people in this nation are not FREE to do what they want relevant to their lives, so long as they are denied the right to do it?

You're just another shining example of someone who hollars "freedom" or "liberty" for all to hear, until it comes to something you disagree with.

March 26, 2013 at 2:29 p.m.
Handleit said...

Let's see, two big arguments in this discussion about gay marriage are taxes and religion. As a wise man once said, "Ain't it strange how money can put you in good graces with the church". Look at the churches. They have long since charged a flat tax. Something to the tune of 10% of your income? So lets have everyone pay 10% to the government and I'll bet those bums in D.C. can find something else to occupy their time. Heck maybe they can balance the budget if everyone pays equal taxes. Although I am not sure that will ever happen.

March 26, 2013 at 2:39 p.m.
Fitzgerald said...

Bigotry comes in when you voice the opinion that a group of consenting, adult, tax paying American citizens should not be allowed the same rights as every other consenting adult tax paying American citizen.

March 26, 2013 at 2:39 p.m.
patriot1 said...

I see Fitz....so you think that more than 52% of the people in California are bigots.

March 26, 2013 at 2:53 p.m.
conservative said...

"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." Do you see another reason why God would not approve of sexual perverts marrying?

March 26, 2013 at 2:55 p.m.
Leaf said...

conservative said, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

What, don't women deserve the truth?

wacka wacka.

March 26, 2013 at 3:01 p.m.
Fitzgerald said...

Yes. 52% of Californians ARE bigots. And conservative, enough already. You cannot use bible verses to make laws in the US that affect every adult. Because not every adult is part of your religion, and not every adult believes the bible to be an infallible document inspired by an invisible sky wizard. YOUR religion has no right to impose YOUR morality into our laws, just as orthodox Jews have no right to outlaw bacon. And the Amish cannot force us to live without electricity. When you quote the bible to me, you may as well be quoting Harry Potter or Alice in Wonderland.

And again, the bible mentions shrimp being an abomination 4 times more than homosexuality. Should shrimp be outlawed?

March 26, 2013 at 3:04 p.m.
mtngrl said...

"Do you see another reason why God would not approve of sexual perverts marrying?"

That's just it Conny, God does not have to approve.

And you are not His spokesman.

March 26, 2013 at 3:06 p.m.
mtngrl said...

Plus there are many hetero sexual perverts. Do you have something against them marrying too?

March 26, 2013 at 3:07 p.m.
Leaf said...

I heard that the Jews are trying to outlaw bacon, and Cajuns are practicing abominations with shrimp.

March 26, 2013 at 3:08 p.m.

"And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you"

According to the Bible, shellfish & catfish also fall into the "abomination" category. I don't see states refusing fishing licenses to those that fish for catfish or shrimp.

As for 52% of California voters being bigots, popular acceptance of bigotry makes it no less wrong, and no less bigotry.

March 26, 2013 at 3:09 p.m.
jesse said...

Funny, I'm in the process of abominatin me some Shrimp right now!

Havin wine w/um so i guess i'm sinnin big time!

March 26, 2013 at 3:16 p.m.
patriot1 said...

We have laws that prevent incest, bigamy and beastility.....is that bigotry too?

March 26, 2013 at 3:16 p.m.
Fitzgerald said...

JonRoss, slavery was part of culture and custom for centuries, so tradition and custom do not equal correct and or moral. Poor argument. And if the Supreme Courts had not overturned the will of the people, there would be plenty of places in the south that would still have segregated drinking fountains. A citizen's civil rights do trump states rights, do they not? And if you wanna go along with the will of the people, I am afraid you lose there as well. The U.S. is up to 58% in favor of gay marriage. And growing and an unprecedented rate. This WILL happen. You may as well adjust yourself to it now.

March 26, 2013 at 3:20 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JonRoss,

"Bigots ARE NOT people who support several thousands years of culture and custom by opposing homosexual marriage."

Actually, that culture and custom tend to the the basis of bigotry in the world.

"Progressives/Dems/Obamists are soft on pedophilia. Have you ever heard any of them condemning pedophilia ?"

No serious, reasonable human being is "soft on pedophilia". And yes, I have heard many of them condemning pedophilia.

March 26, 2013 at 3:22 p.m.
Easy123 said...

patriot1,

"We have laws that prevent incest, bigamy and beastility.....is that bigotry too?"

So homosexuality is equivalent to incest, bigamy, and bestiality? You're a special kind of bigot now, aren't you?

March 26, 2013 at 3:23 p.m.
Leaf said...

JonRoss said, "Bigots ARE NOT people who support several thousands years of culture and custom by opposing homosexual marriage."

I see the light. JonRoss is absolutely correct. Thousands of years of culture and custom can't be wrong. That is why I have decided to adopt slavery and absolute monarchy.

When I am king I will enslave the Cajuns in order to save them from their shrimp abomination ways. Who wants to be my loyal subjects? First ones get to be the gentry. The rest of you will have to be peasants.

But peasantry isn't so bad. If you tithe to my official church your short life of backbreaking labor and opression will be rewarded by the chance to be a peasent in the kingdom of God in the afterlife. Forever.

March 26, 2013 at 3:25 p.m.

Obamists? That's a laugh. President Obama is a late-comer when it comes to marriage equality. Until recently, he opposed it.

The ballot is relevant only in the role it plays in our republic. The ballot cannot be used to deprive an individual, or a group, of their rights, civil or other.

If enough Muslims moved to Soddy-Daisy to have a majority vote in municipal elections, should they be allowed to force the Christians (who find themselves in the minority) to face Mecca and pray 5 times daily? Of course not.

If P.E.T.A. convinces a majority of Chattanoogans to become vegans, would a ballot initiative to ban the eating of meat be OK? Again, no.

One of the main purposes of our government is to protect the rights of the minority (majority rights don't need protection) from the tyranny of the majority.

March 26, 2013 at 3:26 p.m.
Easy123 said...

dummyRoss,

"The people of the U.S. by almost 60% want Obamacare repealed. I don't hear you Progressive thugs demanding that it be overtured."

Actually, people tend to like the specifics of Obamacare. They just don't like the name Obamacare. Idiots like yourself will align yourselves against anything that Obama proposes, even if it was your idea in the first place.

"And Fitz, you must have missed the fact that the slave issue was resolved ?"

And the gay marriage issue will be resolved as well. How come the "culture and custom" only applies to homosexual marriage and not slavery? Your argument just imploded.

March 26, 2013 at 3:26 p.m.
patriot1 said...

Easy...don't get those little feathers ruffled....I'm just axeing the question? If I'm opposed to incest, is that bigotry? After all, those two getting together could be consenting adults.

March 26, 2013 at 3:28 p.m.
Leaf said...

jesse, I hope those shrimp you're abominating are "jumbo" shrimp. Otherwise it would be sadder than it is already!

March 26, 2013 at 3:28 p.m.
mtngrl said...

"And Fitz, you must have missed the fact that the slave issue was resolved ?"

Resolved by the courts, not by the ballot.

Just like marriage equality will be.

March 26, 2013 at 3:28 p.m.
Fitzgerald said...

Only stupid people equate homosexuality with pedophilia or bestiality or incest. Surely you can wrap your brain around the concept of this..... gay marriage inherently causes no harm to either partner. The reason most incest, pedophilia, and bestiality typically does not involve consent by both partners. JonRoss, can you make a single comment without using a logical fallacy?

March 26, 2013 at 3:30 p.m.
Easy123 said...

dummyRoss,

"Homosexual marriage is not a civil right, and will not be even if the court rapes us by overturning prop 8."

Yes, it is and yes, it will be.

"It is a redefinition of a 3,000 year old concept."

So what? Slavery has been around for a lot longer than that, but that issue got "resolved" remember? Marriage should encompass hetersexuals and homosexuals alike.

March 26, 2013 at 3:30 p.m.
Leaf said...

