Forum

Free news

FREE blog

Donate

Search

Subscribe

jews/911

Feedback

dna

Gun poll

RCC

AIDS

Home

Fathers

Surveys

Holocaust

IQ

14th Amdt

19th Amdt

Israelites

NWO

Homicide

Blacks

Whites

Signatory

Talmud

Watchman

Gaelic

Traitors

Health?

 

Political Debate

Rights & Religion: Thread #185447


Interracial Marriages Were Once Wrong


1 Oct-30   From: barbhauz   To: grasshopper
*Yes, equal treatment under the law. If the law says marriage is for heterosexuals only, then they heterosexuals are receiveing equal treatment regardless of race, creed, sex or national origin. But, homosexuals are just breaking the law. the Constitution doesn't consider equal treatment with respect to behavior or better yet, bad behavior. Sexual behavior is not protected. Find it in the Constitution. It's not there.

The law once said interracial marriages were wrong and homosexuality does not fall under the category of bad behavior.

2 Nov-2   From: grasshopper   To: barbhauz
*Yes, equal treatment under the law. If the law says marriage is for heterosexuals only, then they heterosexuals are receiveing equal treatment regardless of race, creed, sex or national origin. But, homosexuals are just breaking the law. the Constitution doesn't consider equal treatment with respect to behavior or better yet, bad behavior. Sexual behavior is not protected. Find it in the Constitution. It's not there.

The law once said interracial marriages were wrong

It did? Not any I have seen??? Making up things again?

and homosexuality does not fall under the category of bad behavior.

Of course it does.

3 Nov-2   From: barbhauz   To: grasshopper
The law once said interracial marriages were wrong

*It did? Not any I have seen??? Making up things again?

LOL.

and homosexuality does not fall under the category of bad behavior.

*Of course it does.

No, it does not. Only in the mind of ignorant people does it fall under the category of bad behavior.

4 Nov-4   From: grasshopper   To: barbhauz
The law once said interracial marriages were wrong

*It did? Not any I have seen??? Making up things again?

LOL. and homosexuality does not fall under the category of bad behavior.

Another one of those nonresponsive responses with no logic. Again, you are making up laws that have never existed. And, what does the behavior of homosexuals have to do with nonexistant laws with respect to interracial marriages??? Did you throw that in because you know how wrong you were about intertacial laws and you wanted to try and deflect my response?

 

 

5 Nov-4   From: Sysop Alex Krislov   To: grasshopper
The law once said interracial marriages were wrong

It did? Not any I have seen??? Making up things again?

You're kidding, right?

6 Nov-4   From: Michael H. [SL]   To: Sysop Alex Krislov
>> You're kidding, right? <<

Betcha a nickel he says he's not and that he makes a real issue over this and demands that you prove that there were laws that said that interracial marriages were illegal.

:)

7 Nov-4   From: barbhauz   To: grasshopper
Another one of those nonresponsive responses with no logic. Again, you are making up laws that have never existed. And, what does the behavior of homosexuals have to do with nonexistant laws with respect to interracial marriages??? Did you throw that in because you know how wrong you were about intertacial laws and you wanted to try and deflect my response?


I am not making up laws that never existed. Yes interracial marriages were illegal.
****

Laws prohibiting miscegenation in the United States date back as early as 1661 and were common in many states until 1967. That year, the Supreme Court ruled on the issue in Loving v. Virginia, concluding that Virginia’s miscegenation laws were unconstitutional. In this article, we look at the history of miscegenation in the United States, some motivations for anti-miscegenation policy, the landmark decision of Loving v. Virginia, and some applications of the topic for the social studies classroom.

In An American Dilemma (1975), Gunner Myrdal states that miscegenation policy developed because intermarriage was a principal concern in the white man’s order of discrimination, followed by intercourse involving white women, use of public facilities, political franchise, legal equality, and employment. Similarly, Joel Kovel contends in White Racism: A Psychohistory (1970) that sexuality is at the core of racism and, subsequently, miscegenation laws. On the other hand, Oliver Cox asserts in his Caste, Class, and Race (1959) that economic exploitation, rather than a loathing of interracial sex, was the real basis for miscegenation prohibitions. Cox further argues that miscegenation laws also refused blacks the opportunity to attain the cultural status of whites. White colonists also were fearful of an alliance between African Americans and American Indians and the strength in numbers that such a union of oppressed peoples could produce
****

Perhaps you need to check up on what marriages have been banned throughout history.

8 Nov-4   From: barbhauz   To: grasshopper
Notice that the antis even wanted to amend the constitution to ban interracial marriages.
****

Most of the country once banned interracial marriages. When some states began allowing such marriages, a member of the House of Representatives even proposed amending the Constitution to ban them. As late as 1958, some 94 percent of white Americans still opposed interracial unions. By 1967, when the Supreme Court declared the laws unconstitutional, 16 states still prohibited interracial marriages.

The U.S Constitution once counted blacks as three-fifths of a person. Most states once banned interracial marriage, many as recently as the 1960s; Alabama repealed its Constitution's anti-miscegenation clause in 2000.

9 Nov-4   From: barbhauz   To: Michael H. [SL]
>> You're kidding, right? <<

Betcha a nickel he says he's not and that he makes a real issue over this and demands that you prove that there were laws that said that interracial marriages were illegal.

****

It was just in the year 2000 when Alabama finally abolished all laws against interracial marriages. Just goes to show you how long it took to get the people in those relationships their equal rights and we now have to do the same for the gays.

10 Nov-9   From: grasshopper   To: Sysop Alex Krislov
The law once said interracial marriages were wrong

It did? Not any I have seen??? Making up things again?

You're kidding, right?

That's your answer? Give me the law!

11 Nov-9   From: inkyboy07   To: grasshopper



On Teaching

The American Melting Pot? Miscegenation Laws in the United States

B�rbara C. Cruz and Michael J. Berson


Laws prohibiting miscegenation in the United States date back as early as 1661 and were common in many states until 1967. That year, the Supreme Court ruled on the issue in Loving v. Virginia, concluding that Virginia’s miscegenation laws were unconstitutional.




That's your answer? Give me the law!

Might one suggest you do a google for "miscegenation laws in the United States".
Since the United States Supreme Court ruled on a case from Virginia, it would appear that Virginia had a law against marriage between different races.







12 Nov-10   From: Jim Odom   To: inkyboy07
Since laws in this country once proscribed blacks and whites from going to school, using the same public accommodations, etc., it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to assume they also made inter-marrying illegal.
13 Nov-10   From: Sysop Alex Krislov   To: grasshopper
That's your answer? Give me the law!

Grasshopper, you have made assertions regarding your age that, if true, make it virtually impossible for you to be unaware that there used to be laws against interracial marriage. If you're trying to guarantee that I won't take you seriously, this is certainly the way to do it.

14 Nov-10   From: Sysop Jim Dellon   To: grasshopper
grass --

>>That's your answer? Give me the law!<<

Better yet, why not read Loving v. Virginia (388 US1 1967), which was the landmark case that overturned laws prohibiting interracial marriages.

Quoting Mr. Chief Justice Warren from the Court's unanimous decision:

"This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. 1 For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment."

The Court also made the following observation which is quite relevent to your own crusade to deny gay citizens their full Constitutional Rights:

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

In doing a quick Google search on the decision, I came across an essay by Randall Kennedy of the Harvard Law School that notes an interesting fact - one that eerily echoes some of the points that we've been reading from opponents of gay marriage today. Kennedy writes about Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter, who married legally in the District of Columbia, but then returned to Virginia to live:

"Doing so violated the state's antimiscegenation law, The Racial Integrity Act, which prohibited any white person ... to marry any save a[nother] white person." Richard was white and his bride Mildred was black. For their transgression, a Virginia judge sentenced Loving to a year in prison, suspended on the condition that they leave the state and not return for twenty-five years. The judge also lectured them on the importance and justifiabilty of the state's policy, asserting that the fact that "Almighty God" had initially placed the races on different continents "shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." One is tempted to laugh at the judge. The sentiments he voiced, however, decisively shaped peoples lives and were by no means idiosyncratic.  A Gallup Poll indicated in 1965 that 42 percent of Northern whites supported bans on inter-racial marriage, as did 72 percent of southern whites...
"...The other significance of Loving today is that it helps to buttress the case for tolerating same-sex marriages. Just as many people once found trans-racial marriage to be a loathsome potentiality well-worth prohibiting, so, too, do many people find same-sex marriage to be an abomination. This frightened, reflexive reaction will likely dissipate in many of the same way that antipathy to the idea of transracial marriage has dissipated."
"Loving v. Virginia at Thirty", by Randall Kennedy, 2/6/1997


-- jim

15 Nov-14   From: grasshopper   To: inkyboy07
A billion votes for that which is wrong will not make it right!

The only question is what is "right?" When it comes to obviousely genetical difference which one is visually and even scientifically found to be different, such as the color of the skin, not allowing equal justice is wrong. However, with gender which is visable and genetic, there are still differences and the ERA was not passed for good reason. But, with behavior issues such as child molesters, fire bugs, drug dealers and other obviousely behavior differences with the majority and with the civilization's view of what is behaviorally right and what God's view is about the same things, they should not be given equal rights for everything. Marriage is one of those things.

 

16 Nov-14   From: barbhauz   To: grasshopper
*The only question is what is "right?" When it comes to obviousely genetical difference which one is visually and even scientifically found to be different, such as the color of the skin, not allowing equal justice is wrong. However, with gender which is visable and genetic, there are still differences and the ERA was not passed for good reason. But, with behavior issues such as child molesters, fire bugs, drug dealers and other obviousely behavior differences with the majority and with the civilization's view of what is behaviorally right and what God's view is about the same things, they should not be given equal rights for everything. Marriage is one of those things.

Marriage is a civil contract and God's view means squat.

17 Nov-14   From: Bill Magaletta   To: grasshopper
The pro-gay marriage arguments here are absurd, but - how on earth do you figure that "homosexuals are just breaking the law"? They're not breaking the law.

Bill

18 Nov-14   From: Bill Magaletta   To: Sysop Alex Krislov
// [BH?] The law once said interracial marriages were wrong //

// [grasshopper] It did? Not any I have seen??? Making up things again? //

// [AK] You're kidding, right? //

If I had a nickel for every message on this forum that deserves that reply...

Bill

19 Nov-14   From: grasshopper   To: Sysop Jim Dellon

>>That's your answer? Give me the law!<<

Better yet, why not read Loving v. Virginia (388 US1 1967), which was the landmark case that overturned laws prohibiting interracial marriages.

Quoting Mr. Chief Justice Warren from the Court's unanimous decision:

"This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. 1 For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment."

The Court also made the following observation which is quite relevent to your own crusade to deny gay citizens their full Constitutional Rights:

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Thank you. I'd like to note that this case specifically is in response to interracial marriages and nothing else. I like this part of his statement: "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival." The question of same-sex marriage was not even a thought when he said this. He was stating what most people believe and that is the strength of any civilization is that of the "family" meaning in this context, one that can procreate and extend the existence and survival. So, simply as yourself how Mr. Kennedy can make the leap based on what Justice Warren said? The answer is he is a liberal left winged typical Harvard fanatic.

In doing a quick Google search on the decision, I came across an essay by Randall Kennedy of the Harvard Law School that notes an interesting fact - one that eerily echoes some of the points that we've been reading from opponents of gay marriage today. Kennedy writes about Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter, who married legally in the District of Columbia, but then returned to Virginia to live:

"Doing so violated the state's antimiscegenation law, The Racial Integrity Act, which prohibited any white person ... to marry any save a[nother] white person." Richard was white and his bride Mildred was black. For their transgression, a Virginia judge sentenced Loving to a year in prison, suspended on the condition that they leave the state and not return for twenty-five years. The judge also lectured them on the importance and justifiabilty of the state's policy, asserting that the fact that "Almighty God" had initially placed the races on different continents "shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." One is tempted to laugh at the judge. The sentiments he voiced, however, decisively shaped peoples lives and were by no means idiosyncratic.  A Gallup Poll indicated in 1965 that 42 percent of Northern whites supported bans on inter-racial marriage, as did 72 percent of southern whites...
"...The other significance of Loving today is that it helps to buttress the case for tolerating same-sex marriages. Just as many people once found trans-racial marriage to be a loathsome potentiality well-worth prohibiting, so, too, do many people find same-sex marriage to be an abomination. This frightened, reflexive reaction will likely dissipate in many of the same way that antipathy to the idea of transracial marriage has dissipated."
"Loving v. Virginia at Thirty", by Randall Kennedy, 2/6/1997

Again, the decision of the Warren court had nothing to do with same-sex marriages. It wasn't even a thought. To make this leap is twisting the facts and spinning the results to make up a new law. And, yes, it is a spiritual abomination given to from God. Again, interracial marriage is genetical and homosexual marriage would be a behavior abnormality. They do not have the same rights under the Constitution. What the Constitution provides for is for State Legislatures to enact laws for this purpose, not the Supreme Court.

20 Nov-15   From: NykConnolly   To: Bill Magaletta
//The pro-gay marriage arguments here are absurd,//

They only need to be less absurd than the anti-gay marriage arguments. I'm not quite sure how to go about a non-absurd discussion on the issue.

21 Nov-15   From: Jim Odom   To: Bill Magaletta
<<The pro-gay marriage arguments here are absurd, >>

But certainly much less absurd than the slippery-slope scenario that ends with people marrying their dogs.

22 Nov-15   From: Jim Odom   To: barbhauz
<<The law once said interracial marriages were wrong.....>>

Not only that, but much of the history of segregation and legal apartheid in this country going back at least to the Civil War, was based on the fear of blacks and whites getting together sexually and producing what some called "mongrelized" children.

When I was a kid, those opposed to civil rights laws would frequently say some variation of: "I've got nothing at all against Negroes, but would you want your daughter (or sister, etc) to marry one?"

And the funny thing is, that usually stopped the other person is his/her tracks.

23 Nov-15   From: Michael Hoffman SL   To: grasshopper
>*It did? Not any I have seen??? Making up things again?<

Is miscegenation a word with which you are unfamiliar? Do you really not know that there were laws in effect in the United States into the latter half of the 20th century banning it?

24 Nov-15   From: inkyboy07   To: grasshopper
Marriage is one of those things.


In our present society, marriage is controlled by subdivisions of the state governments which are subject to the provisions of the constitution of the United States which promises equal protection to all "persons born or naturalized in the United States and of the states wherein they reside". The Supreme Court of the United States has declared "marriage one of the basic rights of man" so it would appear that voting to deny others their rights will prove to be an exercise in futility. Perhaps all those good christians need to read something other than their book of myths and see if they can learn how their governments functions concerning minority rights.


25 Nov-15   From: inkyboy07   To: grasshopper
Again, interracial marriage is genetical and homosexual marriage would be a behavior abnormality. They do not have the same rights under the Constitution.


Exactly which Article, line, paragraph, or amendment of the Constitution of the United States informs you that gay citizens of the United States do no have the same rights as any other citizen of the United States?

FIP


26 Nov-15   From: inkyboy07   To: grasshopper

They do not have the same rights under the Constitution.
FIP


27 Nov-15   From: Sysop Alex Krislov   To: Bill Magaletta
// [AK] You're kidding, right? //

If I had a nickel for every message on this forum that deserves that reply...

*chuckle* I know the feeling.

28 Nov-15   From: Sysop Alex Krislov   To: Jim Odom
"I've got nothing at all against Negroes, but would you want your daughter (or sister, etc) to marry one?"

Someone said that to my wife, once. She replied, "Why not? My mother did."

29 Nov-15   From: Sysop Jim Dellon   To: grasshopper
grass --

>>Thank you. I'd like to note that this case specifically is in response to interracial marriages and nothing else. <<

Once again proving that you know little or nothing about the Constitution or the process by which its rights and provisions are interpreted and enforced by the Courts. In fact, Harvard Law Professor Randall Kennedy noted in an essay on the 30th Anniversary of Loving v. Virginia that it was very pointedly applicable to the issue of gay marriage. What legal research and training can you offer to say that he's wrong?

-- jim
30 Nov-15   From: Sysop Jim Dellon   To: Bill Magaletta
Bill --

>>The pro-gay marriage arguments here are absurd,<<

How so?

If anything is absurd, it's the irrational fear and outright intolerance that characterizes much of the anti-Gay marriage rhetoric. What argument can you offer against it?

-- jim
31 Nov-17   From: Ozzie   To: Sysop Jim Dellon
>>Once again proving that you know little or nothing about the Constitution or the process by which its rights and provisions are interpreted and enforced by the Courts. In fact, Harvard Law Professor Randall Kennedy noted in an essay on the 30th Anniversary of Loving v. Virginia that it was very pointedly applicable to the issue of gay marriage. What legal research and training can you offer to say that he's wrong?<<

Oh gawd, are you still pushing this crap? You can't compare these two things. There's no bias on gender here. The participants are either male or female. There is no third or fourth gender. For all your desires to have it that way, it's not a matter of "evolution" Jim. In fact, in pure evolutionism, they would be "Darwined out." It's just a choice, get over it.

32 Nov-17   From: Sysop Jim Dellon   To: Ozzie
Ozzie --

>>Oh gawd, are you still pushing this crap? You can't compare these two things. <<

That's your opinion. One of the nation's most distinguished legal scholars has a much different opinion. His has a lot more credibility than yours, since it's based on legal scholarship. Yours seems to be based on irrational fears and intolerance.

Obviously, HE knows what he's talking about. To date, there's no evidence that you do.

-- jim
33 Nov-17   From: grasshopper   To: barbhauz
*The only question is what is "right?" When it comes to obviousely genetical difference which one is visually and even scientifically found to be different, such as the color of the skin, not allowing equal justice is wrong. However, with gender which is visable and genetic, there are still differences and the ERA was not passed for good reason. But, with behavior issues such as child molesters, fire bugs, drug dealers and other obviousely behavior differences with the majority and with the civilization's view of what is behaviorally right and what God's view is about the same things, they should not be given equal rights for everything. Marriage is one of those things.

Marriage is a civil contract and God's view means squat.

An ordinance of God stolen by the state to fund its projects. Marriage is one of those things that should be left the righteous lovers, not homosexual lovers.

34 Nov-17   From: grasshopper   To: Bill Magaletta
The pro-gay marriage arguments here are absurd, but - how on earth do you figure that "homosexuals are just breaking the law"? They're not breaking the law.

In California, the citizens voted to make it unlawful for marriage to be between anything that is not between a man and a woman. To marry would be breaking the law.

35 Nov-18   From: Jim Odom   To: grasshopper
<<In California, the citizens voted to make it unlawful for marriage to be between anything that is not between a man and a woman. To marry would be breaking the law.>>

I think it's more accurate to say the citizens voted to only recognize marriage as something between a man and a woman. Something can't be "unlawful" if the law doesn't provide for it.

36 Nov-18   From: barbhauz   To: grasshopper
*An ordinance of God stolen by the state to fund its projects. Marriage is one of those things that should be left the righteous lovers, not homosexual lovers.

Marriage is a civil contract-not a religious one. Going by what you are saying then no one that is religious should be allowed to marry.

37 Nov-18   From: barbhauz   To: ALL
*An ordinance of God stolen by the state to fund its projects. Marriage is one of those things that should be left the righteous lovers, not homosexual lovers.

Marriage is a civil contract-not a religious one. Going by what you are saying then no one that is religious should be allowed to marry.
***
That should have be that no one that isn't religious.

38 Nov-18   From: Michael H. [SL]   To: grasshopper
>> Marriage is one of those things that should be left the righteous lovers, not homosexual lovers. <<

Who are you to tell two other people that their love isn't righteous?

If you want to practice that sort of bigotry in your church, then feel free to do so, but hateful religious extremists have no right to use the power of the state to impose their unrighteous bigotry upon anybody who is not actually a member of one of their unholy churches of hypocrisy and hate.


39 Nov-18   From: Bill Magaletta   To: grasshopper
// [BM] The pro-gay marriage arguments here are absurd, but - how on earth do you figure that "homosexuals are just breaking the law"? They're not breaking the law.

// [grasshopper] In California, the citizens voted to make it unlawful for marriage to be between anything that is not between a man and a woman. To marry would be breaking the law. //

That's not what the Prop. 22 said, and a law that did say it would very likely be unconstitutional. You seem not to know the difference between "illegal" or "unlawful," and "not recognized by the law." If I hold a ceremony marrying you and another guy, none of us has done anything illegal or unlawful, but the law does not recognize the marriage. For example, you can't subsequently go to court and get a divorce, because the court will say you're not married. But they don't care whether we SAY you're married, so long as no fraud is involved. In fact, I could "grant you a divorce," and the law wouldn't care about that, either - so long as there was no fraud.

Bill
 

40 Nov-18   From: Bill Magaletta   To: grasshopper
// [BM] The pro-gay marriage arguments here are absurd, but - how on earth do you figure that "homosexuals are just breaking the law"? They're not breaking the law.

// [grasshopper] In California, the citizens voted to make it unlawful for marriage to be between anything that is not between a man and a woman. To marry would be breaking the law. //

Follow-up to my previous reply:

Here's an analogy that may help you. Suppose I issue to you what I call a "driver's license." If it isn't a counterfeit of a state driver's license (it doesn't look enough like one to fool anyone), and I haven't misled you to believe that it is a state driver's license, no law has been broken. If the police stop you, and you show them the license, they say, "That's not a real driver's license," and they charge you with driving without a license. Of course, it's not likely I would be issuing these licenses unless I was counterfeiting. For example, it's not likely that we belong to some strange religion with ritual documents called "driver's licenses" that give you "the spiritual right to drive." But if we did, this would not be illegal.

Bill

41 Nov-18   From: Isaac   To: barbhauz
The argument against Homosexual behavior is clearly written in Holy Scripture.In Romans 1:27 and following,>>>Paul states that "they gave up the natural use of the woman and burned in lust for each other. Paul makes a pointed argument that it is clearly wrong, and the offensive behaviour can,be discontinued because they had the ability to turn from their un natural activity. So offiensive was the act of homosexual wrongs and notwithstanding ,the ability to stop ,that ."God gave them to their vile passions " after repeated warnings . Their persistant defilement landed them into the very activity they were warned againt. Willingly !>So the nonsence about them being born with the homosexual urge is redictulas. They CAN turn from their vile passions! ( I )
42 Nov-19   From: barbhauz   To: Isaac
The argument against Homosexual behavior is clearly written in Holy Scripture.In Romans 1:27 and following,>>>Paul states that "they gave up the natural use of the woman and burned in lust for each other. Paul makes a pointed argument that it is clearly wrong, and the offensive behaviour can,be discontinued because they had the ability to turn from their un natural activity. So offiensive was the act of homosexual wrongs and notwithstanding ,the ability to stop ,that ."God gave them to their vile passions " after repeated warnings . Their persistant defilement landed them into the very activity they were warned againt. Willingly !>So the nonsence about them being born with the homosexual urge is redictulas. They CAN turn from their vile passions! ( I )
***

For one-those people are not alive anymore. Two-you have no proof the bible is real. Three-Paul is not a scientist but a crackpot fanatic in a story.