"The slave issue was resolved" sure is a gentle way to describe the Civil War and more than a hundred subsequent years of discrimination, segregation and lynchings.

March 26, 2013 at 3:34 p.m.
Easy123 said...

patriot1,

"Easy...don't get those little feathers ruffled....I'm just axeing the question?"

Feathers are firmly in place. Why did you put a question mark at the end of that statement?

"If I'm opposed to incest, is that bigotry?"

No. You might want to look up the word "bigotry" before you continue this little charade.

"After all, those two getting together could be consenting adults."

So are you for it or against it? You just said you were opposed to it, yet you are making a case for it. Which is it? I can think of several legitimate reasons why there should be laws against incest. I can't, however, come up with any legitimate reasons why homosexuals shouldn't be able to marry.

March 26, 2013 at 3:35 p.m.
Fitzgerald said...

Well sure, if you can get the Supreme Court to recognize humping a dog in the middle of the road to be a basic human right. They did, however, recognize marriage as a basic human right many times, the first time in Loving v. Virginia. Until they do recognize dog humping as a basic human right, it would seem a really irrational and kind of stupid comparison to make.

March 26, 2013 at 3:38 p.m.
mtngrl said...

That was a mirror JonRoss

March 26, 2013 at 3:38 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JonRoss,

"Say I would like to hump a dog in the middle of Broad Street during Friday afternoon rush hour. And I declare it a civil right. Does that make me free to do it ?"

Probably not, but I bet you could do it in the confines of your own home. There aren't any laws against it. Declaring it a civil right just makes you insane. There is not equivalency between you humping your dog and gay marriage.

"Over 70% of blacks in California voted for prop 8. Wonder what they think about Obamist thuggery in shoving this down their throats and it's relative comparison to slavery ?"

"Relative comparison to slavery"? Wow, you're truly insane. You are absolutely psychotic.

"Fitz you should be ashamed of yourself. You too leaf."

The ignorance is strong with you, dummyRoss. You are shame on all human beings.

March 26, 2013 at 3:39 p.m.
patriot1 said...

Well...how about it Easy?...those two committing incest could be, let's say an uncle and neice who are both adults....would that be ok? Would I be a bigot if I'm opposed to that?

March 26, 2013 at 3:40 p.m.
Leaf said...

JonRoss said, "Fitz you should be ashamed of yourself. You too leaf."

I would be ashamed, but we jackbooted Obamist thugs had our consciences and free will removed during the indoctrination.

March 26, 2013 at 3:41 p.m.

"The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract." OWH

Seems some folks need to read up on "civil rights".

March 26, 2013 at 3:42 p.m.
Easy123 said...

patriot1,

"those two committing incest could be, let's say an uncle and neice who are both adults....would that be ok?"

You'd have to define "OK" first.

"Would I be a bigot if I'm opposed to that?"

I already said no.

March 26, 2013 at 3:43 p.m.
mtngrl said...

If someone mentions the word bigot and you instantly feel defensive.... then you must be a bigot.

Lots of defensive posts above....

March 26, 2013 at 3:47 p.m.
mtngrl said...

step away from the mirror JonRoss

March 26, 2013 at 3:50 p.m.
Leaf said...

You mistake me, JonRoss. I don't hate you. I like you. You're the perfect straight man.

March 26, 2013 at 4 p.m.
patriot1 said...

Easy...since you seem to agree (I think) that incest is not okay...then you must agree that we as citizens have a right to place some limits on what is legal and proper, some "guardrails" if you will. The people of the State of California has placed limits on marriage in their state and decided by greater than 52% that marriage should be between a man and a woman. This is not just law but part of their constitution and was passed with 80% voter participation. And they are bigots because of that?

March 26, 2013 at 4:02 p.m.
Fitzgerald said...

JonRoss, the concept of marriage has already been redefined many many times. It used to be customary to sell your daughter as property. To have multiple wives. To beat or kill your wife has been acceptable in Christian societies. Again. This is happening. The Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a basic right. Gay people, being human, have the same rights. Or they will when this ruling comes down. You have no reason to oppose this decision but your own prejudice. There is literally not one single reason outside religion to deny them the same rights you and I have.

March 26, 2013 at 4:02 p.m.
Fitzgerald said...

And hey Patriot, yes. They are still bigots. It doesn't matter if it's part of their constitution or how many voted. They are still bigots if they are denying a basic right to a segment of the population.

March 26, 2013 at 4:06 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Marrying within a family was common too, especially among royalty. Incest as a concept is not a problem, but reproduction between two closely related people can be. Of course, the bible certainly has many examples. Who married Adam's sons? Of course, Noah's family represents a genetic bottleneck as well, if you accept the flood story as literal.

March 26, 2013 at 4:12 p.m.
Easy123 said...

patriot1,

"since you seem to agree (I think) that incest is not okay...then you must agree that we as citizens have a right to place some limits on what is legal and proper, some "guardrails" if you will."

You actually have no right to place any limits on what is legal and proper. The only say you or anyone has in that respect is by voting people that reciprocate your ideals.

"The people of the State of California has placed limits on marriage in their state and decided by greater than 52% that marriage should be between a man and a woman."

They didn't place limits on marriage. They excluded a specific group of people from being able to get married based on their sexual orientation. That is discrimination. That is bigotry. There should have never been a vote for such a thing. Just because people vote for it doesn't mean it isn't bigotry.

"This is not just law but part of their constitution and was passed with 80% voter participation. And they are bigots because of that?"

YES. What part of that don't you understand? I don't care if 100% of people voted for it. It's still bigotry. It's still homophobia. It's still discrimination based on sexual orientation. Do you get it now? Incest and gay marriage ARE NOT equivalent. Your argument is fallacious. Refer to Ikeithlu's post on the subject. She hit the nail on the head.

March 26, 2013 at 4:20 p.m.
Easy123 said...

dummyRoss,

"Obamists crap their pants (mtngrl you listening ?) when someone identifies them as bigots."

No, they don't. They laugh at you and scoff at your ignorance.

"You, leaf, fitz, ad nauseum, need to back up and rethink your approach."

Ad nauseum? You should rethink your approach as well. This whole "ignorant bigot" tactic isn't working.

"Your hate for people who disagree with Progessive dogma is dangerous."

There is no hate for people. There is only hate for bigotry, ignorance, homophobia, hatred, etc. Just because you so happen to fall into those categories is no consequence of anyone that opposes you. It's no longer difficult to deal with you and your ilk. You are quickly becoming the minority in this country. Serious, reasonable people will not stop until ignorance and bigotry like yours is snuffed out.

March 26, 2013 at 4:24 p.m.
patriot1 said...

You're lots of fun....easy

March 26, 2013 at 4:27 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

alprova said... "But the fact of the matter is that state and local governments ARE involved in regulating, licensing, and rejecting people from being allowed to marry, which is why there is a debate ongoing.”

Boy alprova. You sure are a rigid thinker, a reciter of "facts", one who is not willing to recognize mistakes that may have been made by his beloved government and consider a solution...

It seems as though the majority here thinks the government should get out of the business of regulating, taxing and licensing personal relationships. Maybe you could free your mind to consider such possibilities.

I dare venture that would be more fun and rewarding than being an encyclopedia of government dogma.

March 26, 2013 at 4:27 p.m.
Easy123 said...

You're not very smart or logical...patriot1.

:-)

March 26, 2013 at 4:28 p.m.
jesse said...

I just can't get wraped around how ,if two men want to get married ,it should get me all in a dander!

If you are against homosexual marriage then don't do it! Marry the opposite sex!I ain't got enough time left to be worrin about what John Doe down the block does!

March 26, 2013 at 4:29 p.m.
limric said...

HEATHEN LOVERS. Listen and learn!

mtngrl – hillside humper queen, Leaf – prince of flora fornicators, Jesse, king of shrimp sucubus’s, Easy123 – whose name alone is a satanic alliance of letters & numbers, Fitzgerald – evil logic equivocator, BRP –Blaspheming Radical Protestant; and of course Alprova, who, being a cartoon character, is an alien and must henceforth be shunned. And other idolaters, gascolators, barbequer’s, those just too busy to be a homecoming queen and just good old all Americans.