To base laws on the bible and try to force everyone to live by those laws is pathetic.

43 Nov-19   From: grasshopper   To: inkyboy07
Again, interracial marriage is genetical and homosexual marriage would be a behavior abnormality. They do not have the same rights under the Constitution.


Exactly which Article, line, paragraph, or amendment of the Constitution of the United States informs you that gay citizens of the United States do no have the same rights as any other citizen of the United States?

We don't legislate improper behavior? Of course we do! Stealing, rape, child molestation and other social sins are not accepted as a part of "life, liberty and the persuit of happiness."

44 Nov-19   From: grasshopper   To: inkyboy07
Marriage is one of those things.


In our present society, marriage is controlled by subdivisions of the state governments which are subject to the provisions of the constitution of the United States which promises equal protection to all "persons born or naturalized in the United States and of the states wherein they reside". The Supreme Court of the United States has declared "marriage one of the basic rights of man" so it would appear that voting to deny others their rights will prove to be an exercise in futility. Perhaps all those good christians need to read something other than their book of myths and see if they can learn how their governments functions concerning minority rights.

All states have their rules for marriage including same-sex marriage and under-age marriages. Some make it easy to marry when under-age and some make it more difficult. Same with marriage. Thus, states have the right to decide marriage and behavioral situations.

45 Nov-19   From: grasshopper   To: Sysop Jim Dellon

>>Thank you. I'd like to note that this case specifically is in response to interracial marriages and nothing else. <<

Once again proving that you know little or nothing about the Constitution or the process by which its rights and provisions are interpreted and enforced by the Courts. In fact, Harvard Law Professor Randall Kennedy noted in an essay on the 30th Anniversary of Loving v. Virginia that it was very pointedly applicable to the issue of gay marriage. What legal research and training can you offer to say that he's wrong?

Again, this case is about interracialmarriages and nothing else. If the ultra-liberal left winged bomb thrower wants to make up things, that is his perrogative but has no relevance to interracial marriages. He's just pandering to his constituants, the gay community. I reject his inference.

46 Nov-19   From: inkyboy07   To: grasshopper

We don't legislate improper behavior? Of course we do! Stealing, rape, child molestation and other social sins are not accepted as a part of "life, liberty and the persuit of happiness."

What does that have to do with the question which was asked which was as follows:

Exactly which Article, line, paragraph, or amendment of the Constitution of the United States informs you that gay citizens of the United States do no have the same rights as any other citizen of the United States?


47 Nov-19   From: Sysop Jim Dellon   To: grasshopper
grass --

>>Again, this case is about interracialmarriages and nothing else. <<

Nonsense. It's about discrimination and a denial of equal protection. The fact that you don't want it to be about the role of the state in marriage doesn't mean that it isn't.

Legal scholars who know one heck of a lot more about the law and the Constitution than you do say that you're wrong. What scholarship can you offer to the contrary?

-- jim
48
Messages 185447.48 through 185447.49 were moved to 185928.1
50 Nov-20   From: DonTom   To: grasshopper
"Again, interracial marriage is genetical and homosexual marriage would be a behavior abnormality. They do not have the same rights under the Constitution."

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anybody has the same rights as anybody. However, it does say we should all have equal rights under all laws (14TH Amendment) and gay couples do not, therefore, gays do not, but should have, in this so-called free country. The 14TH Amendment does not say "except for the marriage laws" nor does it say "except for gays".

And isn't your Mormon nonsense a behavior abnormality? Even your Mormon nonsense is protected by the constitution!

-Don-
51
Messages 185447.51 through 185447.53 were moved to 185928.3
54 Nov-21   From: Bill Magaletta   To: Sysop Jim Dellon
// [BM] The pro-gay marriage arguments here are absurd, //

// [JD] How so? //

The argument from interracial (IR) marriage only makes sense by ignoring the fact that miscegenation laws and laws recognizing gay marriage work oppositely. Miscegenation laws narrow the definition of marriage, while laws recognizing gay marriage broaden it. Of course, the _repeal_ of miscegenation laws broadens it. I certainly don't deny that the repeal of the 1st and the enactment of the 2nd are consistent in broadening it. But the two sets of laws are not consistent with each other, and this suggests that there is a natural definition of marriage situated between two artificial definitions. Of course, there is. Opponents of IR marriage introduce the irrelevant criterion of race to create an appearance of consistency between their opposition to it and the natural definition of marriage. Opponents of gay marriage merely adhere to that definition; there is no inconsistency in their position. Now, surely, the argument from IR marriage says that it is inconsistent to support IR marriage while opposing gay marriage, but it is only inconsistent, if at all, within some scheme which is not the scheme of the opponents, so the argument makes no sense as an argument against them.

It might be objected that the anti-IR marriage position really is consistent, since the opponents of IR marriage define marriage to make it so. That can't work to rescue an argument which says that the anti-gay marriage position is inconsistent. If the anti-IR marriage position is consistent, the anti-gay marriage position is consistent beyond any doubting.
 
It might be objected that the idea of the argument from IR marriage is not to accuse the opponents of gay marriage of inconsistency but to inform them of a scheme within which support for IR marriage combined with opposition to gay marriage _is_ inconsistent. If that's what it means, why doesn't it say so? The impression is overwhelming that it's simply blind to the fact that opponents of gay marriage who support IR marriage are not being inconsistent.

Prof. Kennedy's remarks do not make any point which you seem to imagine them making:

1. He said that Loving "helps to buttress the case for tolerating same-sex marriage," but he immediately followed this with saying that just as the opponents of IR marriage found it to be a "loathsome potentiality," the opponents of gay marriage find gay marriage to be an "abomination"; and that "this frightened, reflexive reaction will likely dissipate..." That's ALL he said, so either he omitted to say how Loving buttresses the case, or he was not speaking of what would normally be understood from the words "case for same-sex marriage." The case that is buttressed by dissipation of negative regard for something is a case for a claim that the thing can be put into effect, not a case for the thing itself. For example, I'm the president, and I wish to raise taxes. I may argue to my inner circle that the opposition will dissipate, and therefore I can get away with it, but this doesn't say why taxes should be raised.

2. The fact that people find something to be loathsome or abominable, or that their reaction to it is frightened and reflexive, tells us nothing about whether their opposition to it is right or wrong. If all criminals were to be released from prison, I would find this loathsome and abominable, and my reaction would be frightened and reflexive, but this doesn't mean that I am wrong to oppose it, nor even that I don't know why I am right; and in case I don't know, someone else will.

I hope to get time to answer the rest of what you've said.

Bill

55
Message 185447.55 was moved to 185928.6
56 Nov-21   From: Sysop Jim Dellon   To: Bill Magaletta
Bill --

<<<The argument from interracial (IR) marriage only makes sense by ignoring the fact that miscegenation laws and laws recognizing gay marriage work oppositely. Miscegenation laws narrow the definition of marriage, while laws recognizing gay marriage broaden it<<

Not really - your logic is a bit flawed here. Like the laws against mixed race marriage, laws against same sex marriage RESTRICT the right of citizens to marry the partner of their choice. Overturning the bans on gay marriage serves exactly the same purpose as the demise of the miscegenation laws - expanding the right of marriage to INCLUDE all citizens.

>>Opponents of IR marriage introduce the irrelevant criterion of race to create an appearance of consistency between their opposition to it and the natural definition of marriage.<<

Opponents of gay marriage introduce the irrelevant criterion of gender to create an appearance of consistency between their opposition to it and the natural definition of marriage. The simple reality is that there's no such thing as the "natural definition of marriage", a concept that has had many different definitions throughout history and society.

>>He said that Loving "helps to buttress the case for tolerating same-sex marriage," but he immediately followed this with saying that just as the opponents of IR marriage found it to be a "loathsome potentiality," the opponents of gay marriage find gay marriage to be an "abomination"; and that "this frightened, reflexive reaction will likely dissipate..."<<

And that is precisely what happened with interracial marriage. For all the dire predictions of the die-hard segregationists, the sky didn't fall when black and white were allowed to marry - and today we think nothing of it when we see mixed race couples. As the experience in Massachusetts and other parts of the world where gay marriages are already a legal reality, the sky isn't falling there either. That frightened, reflexive reaction is little more than irrational fear - and has nothing to do with the Constitutional issues of Equal Protection that were the basis of Loving v. Virginia and which will be the quite similar legal basis of the eventual overturning of bans on gay marriage.

>>The fact that people find something to be loathsome or abominable, or that their reaction to it is frightened and reflexive, tells us nothing about whether their opposition to it is right or wrong.<<

A good point - since when challenged to do so, you'll almost never see an opponent of gay marriage come up with a rational and legally defensible case to support their point. It's more along the lines of what you said above - "it's not the way marriage has traditionally been", a statement that is not only false but irrelevant.

I'm still waiting for someone to make the case for why a ban on gay marriage is morally, socially or legally right.

-- jim
57 Nov-21   From: Jim Odom   To: Sysop Jim Dellon
<<I'm still waiting for someone to make the case for why a ban on gay marriage is morally, socially or legally right.>>

I'm still waiting, too; and while I wait, I'm going to attempt to play "devil's advocate" [g] and do the job myself.

1) Maintaining what has been overwhelming tradition and custom throughout most of the world for thousands of years. The logic gay marriage advocates use [civil rights, equal protection of laws] could also be used to advocate for polygamy [discrimination against small Mormon sects that still exist?] and marriage between cousins [discrimination against what was once practiced in the South?]. These too existed on a widespread basis, but changing customs and mores as to what kind of familial arrangement was best for families and children resulted in redefining marriage to include one man and one woman. In other words, yes, this is technically "discrimination" against gays; but the fact is, there is precedent for laws that "discriminate" in this manner.

2) When the Supreme Court ruled marriage as a "right", of course they were only referring to marriage as the institution which legally existed at the time of the ruling; i.e., between a man and a woman. Besides, the whole idea of marriage as a "right" is problematic; legally, marriage is nothing more than state recognition of a relationship, and no one is guaranteed this "right", as long as all the same legal benefits are granted,, which would be the case with "civil commitment" provisions. Traditionally, gay rights has involved freedom "from" government interference in private lives, not guarantee of government acknowledgment of a relationship.

How'd I do?

58
Messages 185447.58 through 185447.59 were moved to 185928.7
60 Nov-22   From: Michael427   To: Jim Odom
How'd I do?<<

May I answer that? BRAVO!! Excellent!. You make some very good points that the anti-gay marriage crowd, couldn't.

 The logic gay marriage advocates use [civil rights, equal protection of laws] could also be used to advocate for polygamy [discrimination against small Mormon sects that still exist?] and marriage between cousins [discrimination against what was once practiced in the South?]. <<

This is very true and, I do not see why the fourteenth amendment would not be interpreted to, also, include polygamists. (If I'm not mistaken, the cousins laws are no longer in effect.)

There is one big difference, though. Polygamists are allowed to marry one person, thereby affording them the legal benefits of marriage, at least regarding one of their spouses. Unless, of course, they are gay polygamists.<g> 

 Besides, the whole idea of marriage as a "right" is problematic; legally, marriage is nothing more than state recognition of a relationship, and no one is guaranteed this "right", as long as all the same legal benefits are granted,, which would be the case with "civil commitment" provisions. <<

You are right about that, also. But it goes back to the separation of the term "marriage" as used in a religious sense and "marriage" used in a legal sense. To be truly equal, two like things or people, must be labeled, legally, the same. To do otherwise would imply inequality and the implication would be enough to ensure that they would not be equal.