Most sexual ‘preverts’ are minions of the Vatican; bastions of good Christianity - ”that support several thousands years of culture and custom by opposing homosexual marriage.” Most adulterers are either founders or elders of Christian preaching love, virtue; while hiding their own *preversions. Or if caught in their hypocrisy revert to revision and show it as a fashionable vice, and after, all fashionable vices pass for virtue.

*{See Dr. Strangelove – which is kinda fitting considering todays subject}

[Applause]

But don’t applaud my wisdom; I won't take any more credit for this than necessary. Tu quoque did not - nay, will not - die in vain, grid willing. Ladies & gentlemen – We need to use gay flower like a big green egg, or a drum; and its leadership like a violin. Take out any idea. Compare ideas, with the one idea left we are left you have no doubt and without a doubt we have enthusiasm! Of course, we all know it wasn't always like this. No, we came from little towns with strange names like: Smegma, Spasmodic, Frog, and the far flung Isles of Langerhans. Now we are in...Chattanooga! And Free to Press our shirts and pants; and girls will be with girls. Whoo hoo!!

So how about that, Mr & Mrs. junior Christians,Mr Smarty Pants Communist? Miss. College Professor? Mr. Beatnik? Mrs. Hippie?

March 26, 2013 at 5:05 p.m.
jesse said...

LIMRIC?

Have you been slackin off on conserving your vital bodily fluids?

Startin to sound like it!!!

March 26, 2013 at 5:11 p.m.
limric said...

Flouride jesse

Its impurities saps all of our precious bodily fluids.

Or shrimps.

March 26, 2013 at 5:27 p.m.
mtngrl said...

"mtngrl – hillside humper queen.." LOL, now that's funny.

"Most sexual ‘preverts’ are minions of the Vatican; bastions of good Christianity - ”that support several thousands years of culture and custom by opposing homosexual marriage.” Most adulterers are either founders or elders of Christian preaching love, virtue; while hiding their own preversions. Or if caught in their hypocrisy revert to revision and show it as a fashionable vice, and after, all fashionable vices pass for virtue."

So true... After all, Abstinence makes the church grow fondlers

March 26, 2013 at 5:43 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Abstinence makes the church grow fondlers

OMG that's funny

March 26, 2013 at 5:56 p.m.
patriot1 said...

Easy says...."It's still discrimination based on sexual orientation" Where's the discrimination? Prop 8 in California denies the ability of both homosexuals and hetrosexuals the ability to marry someone of the same sex.....No discrimination here.

March 26, 2013 at 6:39 p.m.
hobo said...

can anybody tell me why they are called gay.

March 26, 2013 at 6:49 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

C'mon hobo-a simple google search or wiki will tell you the origin of the word "gay".

March 26, 2013 at 7:02 p.m.
Easy123 said...

patriot1,

"Where's the discrimination? Prop 8 in California denies the ability of both homosexuals and hetrosexuals the ability to marry someone of the same sex.....No discrimination here."

Are you stupid or purposefully dense? A lot of discrimination here. Prop 8 is discrimination based on sexual orientation. Homosexuals are not allowed to marry. Heterosexuals are. Thus, homosexuals are discriminated against based on of their sexual orientation. Heterosexuals can marry members of the opposite sex, but homosexuals cannot marry members of the same sex. That is discrimination based on sexual orientation. Do I need to explain it further, Rube?

Also, heterosexuals likely wouldn't marry someone of the same sex considering they are, in fact, heterosexual.

I underestimated you earlier, you REALLY aren't very smart or logical.

March 26, 2013 at 7:03 p.m.
patriot1 said...

Easy says...."but homosexuals cannot marry members of the same sex" Neither can hetrosexuals, therefore the law/constitution applies to both equally.

March 26, 2013 at 7:17 p.m.
alprova said...

JonRoss wrote: "Bigots ARE people who refuse to kiss the ass of the right royal Barack Hussien Obama and submit to the will of the Holy Progressive Church with respect to the issue of homosexual marriage."

Maybe you haven't noticed the fact that many prominent conservatives are stepping aside on the issue too.

It is hardly a Barack Obama issue.

"Bigots ARE NOT people who support several thousands years of culture and custom by opposing homosexual marriage."

"Bigot" is not a good word to describe what such people are. What people are who are opposed to same-sex marriage are people who refuse to set aside their own prejudices and objections to allowing people different from themselves to pursuit their own versions of happiness.

Culture and customs are not good enough reasons for not simply stepping aside and allow people to make their own choices in life, so long as those choices are mutually agreed upon by two consenting adults.

"If the Supreme Court ignores the will of 31 states, including California, there will be one more nail in the coffin of our Constitutional Democracy."

You want democracy? Fine. I'm sure that those seeking approval of same-sex marriage will welcome it. Let's have a national vote to determine what the will of the people are.

Your side will lose.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/First-Time-Majority-Americans-Favor-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx

March 26, 2013 at 7:21 p.m.
limric said...

I'd say that for you Ikeithlu -"Absinthe makes the boys you ponder...

fonder."

March 26, 2013 at 7:27 p.m.
alprova said...

JonRoss wrote: "The people of the U.S. by almost 60% want Obamacare repealed. I don't hear you Progressive thugs demanding that it be overtured."

You are so misinformed. Just today, the results of a national poll regarding ObamCare was released.

The percentage of people who want to see ObamaCare repealed is down to 34%.

http://bostonherald.com/business/healthcare/2012/03/national_poll_34_percent_would_repeal_obamacare.

March 26, 2013 at 7:27 p.m.
hobo said...

can anybdy tell me why they are called gay people.

March 26, 2013 at 7:29 p.m.
limric said...

homosexuals cannot marry members of the same sex" Neither can hetrosexuals, therefore the law/constitution applies to both equally.

Umm...what?

March 26, 2013 at 7:31 p.m.
Easy123 said...

patriot1,

"Neither can hetrosexuals, therefore the law/constitution applies to both equally."

Heterosexual couples can marry. Homosexual couples cannot. The law/constitution does not apply to both equally. Do I need to explain it AGAIN, Rube?

I pity any offspring you may have fathered.

March 26, 2013 at 7:32 p.m.
alprova said...

JonRoss wrote: "Say I would like to hump a dog in the middle of Broad Street during Friday afternoon rush hour. And I declare it a civil right. Does that make me free to do it ?"

If you wanted to hump your wife in the middle of Broad Street during afternoon rush hour, the result would be the same.

You would be arrested and you would go to jail.

March 26, 2013 at 7:32 p.m.
alprova said...

Leaf wrote: "You mistake me, JonRoss. I don't hate you. I like you. You're the perfect straight man."

Were you smiling while you typed that?

March 26, 2013 at 7:36 p.m.
alprova said...

Mtngirl wrote: "After all, Abstinence makes the church grow fondlers"

I nominate the above comment as the comment of the year!!!

Too funny....

March 26, 2013 at 7:43 p.m.
patriot1 said...

Easy...I'm not trying to be difficult here but there is an important distinction I'm making about discrimination. The same- sex proponents are trying to make this issue about civil rights and discrimination which is why some on the Supreme Court are wondering why they are even hearing it. Back in the day when democrats were passing Jim Crow laws prohibiting blacks from using public facilities there was little doubt this was discriminatory. That water fountain labeled "Whites Only" meant is was meant for one race and not the other. Prop 8 states that marriage is to be between a man and a woman. It doesn't matter if you're black, white, gay, straight, yellow, hairy, bald, whatever....it applies to all. That may sound trival but an important distinction.

March 26, 2013 at 8:18 p.m.
Easy123 said...

patriot1,

"The same- sex proponents are trying to make this issue about civil rights and discrimination which is why some on the Supreme Court are wondering why they are even hearing it."