61 Nov-22   From: Michael H. [SL]   To: Michael427
>> (If I'm not mistaken, the cousins laws are no longer in effect.) <<

Actually, they still exist in some states.


62
Message 185447.62 was moved to 185928.9
63 Nov-22   From: Saul Wright   To: Bill Magaletta
>>The pro-gay marriage arguments here are absurd, but - how on earth do you figure that "homosexuals are just breaking the law"? They're not breaking the law

 

The whole issue makes me so sleeeeeepy......................soooooooooooooooo sleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeepy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yawn.

I just can't understand why anyone cares much about the whole thing.

64
Messages 185447.64 through 185447.65 were moved to 185928.10
66 Nov-22   From: Sysop Jim Dellon   To: Saul Wright
Saul --

>>I just can't understand why anyone cares much about the whole thing.<<

Easy. You're not gay - and apparently the rights and freedoms of other people are not high on your list of priorities.

-- jim
67 Nov-22   From: Jim Odom   To: Michael427
<<Polygamists are allowed to marry one person, thereby affording them the legal benefits of marriage.....>>

.....and then some. I don't know enough about polygamy to know how the various legalities were handled regarding child custody, inheritance rights, etc. but today it would be a real quagmire.

<<To be truly equal, two like things or people, must be labeled, legally, the same. To do otherwise would imply inequality and the implication would be enough to ensure that they would not be equal.>>

This is debatable. [but then, aren't most things?] Certainly true with respect to racial equality; i.e., "separate but equal" was thrown out on the grounds that separate was inherently unequal. But I'm not sure if it's true universally. Take men and women. They're "equal", but this does not imply unanimity, or sameness. God knows. [g]

Besides, for a strict libertarian like yourself, is it really that big of a deal to merely "imply" inequality?

 

68
Messages 185447.68 through 185447.74 were moved to 185928.12
75 Nov-22   From: barbhauz   To: Sysop Jim Dellon
Saul --

>>I just can't understand why anyone cares much about the whole thing.<<

Easy. You're not gay - and apparently the rights and freedoms of other people are not high on your list of priorities.

-- jim
***

If he wants a good comparison just bring up the topic of guns.

Repubs want their gun rights-and I agree that they should have them. But watch how repubs react when people are for banning guns.

:)

76
Messages 185447.76 through 185447.88 were moved to 185928.19
89 Nov-22   From: Saul Wright   To: Sysop Jim Dellon
I'm not Muslim either, but I've gotten people to apologize after some towel head remark. In fact I've threatened them and will again should the situation arise. The victim of prejudice is in a poor position to respond, regardless of what prejudice, racial, sexual orintation, religious.

The fact is that my friend and CT Governor Jodi Rell got the 1st civil union act ever passed in the U.S. without any prior legal proceeding.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

90
Messages 185447.90 through 185447.110 were moved to 185928.32
111 Nov-22   From: Sysop Jim Dellon   To: Saul Wright
Saul --

>>The victim of prejudice is in a poor position to respond, regardless of what prejudice, racial, sexual orintation, religious.<<

Tell that to Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks. If the victim of prejudice doesn't respond, why should they count on the fact that anyone else will?

>>The fact is that my friend and CT Governor Jodi Rell got the 1st civil union act ever passed in the U.S. without any prior legal proceeding.<<

Despite your own apparent ambivalence about the denial of civil rights and dignity to gay couples, the Good News is that there is a growing body of Americans - gay and straight - who are responding. While Connecticut's measures are half-way at best, at least it's a step in the right direction.

-- jim
112
Messages 185447.112 through 185447.118 were moved to 185928.53
119 Nov-22   From: Saul Wright   To: Sysop Jim Dellon
>>Tell that to Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks. If the victim of prejudice doesn't respond, why should they count on the fact that anyone else will?

Neither ever responded with violence - that is the only correct response not from the victim but from others. The victims are in no position to do it and must logically depend upon charitable members of the majority to do it. For a WASP to stand by and witness such prejudice without responding violently is I think morally wrong.

 

>>While Connecticut's measures are half-way at best, at least it's a step in the right direction.

Odd - I haven't seen any news about DC doing anything nor when I googled you in news did anything come up at all. Hmmmmm; seems it's easy to do NOTHING save for posting pot shots here in the electronic fiefdom like usual eh?

 

 

 

 

 

120
Messages 185447.120 through 185447.124 were moved to 185928.60
125 Nov-23   From: Michael427   To: Michael H. [SL]
>> (If I'm not mistaken, the cousins laws are no longer in effect.) <<

Actually, they still exist in some states. <<

Thanks for the informative link, Michael. I stand corrected.

126
Message 185447.126 was moved to 185928.65
127 Nov-23   From: Sysop Jim Dellon   To: Saul Wright
Saul --

>>Neither ever responded with violence - that is the only correct response not from the victim but from others.<<

What does that non-sequitur have to do with the discussion of Gay Marriage?

You seem to be off the point on just about everything these days.

-- jim
128
Message 185447.128 was moved to 185928.66
129 Nov-23   From: Saul Wright   To: Sysop Jim Dellon
Memory's the 1st thing to go eh?

I've repeatedly stated that John Brown had it right - the only correct response to prejudice is violence but not by or from the victims of that prejudice.

IOW's bashing gay bashers (with a baseball bat's okay with me) is the correct response.

People have a right to be left alone - that includes smokers by the way. (unless or until we begin banning perfume, cat dander, etc.)

 

 

 

130
Message 185447.130 was moved to 185928.67
131 Nov-23   From: Sysop Jim Dellon   To: Saul Wright
Saul --

>>I've repeatedly stated that John Brown had it right - the only correct response to prejudice is violence but not by or from the victims of that prejudice.<<

Then by whom? Why would violence against a gay basher be okay from a heterosexual, but not from a homosexual? If anything, the latter is engaged in self-defense.

>>IOW's bashing gay bashers (with a baseball bat's okay with me) is the correct response.<<

Does that mean that it's okay to go after the leadership of the Republican party, which has made God, Guns and Gays the centerpiece of their political strategy? <g>

-- jim
132 Nov-23   From: Sysop Alex Krislov   To: Saul Wright
People have a right to be left alone - that includes smokers by the way. (unless or until we begin banning perfume, cat dander, etc.)

Now you've done it (g).

133
Message 185447.133 was moved to 185928.68
134 Nov-23   From: Saul Wright   To: Sysop Jim Dellon
>>leadership of the Republican party,

Not bright - most have carry permits.

135 Nov-23   From: Saul Wright   To: Sysop Alex Krislov
>>Now you've done it (g).

Yeah - ohmygod he's pro tobacco too????

136
Messages 185447.136 through 185447.154 were moved to 185928.69
155 Nov-23   From: grasshopper   To: Jim Odom
<<In California, the citizens voted to make it unlawful for marriage to be between anything that is not between a man and a woman. To marry would be breaking the law.>>

I think it's more accurate to say the citizens voted to only recognize marriage as something between a man and a woman. Something can't be "unlawful" if the law doesn't provide for it.

Then, you don't understand what propositions are in Calif. If they are voted in favor of, they become law unless a lawsuit is field the the State Supreme Court strikes the law to be unconstitutional with the state constitution. The Prop. said that a marriage can ONLY between a man and a woman. The people spoke!

156
Message 185447.156 was moved to 185928.88
157 Nov-23   From: barbhauz   To: grasshopper
<<In California, the citizens voted to make it unlawful for marriage to be between anything that is not between a man and a woman. To marry would be breaking the law.>>

I think it's more accurate to say the citizens voted to only recognize marriage as something between a man and a woman. Something can't be "unlawful" if the law doesn't provide for it.

Then, you don't understand what propositions are in Calif. If they are voted in favor of, they become law unless a lawsuit is field the the State Supreme Court strikes the law to be unconstitutional with the state constitution. The Prop. said that a marriage can ONLY between a man and a woman. The people spoke!
***

The law once stated that marriage is only between people of the same race and they lost so it doesnt matter if the people speak. What matters is equality and homosexual marriage will become legal.

158
Messages 185447.158 through 185447.185 were moved to 185928.89
186 Nov-24   From: grasshopper   To: barbhauz
*An ordinance of God stolen by the state to fund its projects. Marriage is one of those things that should be left the righteous lovers, not homosexual lovers.

Marriage is a civil contract-not a religious one.

An ordinance of God stolen by the state to fund its projects.

Going by what you are saying then no one that is religious should be allowed to marry.

Only the religious can perform ordinances of God. The non-religious don't know what an ordinance is. Thus, once again, your reasoning skills are non-existance.

Oh, on this day of Thanksgiving, let's thank the God of us all for the Lord Jesus Christ to atone and take away our sins.

187 Nov-25   From: grasshopper   To: Michael H. [SL]
>> Marriage is one of those things that should be left the righteous lovers, not homosexual lovers. <<

Who are you to tell two other people that their love isn't righteous?

A representative of the Lord. Who are you to tell righteous people their love isn't love?


If you want to practice that sort of bigotry in your church, then feel free to do so, but hateful religious extremists have no right to use the power of the state to impose their unrighteous bigotry upon anybody who is not actually a member of one of their unholy churches of hypocrisy and hate.

The old hate and bigotry dribble your left side like to spew. But, I do agree that unholy churches are full of hypocrisy and hate. Fortunately the ones that teach the true Christ and his commandments don't knuckle under to pressure of carnal man. We are all thankful on this day that God has set his standards and sinners can repent of their sins because of Christ's atonement. Homosexuals have the right to repent as do all heterosexuals. Thus, Christ is quite equal in his gospel.

188 Nov-25   From: grasshopper   To: Bill Magaletta
// [BM] The pro-gay marriage arguments here are absurd, but - how on earth do you figure that "homosexuals are just breaking the law"? They're not breaking the law.

// [grasshopper] In California, the citizens voted to make it unlawful for marriage to be between anything that is not between a man and a woman. To marry would be breaking the law. //

That's not what the Prop. 22 said, and a law that did say it would very likely be unconstitutional.

Of course it says this. It's the proper interpretation of the law.

You seem not to know the difference between "illegal" or "unlawful," and "not recognized by the law."

IF it is illegal, then it is unlawful. If is is unlawful, then it is illegal. Not too hard to see they are very much the same.

If I hold a ceremony marrying you and another guy, none of us has done anything illegal or unlawful, but the law does not recognize the marriage. 

I would disagree. The person who gave you the marriage license broke the law. They were not authorized to do so. That is why the marriages in San Fransisco were voided. And, those that participated should have been cited too since they were apart of the conspiracy to hijack the state laws prohibiting marriages of homosexuals. Thus, it is much more than not recognizing the marriage and that S.F. mayor should be in jail.

 For example, you can't subsequently go to court and get a divorce, because the court will say you're not married. But they don't care whether we SAY you're married, so long as no fraud is involved. In fact, I could "grant you a divorce," and the law wouldn't care about that, either - so long as there was no fraud.

None of this could possibly happen. You are nuts! Everyone involved is guilty of conspiracy and any attempt to strong arm property and money of another through this complete fradulant marriage are guilty of conspiracy along with the laws they have broken.

189 Nov-25   From: grasshopper   To: Bill Magaletta
// [BM] The pro-gay marriage arguments here are absurd, but - how on earth do you figure that "homosexuals are just breaking the law"? They're not breaking the law.

// [grasshopper] In California, the citizens voted to make it unlawful for marriage to be between anything that is not between a man and a woman. To marry would be breaking the law. //

Follow-up to my previous reply:

Here's an analogy that may help you. Suppose I issue to you what I call a "driver's license." If it isn't a counterfeit of a state driver's license (it doesn't look enough like one to fool anyone), and I haven't misled you to believe that it is a state driver's license, no law has been broken. 

Stop! If you issue me a drivers license, it has to be counterfeit because only the Dept. of Motor Vehicles can issue them. Thus, you have misled me. Thus, you are breaking several laws. Sheesh! This was worse than the last ones! You and barb both need to take logic and reasoning classes.

 If the police stop you, and you show them the license, they say, "That's not a real driver's license," and they charge you with driving without a license.

Un, they would be charging me with a lot more than that buddy! LOL! And, they would be looking to throw your butt in jail too!

Of course, it's not likely I would be issuing these licenses unless I was counterfeiting.

Then, why say your were to begin with?

 For example,

Your example was to show me what you were meaning yet you need something else to try and help me understand the incoherent examples you have shown us? Care to start over?

it's not likely that we belong to some strange religion with ritual documents called "driver's licenses" that give you "the spiritual right to drive." But if we did, this would not be illegal.

???incoherent??? Is your name Yogi Berra??? No one but the State of Calif. can issue drivers licenses and anyone driving without one from the State is guilty of using a forged drivers license and driving without a license. Also, if they conspired with another to do this, then they can be guilty of conspiracy.

190 Nov-25   From: barbhauz   To: grasshopper
*An ordinance of God stolen by the state to fund its projects. Marriage is one of those things that should be left the righteous lovers, not homosexual lovers.

Marriage is a civil contract-not a religious one.

An ordinance of God stolen by the state to fund its projects.
***

You have no clue what you're talking about. Your religious marriages do not even count unless you also include the civial part.
***

Going by what you are saying then no one that is religious should be allowed to marry.

Only the religious can perform ordinances of God. The non-religious don't know what an ordinance is. Thus, once again, your reasoning skills are non-existance.
***

Who cares. Marriage is not a religious ordinance. You are not even married unless the courts say so so your religious marriage means nothing.
***

Oh, on this day of Thanksgiving, let's thank the God of us all for the Lord Jesus Christ to atone and take away our sins.
***

Why? Thanksgiving isn't about Jesus taking away sins. You can go atone all you want.

191 Nov-25   From: barbhauz   To: grasshopper
You seem not to know the difference between "illegal" or "unlawful," and "not recognized by the law."

IF it is illegal, then it is unlawful. If is is unlawful, then it is illegal. Not too hard to see they are very much the same.
***

Reread what he said. He said unlawful and illegal are not the same as something NOT RECOGNIZED by the law.

*If I hold a ceremony marrying you and another guy, none of us has done anything illegal or unlawful, but the law does not recognize the marriage.

I would disagree. The person who gave you the marriage license broke the law. They were not authorized to do so. That is why the marriages in San Fransisco were voided. And, those that participated should have been cited too since they were apart of the conspiracy to hijack the state laws prohibiting marriages of homosexuals. Thus, it is much more than not recognizing the marriage and that S.F. mayor should be in jail.
***

Wrong. It would only be illegal if they try to pass if off to the law as being legal. People could still be married by a judge and claim they are married to each other as long as they do not try to get lawful recognition of it.

192 Nov-25   From: Michael H. [SL]   To: grasshopper
Michael H.: >> Who are you to tell two other people that their love isn't righteous? <<

grasshopper: >> A representative of the Lord. <<


Or so you prefer to believe, but to many of the rest of us that claim is ludicrous.

horizontal rule


>> Who are you to tell righteous people their love isn't love? <<

I haven't told any righteous people that their love isn't love.

horizontal rule


Michael H.: >> If you want to practice that sort of bigotry in your church, then feel free to do so, but hateful religious extremists have no right to use the power of the state to impose their unrighteous bigotry upon anybody who is not actually a member of one of their unholy churches of hypocrisy and hate. <<

grasshopper: >> The old hate and bigotry dribble your left side like to spew. <<


If you want me to stop accusing you folks of engaging in bigotry and hate, then stop saying hateful, bigoted things.


193 Nov-25   From: Michael H. [SL]   To: grasshopper
Bill Magaletta : >> If I hold a ceremony marrying you and another guy, none of us has done anything illegal or unlawful, but the law does not recognize the marriage. <<

greasshopper: >> I would disagree. The person who gave you the marriage license broke the law. <<


He didn't say anybody gave anybody a marriage license. He spoke of a ceremony, not about a marriage license.


194 Nov-25   From: inkyboy07   To: Michael H. [SL]
Michael

Your questions and answers to various posters has raised a question in my mind and I hope you have an answer but I really don't think even Jesus could tackle this one.

Why does it appear that extensive reading of the book christians call the bible seem to cause the human mind to slam shut to any thought process other than rote "quotes"?

Just thought I would ask.


195 Nov-25   From: Michael H. [SL]   To: inkyboy07
>> Why does it appear that extensive reading of the book christians call the bible seem to cause the human mind to slam shut to any thought process other than rote "quotes"? <<

I don't think it actually does, actually. Most of the examples I've seen see to involve folks who had closed minds before they ever opened a BIble, and in the most extreme cases the people we see quoting the Bible are often people who've never really spent significant time reading it at all. You can see this when they say "the Bible says x," but they cannot actually cite a passage in the Bible where is says that. Or they will cite a passage, but the passage they will cite doesn't say anything about what they said it says.

These are folks who haven't really spent much time reading the Bible. They are people who read what other people write about the Bible. Or worse, they are people who merely listen to what other people say about it.


196 Nov-25   From: NykConnolly   To: inkyboy07
//Why does it appear that extensive reading of the book christians call the bible seem to cause the human mind to slam shut to any thought process other than rote "quotes"?//

It doesn't. Don't get me wrong. I am atheist and a critic of the role religion plays in society. I also think there is much that is deplorable in the Bible.
However look at Grasshopper and "Terry". They know very little about the Bible. They have a poor grasp of the sequence of events (ege Terry claiming David eliminated the Moabites 3 centuries before his Great-Grandmother was alive to establish that she couldn't have been a Moabite).
Grasshopper has demonstrated equally silly errors with Genesis.

Generally fundamentalists AVOID reading the Bible. They produce decontextualised quotes learnt by rote because that is how they READ the Bible.
The approach to Bible readings is designed that way. Read a short passage (or a sequence of thematically related passages) taken out of context and then "pray" or meditate about them.
The aim is exactly to prevent actually READING the Bible as a series of laws, sayings and narratives.

Read it the way it was written and you may or may not remain a believer, however it is hard to be the KIND of believer we have seen in this thread.

197
Messages 185447.197 through 185447.203 were moved to 185928.114
204 Nov-25   From: grasshopper   To: inkyboy07
We don't legislate improper behavior? Of course we do! Stealing, rape, child molestation and other social sins are not accepted as a part of "life, liberty and the persuit of happiness."

What does that have to do with the question which was asked which was as follows:

It was not in response to below. Seek some other statement you made that would fit the response.

Exactly which Article, line, paragraph, or amendment of the Constitution of the United States informs you that gay citizens of the United States do no have the same rights as any other citizen of the United States?

Depends on what you think is a right which I may think of as a privelage, like your sexual tools. They are a privelege given to us from God to procreate the human race. Any use of these tools that does would not do this if it were possible is a sin. Again, homosexual acts are an example of misbehaving Father's commandments. And, behavior is something that can be legislated.

205 Nov-25   From: grasshopper   To: Sysop Jim Dellon
>>Again, this case is about interracialmarriages and nothing else. <<

Nonsense. It's about discrimination and a denial of equal protection. The fact that you don't want it to be about the role of the state in marriage doesn't mean that it isn't.

The debate was about interracial marriages and nothing else. You spun it into you immagination of things not there.

Legal scholars who know one heck of a lot more about the law and the Constitution than you do say that you're wrong. What scholarship can you offer to the contrary?

LOL! I'm sure there are legal scholars even smarter than you. But, to say all Constitutional scholars see these questions as you do is again pompass and intollerant bigotry. Our side has many more scholars and atorneys working to fight you and the ACLU godless society. You could start with one of our churches leaders, the apostle elder Dallin H. Oaks who was a Utah State Supreme Court Justice. There are many scholars in Christian organizations that refute your atheist side.


 

206 Nov-25   From: inkyboy07   To: grasshopper
Exactly which Article, line, paragraph, or amendment of the Constitution of the United States informs you that gay citizens of the United States do no have the same rights as any other citizen of the United States?

Depends on what you think is a right which I may think of as a privelage, like your sexual tools. They are a privelege given to us from God to procreate the human race. Any use of these tools that does would not do this if it were possible is a sin. Again, homosexual acts are an example of misbehaving Father's commandments. And, behavior is something that can be legislated.

So now, instead of answering the question which was posed, we find that you are the authority from your supposed god, with a mandate to tell the rest of the world how they should use their penis or their vagina. You really need to do some study on the human animal related to the roles of sexual contact in relation other functions than procreation. Only an idiot would believe that the only function of sex is procreation.






207
Messages 185447.207 through 185447.212 were moved to 185928.121
213 Nov-26   From: Sysop Jim Dellon   To: grasshopper
grass --

>>Our side has many more scholars and atorneys working to fight you and the ACLU godless society <<

The Good News is that the lawyers and scholars on your side who are promoting the casues of discrimination and intolerance are consistently losing in the Courts. The Constitution protects the rights of the Minority from the Tyranny of the Majority.

>>There are many scholars in Christian organizations that refute your atheist side.<<

Of course, any of those who most strongly work for the rights of gays and other oppressed minorities are themselves good Christians - men and women of faith who take the true message of Christianity to heart. Religious belief, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the law - and any judge who puts his religion above the Constitution and the law isn't fit for the office.

Why do you continue to do the dirty work of the Tyrants?

-- jim
214
Messages 185447.214 through 185447.215 were moved to 185928.127
216 Nov-26   From: terrytwright   To: Sysop Jim Dellon
>>There are many scholars in Christian organizations that refute your atheist side.<<

Of course, any of those who most strongly work for the rights of gays and other oppressed minorities are themselves good Christians - men and women of faith who take the true message of Christianity to heart. Religious belief, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the law - and any judge who puts his religion above the Constitution and the law isn't fit for the office

=============================================================

A double minded man is unstable in all ways.

First you claim [falsely] that "good Christians" would support a wholesale violation of God's Law by not demanding that sodomites be stoned to death, then you claim that "Religious belief, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the law ".

Do you see how double minded this is?

Just because one judge in one court "thought" that "equal protection" should be applied to criminals doesn't mean that all 270 million putative Christians in this putative Christian nation are going to be hamstrung from punishing criminals.

Homicide is a crime, and those murderers responsible will ultimately be punished http://fathersmanifesto.net/homicide.htm

Sodomy is a crime, and sodomites have always been punished more severely than murderers, and always will be http://fathersmanifesto.net/sodomy.htm

If you believe that sodomy ought to be "legal" [by man's law, not God's Law], go to Africa where many black "leaders" agree with you http://blackexile.com. America is not for sodomites and never will be.