It is about civil rights and discrimination. And the only one wondering that is Antonin Scalia. The man is a troll in every sense of the word.

"Back in the day when democrats were passing Jim Crow laws prohibiting blacks from using public facilities there was little doubt this was discriminatory."

Your partisan bias just came shining through. I knew it would come out sooner or later. You should really try to hide your true agenda better.

"Prop 8 states that marriage is to be between a man and a woman. It doesn't matter if you're black, white, gay, straight, yellow, hairy, bald, whatever....it applies to all. That may sound trival but an important distinction."

Wrong. It DOES matter if you're gay or straight. Gay people want to marry people of the same sex. Thus, marriage, as you've defined it, is discrimination. You are trying to say this isn't discrimination by saying since the laws apply to everyone, then it isn't discrimination. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is an asinine, dishonest defense of such discrimination. Defining marriage in that way discriminates against those gay people you say are not being discriminated against. Discrimination isn't exclusive to the color of your skin or how you look. Prop 8 is blatant discrimination against homosexual couples. Marriage defined as being between one man and one women is, by definition, discriminatory.

What part of that do you not understand? There is no doubt that this is discrimination. There is not argument that it isn't. Arguing that traditional marriage isn't discriminatory is to argue that it includes everyone, which of course, it does not.

It's very disconcerting that I have to keep explaining this to you. I truly believe you aren't trying to be difficult. However, I do believe that you are very ignorant and egregiously dense. Your argument is fallacious and wrong.

This statement:

"Prop 8 states that marriage is to be between a man and a woman. It doesn't matter if you're black, white, gay, straight, yellow, hairy, bald, whatever....it applies to all."

...is the most patently ignorant thing I've ever read regarding gay marriage.

March 26, 2013 at 8:29 p.m.
jesse said...

Patriot1 !

Read this and see if it reminds you of anyone on here!!

http://www.writersvillage.com/character/Compensatory-Narcissistic.htm

March 26, 2013 at 8:56 p.m.
patriot1 said...

Thanks jesse.....to a tee!!!!!

March 26, 2013 at 9:09 p.m.
Easy123 said...

It sounds like you, jesse.

"seeks to create an illusion of superiority and to build up an image of high self-worth" : How many times have to tried to play moderator around here or that you're somehow above these threads?

"strives for recognition and prestige to compensate for the lack of a feeling of self-worth": You always seem to need your opinion recognized by everyone here. How many times have you called everyone that posts here "arzholes" or "idjits"?

"may acquire a deprecatory attitude in which the achievements of others are ridiculed and degraded": Could this part of the definition describe you any more perfectly? Anything that is presented by anyone is constantly degraded by you because you feel the need to play moderator and label everyone as "arzholes" or "idjits" or whatever words you're making up that day.

"has a tendency to exaggerate and boast" : Remember that time you told me that you wrote the instruction manual on some type of gun? How about your internet tough-guy persona?

"is sensitive to how others react to him or her, watches and listens carefully for critical judgment, and feels slighted by disapproval": You have a tendency to type in all-caps when I address you. You get pissed off at the drop of a hat. Look at yesterday's cartoon for proof.

Shall I go on? LMFAO! Talk about projecting! You da' king of it, jesse!

March 26, 2013 at 9:09 p.m.
Easy123 said...

patriot1,

"Thanks jesse.....to a tee!!!!!"

When you can't beat'em, use baseless ad hominem arguments.

Is that how the saying goes?

Please tell us more about how gays aren't discriminated against. I'm enthralled.

March 26, 2013 at 9:13 p.m.
Maximus said...

Clay nailed it! With few exceptions most gay women are dog ugly, Ellen Degenerate included although her current girlfriend ain't bad! Sad, I don't think many of us, if really honest and not gay would look forward to attending a gay wedding. Awkward. I thought the majority of California citizens had spoken on this gayness issue. I could really give a rats ass (bad pun when referring to gays) about this issue especially when VP Joe Biden just spent 1million in tax payer dollars on a one night hotel stay in Paris. $&;(. Caring about gay marriage is very gay. Right Clay? You probably have your own wedding plans.......whose the lucky guy?

March 26, 2013 at 9:15 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Maximusty,

What medication do you take for your mental retardation?

March 26, 2013 at 9:18 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JonRoss,

You live with a hemorrhaging rectum from getting your own G-string in a perpetual wad.

I'm waiting for you to condemn pedophilia, rape, bigotry, ignorance, homophobia, slavery, and every other societal ill/evil in the world. I need 300 word support for your positions on each subject as well.

Don't worry, I'll wait.

March 26, 2013 at 9:35 p.m.
Easy123 said...

It appears JonRoss has come down on the side of pedophilia, rape, bigotry, ignorance, homophobia, necrophilia, murder, theft, etc. I haven't heard you denounce any one of those things.

Very Reagan/GOP-esque.

March 26, 2013 at 9:42 p.m.
Maximus said...

Easy123 you sly dog.....YOU are Clays life partner! Busted! Soooo sweet! Are y'all planning a June wedding? Leave me off the invite list.

March 26, 2013 at 9:42 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Maximusty,

Seriously, what medication do you take for your mental retardation?

On a side note, Clay Bennett is married and has two children.

LMFAO! Foiled again, Maximoron!

March 26, 2013 at 9:43 p.m.
joepulitzer said...

National poll: 34 percent would like to repeal Obamacare Monday, March 26, 2012

GET BACK TO THE PRESENT, FAT AL-BERT.

March 26, 2013 at 9:49 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JonRoss,

"And easy be sure to wear a condemn on your honeymoon with Clay."

Clay Bennett is married with two children. Try again, dumbass.

"After all it was massive unprotected anal sex between Homosexual males that started the hellish AIDS holocaust that now ravishes millions of innocent people world wide."

Wrong. HIV was transferred to humans through eating bushmeat infected with SIV.

How does it feel to be a blithering idiot? Does it chap your little dumbass to be wrong about everything you type? What is it like to be that deluded and psychotic? Tell us, JonRoss.

March 26, 2013 at 9:51 p.m.
joepulitzer said...

Calm down, Easy, you're sounding a little queer.

March 26, 2013 at 9:55 p.m.
Easy123 said...

joepulitzer,

"GET BACK TO THE PRESENT, FAT AL-BERT."

You should do research for yourself. The current numbers aren't far off.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57575720/obamacares-3rd-anniversary-by-the-numbers/

March 26, 2013 at 9:55 p.m.
Easy123 said...

joepulitzer,

I'm calm. You're always sounding like a moron, but who am I to judge?

March 26, 2013 at 9:56 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JonRoss,

"HIV was transferred to humans by a Homosexual Canadian.."

Wrong.

"..who had sex with a baboon."

Wrong.

"He then spread HIV to the anus of his butt buddy.."

Wrong.

"...and the rest is history."

If by "history", you mean a complete fabrication from the mind of a moron then yes, the rest was history.

How does it feel to be a blithering idiot? Does it chap your little dumbass to be wrong about everything you type? What is it like to be that deluded and psychotic? What does that level of ignorance feel like? Tell us, JonRoss.

March 26, 2013 at 9:58 p.m.
joepulitzer said...

OK, Easy, from your own link: 37: Percent of Americans who approve of Obamacare

NOW WHO'S SOUNDING LIKE A MORON?

March 26, 2013 at 10:03 p.m.
Easy123 said...

liarRoss,

"The American by 62% want Obamacarerape repealed Tuesday, March 26, 2013."

Provide a link. I dare you.

March 26, 2013 at 10:04 p.m.
joepulitzer said...

JonRoss, I think you need to go to bed.

March 26, 2013 at 10:05 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JonRoss,

"If they would have somehow avoided having unprotected anal sex they would not have spread HIV into the blood supply and on to bi-s and then to drug abusers and other innocents."

Nothing you have just written is factual. HIV/AIDS isn't a homosexual disease. It's scientifically and medically proven.

"But hey, it it feels good, do it, regardless of who it destroys. Progressive/Obamist theology."

How does it feel to be a blithering idiot? Does it chap your little dumbass to be wrong about everything you type? What is it like to be that deluded and psychotic? What does that level of ignorance feel like? Tell us, JonRoss.

March 26, 2013 at 10:06 p.m.
Easy123 said...

joepulitzer,

"NOW WHO'S SOUNDING LIKE A MORON?"

You are. I guess you didn't read the part that said only 40% disapprove. Only a 3% difference. I bet that's within the SD of the poll.

March 26, 2013 at 10:08 p.m.
joepulitzer said...

You're a lawyer, aren't you, Easy? Either that or a used car salesman.

March 26, 2013 at 10:13 p.m.
patriot1 said...

Maxi...seems the federal government has found some money to study why lesbians are typically fat. This depection by Clay looks like he might be in agreement with that theory.

March 26, 2013 at 10:13 p.m.
Easy123 said...

joepulitzer,

"You're a lawyer, aren't you, Easy?"

Not yet.

"Either that or a used car salesman."

What is it that you are? Moron isn't an occupation.

March 26, 2013 at 10:18 p.m.
Easy123 said...

patriot1,

The woman in the picture doesn't appear to be fat. Where are you getting your information on lesbians typically being fat? Is your wife a lesbian?

JonRoss,

He could have used your mother as a model for that "butchy looking female".

March 26, 2013 at 10:20 p.m.

If anyone needed an example of bigotry, the need look no further than this thread. It is permeated with comments from small-minded bigots, trying to force the Old Testament version of their religion, using the force of law, on to others. When faced with reasonable arguments asserting that all people, including those with whom they disagree, should enjoy equal protection under the law, they respond by equating homosexuality with bestiality & pedophilia, and by accusing those who believe in equal protection under the law of engaging in homosexual relations, as if that somehow, on its own, advances their argument. Furthermore, they blame HIV/AIDS on homosexuals. No well-reasoned argument against same-sex marriage has even been offered. Is this what passes for intelligent debate in Chattanooga?

March 26, 2013 at 10:21 p.m.
joepulitzer said...

Good night, Easy, don't forget to turn the light out, and take off that spiked dog collar before taking a shower.

March 26, 2013 at 10:22 p.m.
Easy123 said...

joepuliter,

Take your Flintstone vitamins and remove your protective helmet before you hit the sack, joey.

March 26, 2013 at 10:25 p.m.
patriot1 said...

Easy asks....Where are you getting your info about lesbians typically being fat? Since you're obviously one of the LoFo types and not up to speed on current events perhaps this will help:

http://naijainfotainment.com/?p=6745

March 26, 2013 at 10:54 p.m.
Easy123 said...

patriot1,

"Since you're obviously one of the LoFo types and not up to speed on current events perhaps this will help:"

You really are an idiot, aren't you?

Enlighten yourself, moron.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/03/nih-lesbian-fat-study/63007/

March 26, 2013 at 11:13 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JonRoss,

You're proving LHommeNonPartisane's point with your psychotic ramblings. Nothing you've ever said could pass for intelligent. Hell, nothing you say could even pass for accurate, truthful or sensical either.

Also, do you know what fascism is? How can four news networks/sources (ad nauseum?) be "fascist? Typically, fascists don't allow multiple points of view. Thus, having more than one news network would be the antithesis of fascism. You might want to look up the word before you further your stupidity on these threads.

How does it feel to be a blithering idiot? Does it chap your little dumbass to be wrong about everything you type? What is it like to be that deluded and psychotic? What does that level of ignorance feel like? Tell us, JonRoss.

March 26, 2013 at 11:20 p.m.
patriot1 said...

Enlighten me?....LOL.....you're the one that didn't know about it. You are so funny....and so, well how should I say it? Easy!

March 26, 2013 at 11:21 p.m.
Easy123 said...

patriot1,

I did know about it. I just knew the truth about it. The study is not about why lesbians are fat. You'd know that if you checked my link. I had that link waiting the whole time. That's why I asked you to provide a source. Your WingNut propaganda is easily debunked. You're just a little to oblivious to know that I was baiting you. I appreciate you taking the bait so easily.

Funny and easy doesn't even begin to describe you. Simple, moronic, sophomoric, daft, inane, shallow, stupid, nonsensical, puerile, and dense are all words that could be used to accurately describe you.

Would you like to try again? I'm sure you could stand a little more enlightening, don't you think?

:-)

March 26, 2013 at 11:27 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JonRoss,

"A fascist press is when most of the sources of information are controlled by the state and are in sync with their support of the regime."

Why would this "fascist press" need 4+ outlets? Having multiple outlets with even slightly differing views is the opposite of fascism. The sources you mentioned aren't controlled by the same people or "state". They aren't in sync or in support of any "regime" either.

"CNN, NPR, NYT, NBC, are all outlets of the Obama regime"

False. What happened to the "ad nauseum"? Did you rethink that part?

"and are therefore fascist."

False.

Again, how can four news networks/sources (ad nauseum?) be "fascist? Fascists don't allow multiple points of view. Thus, having more than one news network/source would be the antithesis of fascism.

How does it feel to be a blithering idiot? Does it chap your little dumbass to be wrong about everything you type? What is it like to be that deluded and psychotic? What does that level of ignorance feel like? Tell us, JonRoss.

March 26, 2013 at 11:39 p.m.
acerigger said...

Easy123, "don't feed the trolls" is my usual advice,but not if,in your case,you're "eating their asses alive".lol Mucho entertainment,thanx!

March 27, 2013 at 12:33 a.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said...

It goes a little deeper than that. Marital unions permit unlimited family visitation in hospitals, the right to make life and death decisions for their spouses, if the instance ever arises,

THAT CAN BE PROVIDED WITH A HEALTH CARE POA.

and yes, financial spousal benefits that everyone should be allowed to receive, no matter their status in life.

WHY? Again, there is no justification for providing benefits for being married that singles don't have.

March 27, 2013 at 12:37 a.m.
caddy said...

Marriage is a creation institution between a man and a women. Function and design are inter-twined. If we can say this is moral and change it--there is absolutely no reason why "the state", the courts, the people-- cannot rule and say: the number being married is no longer an issue( I can marry as many as I like ), that age is no longer an issue, that species is no longer an issue, inter-marrying is no longer an issue. In other words: if this is not according to design and function and "from the beginning," what is the moral problem with marrying anything, and anyone we so desire. I'd like to see someone make an intelligent argument here. Problem is: there is not an intelligent argument for debauchery.

The whole meaning of morality is a norm which obligates us whether we like it or not. If we create it, then we can change it to suit ourselves. But if we change it to suit ourselves, then it is not morality.

March 27, 2013 at 8:47 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Morality is a set of standards that govern how we treat each other and our natural world. How does allowing two consenting adults to marry violate anyone else's rights?

March 27, 2013 at 9:17 a.m.
mtngrl said...

caddy said... "...what is the moral problem with marrying anything, and anyone we so desire"

The problem you seem to completely miss is consent from the one you desire to marry. You cannot just marry anyone or anything against their will, and gay marriage does not lead to that in any way. Minors can not legally give consent even if they are willing. And how do you intend to get consent or know intent (willingness) from another species?

The Bible is full of incest and polygamy and slavery. Morals do change.

March 27, 2013 at 10:33 a.m.
caddy said...

Fair enough ikeithlu: Given that logic, why is it morally wrong to marry MORE than 1 person, why is it morally wrong to marry a person we would consider "too young" ? What would it be wrong to marry a close relative ? All these things exist in the "natural world." Each of these can give consent, even the young person. Now you can say all day long--till you are blue in the face that she can't give consent because of her age. What is moral or immoral about youth giving consent given that logic ?