Terry

 

217
Messages 185447.217 through 185447.219 were moved to 185928.129
220 Nov-26   From: Patricia O.   To: terrytwright

>>>> Sodomy is a crime, <<<<

Where? Certainly not in the US. SCOTUS struck down the last of the sodomy laws 2 years ago.

221
Message 185447.221 was moved to 185928.132
222 Nov-26   From: Sysop Jim Dellon   To: terrytwright
Terry --

>>First you claim [falsely] that "good Christians" would support a wholesale violation of God's Law by not demanding that sodomites be stoned to death, then you claim that "Religious belief, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the law ".<<

Your own flavor of Christianity is quite different from that of the good and decent people that I know who would be appalled by your own appeals to intolerance and hatred 'in the name of god.'

The rest of your promotion of hate is just the usual empty biblebabble, a lot of Sound and Fury, signifying nothing. Since the Highest Law in America is the Constitution - a document that you've quite clearly never read - not the bible, your sermons are irrelevant.

Quite obviously, you need a wiser god.

-- jim
223 Nov-26   From: grasshopper   To: DonTom
"Again, interracial marriage is genetical and homosexual marriage would be a behavior abnormality. They do not have the same rights under the Constitution."

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anybody has the same rights as anybody. However, it does say we should all have equal rights under all laws (14TH Amendment) and gay couples do not, therefore, gays do not, but should have, in this so-called free country. The 14TH Amendment does not say "except for the marriage laws" nor does it say "except for gays".

And isn't your Mormon nonsense a behavior abnormality? Even your Mormon nonsense is protected by the constitution!

Hi Don and Tom! How are you two doing? Great I hope! Hey, remember Mormons aren't able to practice a commandment for some called polygamy? Thus, behavior and religious beliefs are not one in the same with respect to behavior. We choose how to live our religion. Our choice is our behavior, not the religion. The 14th ammendment does mean the Federal, State and Local Governments can't write their own laws based upon what society believes is right and wrong.

224 Nov-26   From: terrytwright   To: Sysop Jim Dellon
Your own flavor of Christianity is quite different from that of the good and decent people that I know who would be appalled by your own appeals to intolerance and hatred 'in the name of god.'

The rest of your promotion of hate is just the usual empty biblebabble, a lot of Sound and Fury, signifying nothing. Since the Highest Law in America is the Constitution - a document that you've quite clearly never read - not the bible, your sermons are irrelevant.

Quite obviously, you need a wiser god.

=============================================

The oath I and many of my fellow 270 million Christians took to uphold the US Constitition AND "free exercise of religion" against foreign AND DOMESTIC enemies will never be broken.

Punishing criminals is a key part of that, and sodomites are criminals in God's Eye no matter what a scotus might "think" about it. When the time comes, and that's soon, the blacks will be exiled to Africa and we can get back to God's Law in a way that scotus can never hope to stop http://blackexile.com

Terry

225
Message 185447.225 was moved to 185927.1
226 Nov-26   From: DonTom   To: grasshopper
"Hi Don and Tom! How are you two doing?"

Just fine. Hopefully you two are too, even if in your dreamworld of Mormon nonsense!

"Hey, remember Mormons aren't able to practice a commandment for some called polygamy? "

Yes, and if Mormons believed in murder, you also would not be able to practice that! There is nothing unequal or unfair about either of the above laws. They apply to all equally, unlike not allowing gay adults to legally marry another compatible adult.

"The 14th ammendment does mean the Federal, State and Local Governments can't write their own laws based upon what society believes is right and wrong."

Sure, as long as they are equal to all.

BTW, as you know, I am in an interracial relationship, which would have been wrong not long ago even if one of us were of the opposite sex. Times are changing. How long do you think it will be before same sex marriage is allowed in every state in the USA? I think you will agree, the only question is "when?", not "if".

It may take a little longer here in the USA as we seem to have more religious fanatics than other so-called free countries and they often like to take away the "free will" that they claim their god gives others. I would think their god would get mad at them!

BTW, in another week, Tom and I will be in Costa Rico for a couple of weeks. We were ready to go to Cancun, Mexico, but Mother Nature blew those plans away. Perhaps Costa Rico will be more interesting anyway.


-Don-

227 Nov-27   From: Sysop Jim Dellon   To: terrytwright
Terry --

>>The oath I and many of my fellow 270 million Christians took to uphold the US Constitition AND "free exercise of religion" against foreign AND DOMESTIC enemies will never be broken.<<

Every time you attempt to rewrite the Constitution to turn this nation into a tyranny of racism and theocracy, you have proclaimed yourself an enemy of the Constitution - and the American people.

The Genuis of America is that each of us - regardless of race, religion, national origin, etc. - is a free and equal citizen. We can worship the gods of our choice in Freedom and Equality, and it's nobody's business but our own.

Your "god's law" does not overrule the Constitution.

-- jim
228 Nov-27   From: Patricia O.   To: terrytwright

>>>> sodomites are criminals in God's Eye no matter what a scotus might "think" about it. <<<<

In other words, same-sex relationships are NOT a crime in the US, even though you want them to be.

>>>> When the time comes, and that's soon, the blacks will be exiled to Africa . . . <<<<

It's very sad to discover that there is still such abysmal bigotry in the US. Luckily, it resides in the minds of a very small minority of people.

229 Nov-27   From: terrytwright   To: Sysop Jim Dellon
The Genuis of America is that each of us - regardless of race, religion, national origin, etc. - is a free and equal citizen. We can worship the gods of our choice in Freedom and Equality, and it's nobody's business but our own.

Your "god's law" does not overrule the Constitution.

=====================================================

OUR, not your, Founding Forefathers disagree with you:

Act of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat 103-104)

"That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character..." [end of quote].

 

This was a "constitutional" law written by the FOUNDERS of the US Constitution, who were wise enough to include "posterity" in the preamble which CANNOT be amended, changed, discarded, nor ignored any longer:

PREAMBLE We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Are blacks the posterity of our Founding Forefathers? Of course not. Are Mexicans or jews--not on your life. Are Asians. Absolutely no way. This CANNOT be changed, and it CANNOT be ignored.

Your notion that "regardless of race, religion, national origin" means that you "think" that VISITORS who are NOT the posterity of our Founding Forefathers can come into OUR country and change the furniture all around, is bogus. You cannot do that, and we CAN exile you http://blackexile.com under the EXISTING US Constitution. We don't need an amendment, a constitutional convention, a scotus decision, a wayward federal "judge", nor a single politician, to say or write a single word--WE can do it with the EXISTING US Constitution, in theory and in practice.

And now, with 90% now voting in favor of exiling blacks, it's a done deal.

Finito, and sayonara,

Terry

 

 

230 Nov-27   From: terrytwright   To: Patricia O.

>>>> sodomites are criminals in God's Eye no matter what a scotus might "think" about it. <<<<

In other words, same-sex relationships are NOT a crime in the US, even though you want them to be.

>>>> When the time comes, and that's soon, the blacks will be exiled to Africa . . . <<<<

It's very sad to discover that there is still such abysmal bigotry in the US. Luckily, it resides in the minds of a very small minority of people.

=================

It's only an extremist minority who support the "right" to commit sodomy and who oppose the exile of blacks, and you know it. In Mississippi, only 14% favored the legalization sodomy. The largest number of supporters you had was in Oregon where only 43% favored it. And now we know that between 89 and 90% want to exile blacks http://blackexile.com

That makes you a radical extremist minority.

Terry

 

 

ps--what I don't understand, and what you will likely never answer, is how you can always be on the short end of the stick, yet continue to be so confident that everyone agrees with you. You must at least sense that the majority vehemently DISAGREES?

http://fathersmanifesto.net/sodomy.htm

CNN: 86% of Mississippi voters BAN "gay marriages".
 
 The WorldnetDaily poll confirmed that less than 6% think gays should be included in the GOP, and less than 1% favor "gay" marriages.
 
 The Be Counted poll confirmed that only 9% believe that "homosexual" marriages [read: sodomy] should be given the same legal standing as heterosexual marriages".
 
 The General Social Survey reports that 71% believe that "gay sex is always wrong", up from only 67% in 1977.
 
 The Statistical Handbook of the American Family: 86% believe that sodomy is "always wrong" or "almost always wrong".
 
 New York Magazine: 66% OPPOSE the legalization of sodomite "marriages".
 
 Two thirds of Californians vote to BAN sodomy.
 
 Two thirds of Hawaiian and Alaskan voters ban sodomite "marriages", the only two states in which courts have held that same-sex couples have a right to "marry," voters in both states in November overwhelmingly passed state constitutional amendments to reserve the legal status of marriage to unions between one man and one woman.
 
 Vermont lawmakers who supported sodomy get the BIG FAT BOOT!!
 
 Field Poll: 55% favor initiatives to BAN sodomy.
 
 Vote.com: 53% favor an Constitutional Amendment to BAN "gay marriages" [read: illegal, amoral, and sinful sodomy], and 68% oppose "gay marriages".
 
 Howard W. Odum Survey: 71.6% in Kentucky oppose legalization of sodomy.
 
 Pascoe Poll: only a third of Vermont's voters want sodomy "legalized".
 
 Harris Poll: 83% oppose same-sex marriage.
 
 Vote.com: 72% oppose same sex marriage.
 
 The biased Gallup Organization asked the wrong questions and got the "right" answers: 83% believe sodomites should have "equal rights".
 
 Gay forum: only 48% of gays want to boycott the Salvation Army for upholding Christian principles.
 
 Decision Research: 49% of California voters oppose "same-sex marriages".
 
 Salvation Army rescinds "domestic partner benefits".
 
 Churches give sodomites the boot.

 

The only exception to the rule was the American jewish Committee who reported that 87% of jews want sodomy legalized.

horizontal rule

Long divider line edited to fix screen display.

231 Nov-27   From: barbhauz   To: terrytwright
*And now, with 90% now voting in favor of exiling blacks, it's a done deal.

When does this exiling begin? LOL

*Are blacks the posterity of our Founding Forefathers? Of course not. Are Mexicans or jews--not on your life. Are Asians. Absolutely no way. This CANNOT be changed, and it CANNOT be ignored.

Well, considering that it has been changed then I guess your views are being ignored.

*Your notion that "regardless of race, religion, national origin" means that you "think" that VISITORS who are NOT the posterity of our Founding Forefathers can come into OUR country and change the furniture all around, is bogus. You cannot do that, and we CAN exile you http://blackexile.com under the EXISTING US Constitution. We don't need an amendment, a constitutional convention, a scotus decision, a wayward federal "judge", nor a single politician, to say or write a single word--WE can do it with the EXISTING US Constitution, in theory and in practice.

No, you cannot. There are not enough of the racists to even make an attempt at exiling anyone.

:)

232 Nov-27   From: barbhauz   To: terrytwright
It's only an extremist minority who support the "right" to commit sodomy and who oppose the exile of blacks, and you know it. In Mississippi, only 14% favored the legalization sodomy. The largest number of supporters you had was in Oregon where only 43% favored it. And now we know that between 89 and 90% want to exile blacks http://blackexile.com

That makes you a radical extremist minority.
***

I provided a much better poll that has many more people surveryed and it showed 80+% in favor of interracial marriages. Your little white supremecist poll is wrong.

233 Nov-27   From: kasaleliah   To: terrytwright
In Mississippi, only 14% favored the legalization sodomy.

Great example! Good ole Mississippi! The only state ever to electricute a ten-year-old child. Modern progressive folks, those Mississippians.
234 Nov-27   From: Sysop Jim Dellon   To: terrytwright
Terry --

>>Are blacks the posterity of our Founding Forefathers? Of course not. Are Mexicans or jews--not on your life. Are Asians. Absolutely no way. This CANNOT be changed, and it CANNOT be ignored.<<

Your incoherent perspective on this is too perverse and contrary to American law principles and values to be worthy of a response. It flies in the face of everything that our Constitution and laws stand for.

-- jim
235 Nov-27   From: Patricia O.   To: terrytwright

>>>> It's only an extremist minority who support the "right" to commit sodomy and who oppose the exile of blacks, and you know it. <<<<

Bullfeathers. I know no such thing. In fact, I think you're completely wrong about that.

You seem to be rather confused, but then bigots often are. There is not yet majority support for gay marriage, but it is only extreme fringe groups that actually want to criminalize a sexual behavior that a great many heterosexuals indulge in.

And no, I do not think there is widespread support for black exile.

236 Nov-27   From: Patricia O.   To: kasaleliah

>>>> In Mississippi, only 14% favored the legalization sodomy. <<<<

>>>> Great example! Good ole Mississippi! <<<<

And I honestly can't keep track of what he means when he uses the word sodomy. Sometimes it seems to be homosexuality in general, sometimes gay marriage. Neither of which is an accurate synonym.

237 Nov-28   From: grasshopper   To: barbhauz
<<In California, the citizens voted to make it unlawful for marriage to be between anything that is not between a man and a woman. To marry would be breaking the law.>>

I think it's more accurate to say the citizens voted to only recognize marriage as something between a man and a woman. Something can't be "unlawful" if the law doesn't provide for it.

Then, you don't understand what propositions are in Calif. If they are voted in favor of, they become law unless a lawsuit is field the the State Supreme Court strikes the law to be unconstitutional with the state constitution. The Prop. said that a marriage can ONLY between a man and a woman. The people spoke!

The law once stated that marriage is only between people of the same race and they lost so it doesnt matter if the people speak. What matters is equality and homosexual marriage will become legal.

Thus, you finally understand that it is unlawful in Calif. and most other states to marry someone of the same sex. The mayor of San Francisco should have been prosecuted for breaking the law the thumbing his nose at the people of the state and the Legislature that wrote the law. Whether it becomes legal won't change the fact it is still a sin.

238 Nov-28   From: barbhauz   To: grasshopper
<<In California, the citizens voted to make it unlawful for marriage to be between anything that is not between a man and a woman. To marry would be breaking the law.>>

I think it's more accurate to say the citizens voted to only recognize marriage as something between a man and a woman. Something can't be "unlawful" if the law doesn't provide for it.

Then, you don't understand what propositions are in Calif. If they are voted in favor of, they become law unless a lawsuit is field the the State Supreme Court strikes the law to be unconstitutional with the state constitution. The Prop. said that a marriage can ONLY between a man and a woman. The people spoke!

The law once stated that marriage is only between people of the same race and they lost so it doesnt matter if the people speak. What matters is equality and homosexual marriage will become legal.

Thus, you finally understand that it is unlawful in Calif. and most other states to marry someone of the same sex. The mayor of San Francisco should have been prosecuted for breaking the law the thumbing his nose at the people of the state and the Legislature that wrote the law. Whether it becomes legal won't change the fact it is still a sin.
***

Only for now it is illegal beause of the bigots but that will eventually change just as it did for interracial marriages and more equality will be given to the people.

239 Nov-29   From: grasshopper   To: barbhauz
<<In California, the citizens voted to make it unlawful for marriage to be between anything that is not between a man and a woman. To marry would be breaking the law.>>

I think it's more accurate to say the citizens voted to only recognize marriage as something between a man and a woman. Something can't be "unlawful" if the law doesn't provide for it.

Then, you don't understand what propositions are in Calif. If they are voted in favor of, they become law unless a lawsuit is field the the State Supreme Court strikes the law to be unconstitutional with the state constitution. The Prop. said that a marriage can ONLY between a man and a woman. The people spoke!

The law once stated that marriage is only between people of the same race and they lost so it doesnt matter if the people speak. What matters is equality and homosexual marriage will become legal.

Thus, you finally understand that it is unlawful in Calif. and most other states to marry someone of the same sex. The mayor of San Francisco should have been prosecuted for breaking the law the thumbing his nose at the people of the state and the Legislature that wrote the law. Whether it becomes legal won't change the fact it is still a sin.

Only for now it is illegal beause of the bigots but that will eventually change just as it did for interracial marriages and more equality will be given to the people.

I don't doubt that homosexual marriage will eventually be legal in the states of this country. Just like it became the norm of society in the famous cities Sodom and Gamorrah. And, look what it got them.

240 Nov-29   From: Michael H. [SL]   To: grasshopper
>> I don't doubt that homosexual marriage will eventually be legal in the states of this country. Just like it became the norm of society in the famous cities Sodom and Gamorrah. <<

Where in the Bible does it say that homosexual marriages became the norm of society in Sodom and Gamorrah?


241 Nov-29   From: barbhauz   To: grasshopper
*Then, you don't understand what propositions are in Calif. If they are voted in favor of, they become law unless a lawsuit is field the the State Supreme Court strikes the law to be unconstitutional with the state constitution. The Prop. said that a marriage can ONLY between a man and a woman. The people spoke!

The law once stated that marriage was only between people of the same race. As more people begin to accept equality for all then marriage changes as it has many times in history.

*Thus, you finally understand that it is unlawful in Calif. and most other states to marry someone of the same sex. The mayor of San Francisco should have been prosecuted for breaking the law the thumbing his nose at the people of the state and the Legislature that wrote the law. Whether it becomes legal won't change the fact it is still a sin.

I jave never stated that is not unlawful. I have stated that it is not a sin. Unlawful and sin are not the same thing.

*I don't doubt that homosexual marriage will eventually be legal in the states of this country. Just like it became the norm of society in the famous cities Sodom and Gamorrah. And, look what it got them.

I do not believe in your fairy tale myths of Sodom and Gomorrah

242 Nov-29   From: Patricia O.   To: grasshopper

>>>> you finally understand that it is unlawful in Calif. and most other states to marry someone of the same sex. <<<<<

That simply means that the state won't issue licenses for it, and won't recognize such marriages. It doesn't mean that it's illegal to marry informally, or in a religious ceremony.

243 Nov-30   From: grasshopper   To: barbhauz
*If I hold a ceremony marrying you and another guy, none of us has done anything illegal or unlawful, but the law does not recognize the marriage.

I would disagree. The person who gave you the marriage license broke the law. They were not authorized to do so. That is why the marriages in San Fransisco were voided. And, those that participated should have been cited too since they were apart of the conspiracy to hijack the state laws prohibiting marriages of homosexuals. Thus, it is much more than not recognizing the marriage and that S.F. mayor should be in jail.

Wrong. It would only be illegal if they try to pass if off to the law as being legal. People could still be married by a judge and claim they are married to each other as long as they do not try to get lawful recognition of it.

Going throught the act would be a conspiracy to usurp the law. They cannot receive that marriage certificate period! They can play marriage if they want to as many live in sin without marriage. They call them domestic partners.

244 Nov-30   From: grasshopper   To: Michael H. [SL]
Michael H.: >> Who are you to tell two other people that their love isn't righteous? <<

grasshopper: >> A representative of the Lord. <<

Or so you prefer to believe, but to many of the rest of us that claim is ludicrous.

And, who are you to tell representatives of the Lord our claim is ludicrous??? You asked me and I told you.

Michael H.: >> If you want to practice that sort of bigotry in your church, then feel free to do so, but hateful religious extremists have no right to use the power of the state to impose their unrighteous bigotry upon anybody who is not actually a member of one of their unholy churches of hypocrisy and hate. <<

grasshopper: >> The old hate and bigotry dribble your left side like to spew. <<


If you want me to stop accusing you folks of engaging in bigotry and hate, then stop saying hateful, bigoted things.

Dribble dribble again. You simply want to suppress the righteous voice with your own hate and bigotry speech.

245 Nov-30   From: grasshopper   To: Michael H. [SL]
Bill Magaletta : >> If I hold a ceremony marrying you and another guy, none of us has done anything illegal or unlawful, but the law does not recognize the marriage. <<

greasshopper: >> I would disagree. The person who gave you the marriage license broke the law. <<

He didn't say anybody gave anybody a marriage license. He spoke of a ceremony, not about a marriage license.

All are conspiring to usurp the law and break it. All are guilty of conspiracy. And, in the states where it is unlawful for homosexuals to marry, they are guilty of that too!

246 Nov-30   From: Michael H. [SL]   To: grasshopper
>> And, who are you to tell representatives of the Lord our claim is ludicrous??? <<

Prove that you are "representatives of the Lord."


247 Nov-30   From: barbhauz   To: grasshopper
*If I hold a ceremony marrying you and another guy, none of us has done anything illegal or unlawful, but the law does not recognize the marriage.

I would disagree. The person who gave you the marriage license broke the law. They were not authorized to do so. That is why the marriages in San Fransisco were voided. And, those that participated should have been cited too since they were apart of the conspiracy to hijack the state laws prohibiting marriages of homosexuals. Thus, it is much more than not recognizing the marriage and that S.F. mayor should be in jail.
***

You can have a religious cermenoy and be married in that religion if you want to and it not be recognized by the law. There is nothing illegal about that.

*Going throught the act would be a conspiracy to usurp the law. They cannot receive that marriage certificate period! They can play marriage if they want to as many live in sin without marriage. They call them domestic partners.

No it wouldn't be an act to usurp the law. It only becomes that if you try to pass it off as a marriage recognized by law.

248 Nov-30   From: barbhauz   To: grasshopper
*I would disagree. The person who gave you the marriage license broke the law. They were not authorized to do so. That is why the marriages in San Fransisco were voided. And, those that participated should have been cited too since they were apart of the conspiracy to hijack the state laws prohibiting marriages of homosexuals. Thus, it is much more than not recognizing the marriage and that S.F. mayor should be in jail.
***

The hospitality industry generally looks forward to gay travellers as they have more disposable income to enjoy life to the fullest when they are on vacation. Marriage-minded gay couples now have another valid reason to visit Canada, and Canada is waiting for them with open arms. Based on a reveiw of marriage licences, over half of those married in BC are from America where with one or two exeptions, same sex marriages are not allowed.
***

So have any of these people been charged for doing something illegal?

249 Nov-30   From: terrytwright   To: barbhauz
*I don't doubt that homosexual marriage will eventually be legal in the states of this country. Just like it became the norm of society in the famous cities Sodom and Gamorrah. And, look what it got them.

I do not believe in your fairy tale myths of Sodom and Gomorrah

=========================

Do you believe in Mississippi and Kansas? 86% of the VOTERS in Mississippi and 75% of the voters in Kansas BANNED "gay marriages", and there's not a judge in the universe, not even God Himself, who can undo that law. God of course would not, the gayest judge on the planet cannot, and the vast majority of the voters in EVERY state which voted on these DOMA laws passed them with flying colors

<<<The closest race came in Oregon, where gay rights groups concentrated much of their effort and money and thought they had the best chance of winning. Opponents of the amendment raised about $2.8 million, enough to run TV and radio ads in the Beaver State and outspend pro-amendment forces, according to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

Yet, in the end, the amendment passed by a margin of 57 percent to 43 percent.

In the remaining states, the amendments passed with 60 percent of the vote or more, with the margin at a whopping 86 percent in Mississippi.