So, when you say "a set of standards that govern how we treat each other," tell me where this "book of standards" is written down so that ALL should know it ikeithlu ? Standards vary from person to person, group to group, culture to culture if they are "man made."

Your idea is preposterous. It is humanist based. Modern humanist are all hostile to any notion of law that is external to the legislative organs under human control, and this means that morality cannot be predicated on universal codes.

Laws are ALWAYS theologically based whether or not they are so acknowledged. I posit that you know that as well as all people do. For sure: we ALL suppress what we know simply because we'd rather stand somewhere else. It's the default setting of the human race: To play God.

Here in the west however it is well known where we get our laws. The West: It is not superior because it is wealthy; it is wealthy because it is superior, because it believes that work is a calling, that matter is important, that reason is a gift of God. This culture, God's gift, transmits its material blessings along with its interpretation of reality. Animist cultures, to cite one example by way of contrast, are not likely to produce large numbers of skilled engineers as long as they believe that physical objects have spirits. There is a reason why the U.S has been particularly blessed of God in the past. That blessing is fast fading, however.

If there is no God, as you likely probably presuppose,given your answer, then all is permissible. There is no logic one can muster up to suggest I can't marry anyone & anything. If God created man in His own image, then the law says, "You shall not kill," has meaning; there is a logically persuasive nexus between the stated reality and the ethical injunction that is derived from it. But if man is a product of chance and time, as the modern materialist scientisms have it, then killing is an action, like any other ( along with marrying whom ever ), that must be judged on pragmatic grounds. We are entitled in that case to compare benefits in that case to compare benefits with risks and costs and to decide if killing is warranted. In humanitarian theory and practice, the decision is more likely to be made on the basis of sentiment than on cost-benefit studies but either is possible.

March 27, 2013 at 10:47 a.m.
caddy said...

mtngrl. It is true. Scripture is FULL of incest and polgamy, but any novice can read that scripture and know that Scripture NEVER condones those things. In fact, Scripture tells the truth and corroborates the story of man as a sinful being by putting such things "IN" Scripture.

Scripture does not sugar coat the awful plight of sinful man. What it does do is tell a truthful story of those men, the horrors of their sin and suggest it is well short of where a Holy & Good God would have us to live.

March 27, 2013 at 10:55 a.m.
mtngrl said...

caddy, do you really truly believe there were no laws against murder until the bible? And that no society could figure out that killing each other is not the best idea for survival of the "tribe" whatever that may be?

March 27, 2013 at 10:57 a.m.
caddy said...

As far as minors giving consent: You do know that the state is certainly ok with Skipping over parental consent when it comes to birth control for said minors, mtngrl. The state has no issue with them NOT getting pregnant; why should they ultimately care that they should marry ?

March 27, 2013 at 10:58 a.m.
mtngrl said...

So you think and minor being molested by her Dad should get consent from said Dad to keep him from impregnating her? Marriage is a legal contract. Birth control is not. See the difference?

Here is a site with a simple graphic showing 8 different ways to be biblically married. Is this what you believe marriage should be held to today?

http://www.upworthy.com/the-top-8-ways-to-be-traditionally-married-according-to-the-bible

March 27, 2013 at 11:03 a.m.
Easy123 said...

caddy,

"Given that logic, why is it morally wrong to marry MORE than 1 person,"

There is nothing morally wrong about marrying one person. There are some physiological, emotional, and psychological implications, but there is nothing immoral about it.

"why is it morally wrong to marry a person we would consider "too young" ?"

People used to get married in their mid-teens as early as the 1960's. There is nothing morally wrong with it.

"What would it be wrong to marry a close relative ?"

Morally? Nothing. Physiologically? Potentially a lot.

"All these things exist in the "natural world." Each of these can give consent, even the young person. Now you can say all day long--till you are blue in the face that she can't give consent because of her age. What is moral or immoral about youth giving consent given that logic ?"

There is nothing immoral about anything you've mentioned.

"tell me where this "book of standards" is written down so that ALL should know it ikeithlu ? Standards vary from person to person, group to group, culture to culture if they are "man made."

There are universal standards that nearly every sane individual holds true. No holy books required.

"Your idea is preposterous. It is humanist based. Modern humanist are all hostile to any notion of law that is external to the legislative organs under human control, and this means that morality cannot be predicated on universal codes."

The idea is completely sane. You have no other way to approach it except through human thought. You have no proof whatsoever of any external legislative bodies. Humans decide what is moral. There is no other way.

"Laws are ALWAYS theologically based whether or not they are so acknowledged."

No, they are not. Laws existed long before religion.

"For sure: we ALL suppress what we know simply because we'd rather stand somewhere else. It's the default setting of the human race: To play God."

Wrong. No one is born with the belief in the Christian god. It is our very nature to believe that there is something greater than ourselves. Humans always imagine ideals. The perfect man, the perfect animal, etc. That is how humans have invented the concept of a deity. We aren't playing god. We aren't trying to play god. We are simply acting out our very nature.

March 27, 2013 at 11:07 a.m.
caddy said...

Mtngirl, neither Westerners nor cannibals get to decide what is "Natural"; God does that. It is man's duty to recognize it, and obey it. One could likewise ask you whether the Bible or Qu'ran is God's special revelation. The fact that many mistakenly identify something as revelation ( whether it be natural or special ) does not negate the fact that the truth has been revealed to ALL men ( murder & marriage included ) and we have a duty to recognize and respond to it, regardless of how we have corrupted our faculties. It is not the fact that people agree on something that makes it the naturally revealed law of God.

Natural law is not really a "non-Biblical ethic", for whether the law is revealed by nature or Scripture, it is still the same law. The use of them proceeds from different principles ( one from reason, one from simple statement ), but the content is the same. The law as it is revealed naturally has the use of restraining and directing those societies which do not have special revelation; it serves to stop the mouth of all and leave all without excuse; it provides us with a means of arguing for societal laws within our own country where a majority does not accept Biblical authority as a basis for morality and law; it serves to confirm us in our faith when we falter.

So, yes, even the cannibal in the dark jungle KNOWS that it is wrong to murder. His problem, like all people: he suppresses what he knows, murders anyway.

The end of natural law is to render people inexcusable, "the judgement of conscience distinguishing sufficiently between just and unjust, and by convicting men of their own testimony, depriving them of all pretext for ignorance.

So, when you stand before God, your Sin will not be excused. Period.

March 27, 2013 at 11:09 a.m.
mtngrl said...

So Caddy, you checked that link and agree that marriage should be defined the way the bible defines it?

March 27, 2013 at 11:17 a.m.
Easy123 said...

caddy (continued),

"it is wealthy because it is superior, because it believes that work is a calling, that matter is important, that reason is a gift of God."

False. There is no way for you to prove that.

"This culture, God's gift, transmits its material blessings along with its interpretation of reality. Animist cultures, to cite one example by way of contrast, are not likely to produce large numbers of skilled engineers as long as they believe that physical objects have spirits. There is a reason why the U.S has been particularly blessed of God in the past. That blessing is fast fading, however."

These ideas are conjured up. You have no way of supporting them.

"If there is no God, as you likely probably presuppose,given your answer, then all is permissible."

FALSE. Humans decide what is moral. We can decide what is moral. It seems as though most modern cultures have decided on very similar morals. Why is that? They aren't exclusive to the Bible.

"There is no logic one can muster up to suggest I can't marry anyone & anything."

Yes, you can. mtngrl has done so, as has Ikeithlu and many others on this board. Your slippery slope argument doesn't hold water. The logic does not stand up to scrutiny. You can allow gay marriage and still be against pedophilia or bestiality based on non-moral grounds.

"If God created man in His own image, then the law says, "You shall not kill," has meaning; there is a logically persuasive nexus between the stated reality and the ethical injunction that is derived from it."

No, there isn't. You have simply invented a god based on what it says in a holy book. What does murder have to do with god creating man? Your god is said to have killed plenty of people. Why is it not immoral for your god to murder? There is no logical connection between those two statements. They are mutual exclusive.

"But if man is a product of chance and time, as the modern materialist scientisms have it, then killing is an action, like any other ( along with marrying whom ever ), that must be judged on pragmatic grounds."

There is nothing pragmatic about it. It's simple. Murder is universally accepted as wrong. That idea is almost innate.

"We are entitled in that case to compare benefits in that case to compare benefits with risks and costs and to decide if killing is warranted. In humanitarian theory and practice, the decision is more likely to be made on the basis of sentiment than on cost-benefit studies but either is possible."

You are making this up. You are conjuring up these ideas. There is no benefit-to-risk ratio with murder. No sane human thinks like that.

March 27, 2013 at 11:17 a.m.
Easy123 said...

caddy,

"Scripture is FULL of incest and polgamy, but any novice can read that scripture and know that Scripture NEVER condones those things."

Your god never seems to punish any of those things.

"In fact, Scripture tells the truth and corroborates the story of man as a sinful being by putting such things "IN" Scripture."

One time? What about Lot's daughter? What about the Old Testament rape laws?

"Scripture does not sugar coat the awful plight of sinful man."

People were a lot less moral when the Bible was set and a lot more things that we would deem immoral now were accepted then.

"What it does do is tell a truthful story of those men, the horrors of their sin and suggest it is well short of where a Holy & Good God would have us to live."

There is nothing truthful about the stories in the Bible. Almost none of those stories are even historical. The existence of Jesus is still up for debate. You're basing your entire belief system on a book filled with historical inaccuracies and myths.

March 27, 2013 at 11:21 a.m.
mtngrl said...

Buddhism has stronger laws against murder than Christianity and western laws. They have no concept of "justified" killings as we do (ie, death penalty). And they have no belief in a creator, so that is not where their laws come from. Their reasoning is based on their belief in reincarnation, so that bug you are about to squash may be your mother or a teacher.

March 27, 2013 at 11:24 a.m.
caddy said...

Fair enough, Easy. If you had 5 sisters: 8, 10, 12, 15, 16 and one man wants to marry them all, how many people will you invite to the wedding ? You can argue law based on pragmatism but you can't just forbid it because it's not Pragmatic. You can do better.

Easy states: "There are universal standards that nearly every sane individual holds true."

Tis true. The natural law is not "innate", for we are NOT born knowing it -- although as soon as the child is capable of understanding what is meant by "murder" and by "wrong", he is capable of recognizing that murder, in fact, is wrong. The natural law is not mere biological instinct--although it does take account of certain biological realities, for the practical of love in context of family life would no doubt be somewhat different among beings who had one sex or whose young were ready to assume the responsibilities of adulthood as soon as they hatched out.

The natural law is not mere custom--although the customs of almost all times and places more or less acknowledge it. The natural law is not just a deceptive name for moral law as known through the Bible--although biblical moral law acknowledges it, conforms to it, and extends it.

John Calvin, to name just one Reformer, believed that the natural law was "stamped upon the heart and mind and known through conscience."

Similarly: ALL men know what their bodies and sexual organs where meant for. To shove one in the area meant for expulsion is KNOWN functionally, morally...and ethically as wrong. Problem is: Men ( and women in turn ) want to do it simply because their minds are base and immoral and they want to do what they want to do. Plain and simple.

March 27, 2013 at 11:24 a.m.
caddy said...

Spare me your foolishness, Mtngirl: You cannot walk around without unintentionally squashing tiny bugs if you are Buddhist.

I would venture you've squashed many in your day like we all have. There is an order to creation. Men are told to subdue that order of creation and take dominion over it. There are also portions of Scripture that suggest Good men treat their animals well.

Just to name one:

Proverbs 12:10 10 Whoever is righteous has regard for the life of his beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel.

March 27, 2013 at 11:29 a.m.
Easy123 said...

caddy,

"neither Westerners nor cannibals get to decide what is "Natural"; God does that."

Prove it.

"It is man's duty to recognize it, and obey it."

Based on what? A book written by men in Bronze-age Palestine about illiterate people? Everything you believe was written by men. None of the ideas in the Bible are exclusive to Christianity.

"One could likewise ask you whether the Bible or Qu'ran is God's special revelation. The fact that many mistakenly identify something as revelation ( whether it be natural or special ) does not negate the fact that the truth has been revealed to ALL men ( murder & marriage included ) and we have a duty to recognize and respond to it, regardless of how we have corrupted our faculties."

Why such different revelations then? The fact that more than one person had separate revelations about different things discredits religion entirely. The fact that the "truth" is different for Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc. serves to discredit each of those separate religions. They can't all be true.

"It is not the fact that people agree on something that makes it the naturally revealed law of God."

The is nothing naturally revealed about anything religious. It is conjured up. Human beings have to make you believe it.

"Natural law is not really a "non-Biblical ethic", for whether the law is revealed by nature or Scripture, it is still the same law."

Show me one person that has come to Christianity without being preached to. Show me on person that has come to your god "naturally".

"So, yes, even the cannibal in the dark jungle KNOWS that it is wrong to murder. His problem, like all people: he suppresses what he knows, murders anyway."

You don't get it. They don't know it's wrong to murder. They aren't suppressing anything. They are just trying to eat. It's been taught to them. People will go to great lengths to survive. Just like Christian indoctrination, the have been taught something that is seemingly abnormal. They have accepted it and they go along with it.

"So, when you stand before God, your Sin will not be excused. Period."

And when you stand before Zeus, your sin will not be excused. You can't prove any of this. It's all Biblical jargon. It's all Christian fairytale. Nothing in the natural world points to a deity. Nothing in the Universe points to a deity. Name one other aspect of your life where you accept anything without any evidence whatsoever?

March 27, 2013 at 11:31 a.m.
caddy said...

Easy123 said... Your god never seems to punish any of those things.

You don't really digest & understand what you read do you Easy ?

Truth be told: like most atheist, you cherry pick certain verse to attempt to support your point of view.

Truth be told: You've probably never really read the Bible for yourself...much less with the thought that it might be true.

March 27, 2013 at 11:33 a.m.
caddy said...

Prove it ! That's laughable

No Easy, I'll leave you to yourself. I'm completely "OK" with your unbelief. Scripture is actually OK with it too.

Enjoy your world and your ( hopefully 70-80 ) years on this earth.

March 27, 2013 at 11:35 a.m.
mtngrl said...

I did not say i was a Buddihist, but I do read on all religions. That was an example of how a large group of society can have moral laws with no input from your god.

They do not believe in any order of creation like you do, so the laws you mention do not apply to them. Mankind is capable of creating laws for living together in a society regardless of their reasoning for the basis of those laws.

Did you read that link yet? You seem to be ignoring that one...

March 27, 2013 at 11:35 a.m.
caddy said...

I've got work to do mtngrl. I trust Mountain Girls do to !

March 27, 2013 at 11:37 a.m.
Easy123 said...

caddy,

"Fair enough, Easy. If you had 5 sisters: 8, 10, 12, 15, 16 and one man wants to marry them all, how many people will you invite to the wedding ?"

I wouldn't invite any. It's illegal. If it was necessary for my sisters to get married at that time, I wouldn't have a problem with it. My great-grandmother was married at the age of 16.

"You can argue law based on pragmatism but you can't just forbid it because it's not Pragmatic. You can do better."

You can do better than your slippery slope argument.

"Tis true. The natural law is not "innate", for we are NOT born knowing it -- although as soon as the child is capable of understanding what is meant by "murder" and by "wrong", he is capable of recognizing that murder, in fact, is wrong."

Humans do, in fact, have some innate sense of right and wrong. Children tend to not murder other people on purpose.

"The natural law is not mere biological instinct--although it does take account of certain biological realities, for the practical of love in context of family life would no doubt be somewhat different among beings who had one sex or whose young were ready to assume the responsibilities of adulthood as soon as they hatched out."

Altruism is a biological instinct. Many animals show altruistic behavior. There are innate aspects of morality.

"The natural law is not mere custom--although the customs of almost all times and places more or less acknowledge it. The natural law is not just a deceptive name for moral law as known through the Bible--although biblical moral law acknowledges it, conforms to it, and extends it."

Morality is not exclusive to the Bible. Biblical moral law was created by men. If you actually read the laws of the Bible objectively, you would know that they weren't moral at all.

"Similarly: ALL men know what their bodies and sexual organs where meant for. To shove one in the area meant for expulsion is KNOWN functionally, morally...and ethically as wrong."

How? It isn't functionally correct, but it isn't necessarily "wrong". There is nothing immoral about anal sex. There is nothing ethically wrong with anal sex. There is not logical argument to the contrary.

"Problem is: Men ( and women in turn ) want to do it simply because their minds are base and immoral and they want to do what they want to do. Plain and simple."

False. People do it because it feels good to them. They do it because it is another way to show affection to one another. Plain and simple.

My view on human beings is much more positive than you. Humans do not need god to be moral. Your morals are your own. What you have read in your holy book go far beyond what is truly moral. People are and have always been moral without religion.

March 27, 2013 at 11:44 a.m.
Easy123 said...

caddy,

"You don't really digest & understand what you read do you Easy ?"

I digest and understand it all.

"Truth be told: like most atheist, you cherry pick certain verse to attempt to support your point of view."

No, I don't. You say that your god punishes that immorality, but I can point to example after example of your god doing no such thing and, in fact, putting immorality into law. Rape was completely legal under Old Testament law as long as you did it the right way. Slavery was completely legal and actually promoted by Paul. Murder committed by your god or his people was completely legal and unpunished. Solomon had 700 concubines and was never punished.

YOU cherry-pick certain verses to support your view. I'm looking at you holy book objectively. You only look at it to support your bigotry and to reconcile your own immorality. You even have to reconcile your own morality with the immoralities in the Bible. You have to consciously make excuses for the evils in your own holy book. It's complete insanity.

"You've probably never really read the Bible for yourself...much less with the thought that it might be true."

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I've read the entire Bible multiple times. I was a Christian for nearly 15 years. I attended church, Christian schools, and a Christian college. I've studied the Bible for a long time. I just see it for what it really is. Christians cannot process the fact that someone could reject their doctrine/dogma. That's why you say that I've never read the Bible. You cannot understand why someone that has wouldn't believe as you do.

"Prove it ! That's laughable"

No, it's not. That is where the onus lies. For your claims to be considered, they must be proven or, at the very least, supported by facts. You only find it laughable because you cannot prove anything you've just stated about your god or the Bible.

"No Easy, I'll leave you to yourself. I'm completely "OK" with your unbelief. Scripture is actually OK with it too."

Is that why you said you wanted to ban me from these threads earlier this year? Run away, little Christian, run away.

"Enjoy your world and your ( hopefully 70-80 ) years on this earth."

I will. You do the same. Just try not to waste it all on religion. Read a science book.

March 27, 2013 at 11:52 a.m.
Easy123 said...

mtngrl,

In the face of opposition, the Christian will spew his/here Biblical rhetoric and flee.

I assure you of that fact. Don't expect an intelligent debate with someone that uses the Bible as proof or theology as logic.

March 27, 2013 at 11:54 a.m.
mtngrl said...

Run away if you must....

Same sex marriages have been around a very long time and were once condoned by the church:

Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has evolved both as a concept and as a ritual. Prof Boswell discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient church liturgical documents (and clearly separate from other types of non-marital blessings such as blessings of adopted children or land) were ceremonies called, among other titles, the "Office of Same Sex Union" (10th and 11th century Greek) or the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These ceremonies had all the contemporary symbols of a marriage: a community gathered in church, a blessing of the couple before the altar, their right hands joined as at heterosexual marriages, the participation of a priest, the taking of the Eucharist, a wedding banquet afterwards. All of which are shown in contemporary drawings of the same sex union of Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886) and his companion John. Such homosexual unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th/early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (Geraldus Cambrensis) has recorded.

http://rense.com/general50/cath.htm

March 27, 2013 at 11:54 a.m.
mtngrl said...

That is so true Easy. The problem is they contort what is in the Bible to fit their prejudices.

Here is another good article on What Does the Bible Actually Say About Marriage?

The link may be huffpo but note the author is a "Professor of New Testament, Lancaster Theological Seminary"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-carey/bible-weddings_b_887979.html

March 27, 2013 at 11:59 a.m.
Easy123 said...

mtngrl,

The biggest problem I have is that those Christian theology folks tend to use so many words to say absolutely nothing at all. Read caddy's posts. There are complete paragraphs that say absolutely nothing relevant or cogent. It's wild. It's like he/she has been programed to say these certain things even when the debate isn't even going in that direction. It's extreme imprecision. It's a false sense of intelligence. It's a lot of things. Most of all, it's annoying.

March 27, 2013 at 12:04 p.m.
limric said...

Easy123,

In ending your debate with ‘Caddy’ et al you made a VERY interesting (and excellent if you don’t mind me saying) observation as you were pondering his logic/meaning/aggravations when describing it to mtngrl. I’m not sure you even caught the significance of it.

It was, quote: ”It's like he/she has been programed to say these certain things even when the debate isn't even going in that direction.”

You’re attempting debating logic with ‘theo–logic’.

Example:

Conventional logic:

Easy, “I have a baseball.”

Caddy, “Oh yea -Prove it.”

Easy, “Here.” (showing baseball)

Caddy, “Oh, ok. You’re right.”

Theo-logic:

Caddy, “I have a baseball.”

Easy, “Oh yea -Prove it.”

Caddy, “You can’t prove that I don’t!”

Easy, ”WTF.

Infusing logic is unattainable.

It is, as you observed, ‘programming.’

March 27, 2013 at 1:09 p.m.
dao1980 said...

Wow, caddy IS well practiced at weaving webs of pseudo-logic/theo-logic around as many fallacies as can be bound together in a single argument.

But, as a self proclaimed Calvinist, can he/she really claim any solid footing in a discussion about morals??

When your fundamental belief is in fact, christianity's version of "sht happens", how can you expect anyone to actually take you seriously?

Even a decently worded post is still just puff and fluff, when it's nothing but an attempt at professing one single(fairly young, mono-theistic)religion as the basis for all of mans morals.

The assertion of "nature says so, therefore god says so" is about as laughable as narrow perspective'd comment ever could be. It begs the question: Who's god?? There are (and have been) so so so many?

Me thinks caddy could benefit from some brain exercise in the areas of basic sociology. Some time spent studying human history couldn't hurt either.. and for you churchies, I don't mean just the last 2,000-4,000 years as described in the christian biebel.

March 27, 2013 at 1:20 p.m.
dao1980 said...

Yep, haha, what limric said. This stupid slow-a$$ website takes forever to figure out what the heck it's doing. Five mins to write a post, ten mins to get it to actually post.

Maybe it's the "server wars" slowing down the interwebs today.. AAAHHHHH!!! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!.... eventually..

March 27, 2013 at 1:27 p.m.
Easy123 said...

limric,

I'm glad someone else notices how illogical certain posters are on here. Religious indoctrination poisons the mind. Logic goes out the window once you're able to accept things on zero proof. That's why Christians put so much emphasis on faith and indoctrination at a young age. Without faith, Christianity is just another myth. In other words: Christianity (or any religion) is only believable if you abandon logic and reason.

March 27, 2013 at 1:42 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I'm still looking for the supposed "victim" in gay marriage. Where gay marriage interferes with the rights of others.

March 27, 2013 at 1:43 p.m.
mtngrl said...

As far as I can tell, the only victims in gay marriage are the perverted right-wingers who's heads explode because they can't stop thinking about what strangers do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

March 27, 2013 at 2:35 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.