The push to amend state constitutions>>>

http://fathersmanifesto.net/sodomitemarriagebanned.htm#86%20percent

There goes your notion that a "minority" has "rights". If 53% of the voters want to impeach Bush, Bush will be impeached. No "minority" group can possibly save him. If 89% of Americans want to exile blacks to Africa, which the poll at http://blackexile.com suggests is the case, blacks will be exiled to Africa. No matter what Clarence Thomas or any other minority "thinks" about it, this would be law.

It's not fair? It's a lot fairer than letting the criminals make the laws. It's a lot fairer than claiming that the amoral minority gets to tell the moral majority that they have to accept their criminal behavior.

Terry

horizontal rule

Long divider line edited to fix screen display.

250 Nov-30   From: kasaleliah   To: terrytwright
If 89% of Americans want to exile blacks to Africa, which the poll at http://blackexile.com suggests is the case, blacks will be exiled to Africa.

Great post, Grand Klaxon! Here's a quote from the http://blackexile.com:

Only the names have been changed to protect the, ah, guilty. This is a direct quotation from Kamau Kambon except that he was proposing to kill Whites, not blacks.

 

Now that Kamau has made it abundantly clear what the objective of blacks is, it's time to take pre-emptive action before blacks like him get their way.

 

One black loose canon proposes to kill whites, so by your KKK logic this ia the "abundantly clear" objective of blacks.

251 Nov-30   From: barbhauz   To: terrytwright
*Do you believe in Mississippi and Kansas? 86% of the VOTERS in Mississippi and 75% of the voters in Kansas BANNED "gay marriages", and there's not a judge in the universe, not even God Himself, who can undo that law. God of course would not, the gayest judge on the planet cannot, and the vast majority of the voters in EVERY state which voted on these DOMA laws passed them with flying colors

Interracial marriages were at one time BANNED and now those bans have been overturned. So you are wrong that such bans cannot be changed. People are becoming more accepting of gays so they will eventually be allowed to marry.

*There goes your notion that a "minority" has "rights". If 53% of the voters want to impeach Bush, Bush will be impeached. No "minority" group can possibly save him. If 89% of Americans want to exile blacks to Africa, which the poll at http://blackexile.com suggests is the case, blacks will be exiled to Africa. No matter what Clarence Thomas or any other minority "thinks" about it, this would be law.

Okay then, if you are right that a majority can exile blacks and you have a majority right now-WHY AREN'T THE BLACKS BEING EXILED?

I await your answer.

:)

252 Nov-30   From: Michael H. [SL]   To: barbhauz
>> Okay then, if you are right that a majority can exile blacks and you have a majority right now-WHY AREN'T THE BLACKS BEING EXILED? <<

That's a darn good question. I bet you don't get a darn good answer from Terry, however.

:)


253 Nov-30   From: terrytwright   To: barbhauz
*There goes your notion that a "minority" has "rights". If 53% of the voters want to impeach Bush, Bush will be impeached. No "minority" group can possibly save him. If 89% of Americans want to exile blacks to Africa, which the poll at http://blackexile.com suggests is the case, blacks will be exiled to Africa. No matter what Clarence Thomas or any other minority "thinks" about it, this would be law.

Okay then, if you are right that a majority can exile blacks and you have a majority right now-WHY AREN'T THE BLACKS BEING EXILED?

I await your answer.

=================================

Await no longer.

Wouldn't you think that if 89% agree with exiling the blacks, that shortly after that poll closes and the results are published, that this is exactly what'll happen?

Why would it not happen if more Americans agree on this one issue than they do on any other issue? Do you know of anything else that 89% of Americans agree with?

Terry

254 Nov-30   From: terrytwright   To: ALL
Why would it not happen if more Americans agree on this one issue than they do on any other issue? Do you know of anything else that 89% of Americans agree with?

=========================================

That point is in need of some clarification. Blacks are 12% of the population, so for only 11% to disagree with repatriation to Liberia, at least 10% of blacks themselves would need to agree. But this would mean that 100% of Whites would have to agree, and we know that can't be true. It would also mean that 100% of Hispanics would have to agree. As much as Hispanics and blacks hate each other, that's not too hard to believe. The love affair between blacks and jews (who're 2% of the population), coupled with helpful comments ); from jews, suggests that all of this 2% who're jews would disagree. In such a scenario, 30% of blacks would have to agree in order to reach that 89% level of agreement.

Is it even conceivable that 89% of all Americans would support the exile of blacks? It just doesn't seem possible http://blackexile.com

On the other hand, there are plenty of blacks who also agree, and I've met them. It doesn't seem that they would constitute a significant portion of blacks, but maybe there are more than we know. What if 25% agree?

Terry

255 Nov-30   From: barbhauz   To: terrytwright
*There goes your notion that a "minority" has "rights". If 53% of the voters want to impeach Bush, Bush will be impeached. No "minority" group can possibly save him. If 89% of Americans want to exile blacks to Africa, which the poll at http://blackexile.com suggests is the case, blacks will be exiled to Africa. No matter what Clarence Thomas or any other minority "thinks" about it, this would be law.

Okay then, if you are right that a majority can exile blacks and you have a majority right now-WHY AREN'T THE BLACKS BEING EXILED?

I await your answer.

=================================

Await no longer.

Wouldn't you think that if 89% agree with exiling the blacks, that shortly after that poll closes and the results are published, that this is exactly what'll happen?

Why would it not happen if more Americans agree on this one issue than they do on any other issue? Do you know of anything else that 89% of Americans agree with?

Terry
***

LOL

You say that 89% of americans support exiling blacks but none are being exiled now.

No, I do not think that after you post these results that exiling of blacks will begin.

89% of americans do not agree with exiling blacks. Maybe, and that's a big MAYBE, 10% agree with it.

:)

256 Dec-1   From: grasshopper   To: inkyboy07
Exactly which Article, line, paragraph, or amendment of the Constitution of the United States informs you that gay citizens of the United States do not have the same rights as any other citizen of the United States?

Depends on what you think is a right which I may think of as a privelage, like your sexual tools. They are a privelege given to us from God to procreate the human race. Any use of these tools that does would not do this if it were possible is a sin. Again, homosexual acts are an example of misbehaving Father's commandments. And, behavior is something that can be legislated.

So now, instead of answering the question which was posed, we find that you are the authority from your supposed god, with a mandate to tell the rest of the world how they should use their penis or their vagina. You really need to do some study on the human animal related to the roles of sexual contact in relation other functions than procreation. Only an idiot would believe that the only function of sex is procreation.

I did answer the question. What you think same rights mean depends upon whether you believe we can legislate social behavior or not. I believe we can and you believe we can't when talking about homosexual behavior.

What else would come of sex??? Would plants grow faster? Or, will planets fall out of orbit? You wouldn't say that emotional attachments through pleasure will happen? Emotions are irrational and you think faith is irrational too. All life is on Earth to procreate.

You need to study the spiritual side of yourself more to really be free to choose.

257 Dec-1   From: Michael H. [SL]   To: terrytwright
Do you happen to live in a state where there is a state constitutional provision for petition driven ballot initiatives? If so, then why don't you and your friends begin the process of collecting signatures on a petition to have all the blacks in your state exhiled to Africa? If 89% of Americans really support that idea you shouldn't have any problem whatsoever in collecting the signatures needed to get that question before the public during the very next election.

Right?

:)


258 Dec-1   From: Patricia O.   To: terrytwright

>>>> If 89% of Americans want to exile blacks to Africa, which the poll at http://blackexile.com suggests is the case <<<<

Nah, that just suggests that 89% of racist bigots who take polls on that particular website want to exile blacks to Africa.

>>>> If 53% of the voters want to impeach Bush, Bush will be impeached. <<<<

Not true. Only Congress can impeach a President.

259 Dec-1   From: Sysop Jim Dellon   To: terrytwright
Terry --

>>Do you believe in Mississippi and Kansas? 86% of the VOTERS in Mississippi and 75% of the voters in Kansas BANNED "gay marriages", and there's not a judge in the universe, not even God Himself, who can undo that law. <<

Actually, there is. It's called the Supreme Court of the United States.

Of course, once upon a time, the voters of places like Mississippi overwhelmingly voted for laws that made Black Americans second class citizens. Those laws were overturned, too. I'll bet you're still in mourning over that.

-- jim
260 Dec-1   From: Sysop Jim Dellon   To: barbhauz
barb --

>>89% of americans do not agree with exiling blacks. Maybe, and that's a big MAYBE, 10% agree with it.<<

I think you're being generous with that 10% number - by perhaps a factor of two or three.

Terry's 89% figure is based on an internet poll conducted by a White Supremacist group with a self-selected response rate in the hundreds. Any survey research professional who attempted to claim validity for such a survey would be disbarred from the profession.

-- jim


261 Dec-1   From: Sysop Jim Dellon   To: grasshopper
grass --

>>And, behavior is something that can be legislated.<<

Then you won't object if we legislate to make believing in your so-called god, and only that particular flavor of god, illegal. After all, that belief is nothing more than a Behavior.

-- jim
262 Dec-1   From: barbhauz   To: Sysop Jim Dellon
barb --

>>89% of americans do not agree with exiling blacks. Maybe, and that's a big MAYBE, 10% agree with it.<<

I think you're being generous with that 10% number - by perhaps a factor of two or three.

Terry's 89% figure is based on an internet poll conducted by a White Supremacist group with a self-selected response rate in the hundreds. Any survey research professional who attempted to claim validity for such a survey would be disbarred from the profession.

-- jim

***

Yeah, that's why I added the big maybe part. Other than his dumb poll I don't see any other site that has anywhere near the numbers he quotes. IN fact, nearly the opposite is true. I read that gallup poll where near 90% arppove of interracial marriage. You are probably right that it's only like 2-3% that are in support of exile.

263 Dec-1   From: terrytwright   To: barbhauz
barb --

>>89% of americans do not agree with exiling blacks. Maybe, and that's a big MAYBE, 10% agree with it.<<

I think you're being generous with that 10% number - by perhaps a factor of two or three.

Terry's 89% figure is based on an internet poll conducted by a White Supremacist group with a self-selected response rate in the hundreds. Any survey research professional who attempted to claim validity for such a survey would be disbarred from the profession.

-- jim

***

Yeah, that's why I added the big maybe part. Other than his dumb poll I don't see any other site that has anywhere near the numbers he quotes. IN fact, nearly the opposite is true. I read that gallup poll where near 90% arppove of interracial marriage. You are probably right that it's only like 2-3% that are in support of exile.

=====================================

And your evidence that it's not TRUE that 89% of Americans want to exile all blacks is where?

In your hip pocket?

Until you find that data point, this poll at http://blackexile.com is your god.

Terry

 

264 Dec-1   From: Sysop Jim Dellon   To: terrytwright
Terry --

>>Until you find that data point, this poll at http://blackexile.com is your god.<<

Until you can produce the methodology of that "poll" - and the statistical margin of error, your "poll" is nothing more than a fraud.

-- jim
265 Dec-1   From: barbhauz   To: terrytwright
And your evidence that it's not TRUE that 89% of Americans want to exile all blacks is where?

In your hip pocket?

Until you find that data point, this poll at http://blackexile.com is your god.

Terry
***

I posted the gallup poll already that showed 86% in favor of interracial marriages. That poll was taken by alot more people than your piddly 900 and it was from all across the country. Now if 86% are in favor of interracial marriages that leaves 14% not in favor but not all of that 14% is going to approve of exiling people. Heh. Your numbers are WAY off.

266 Dec-2   From: Sysop Alex Krislov   To: terrytwright
Wouldn't you think that if 89% agree with exiling the blacks, that shortly after that poll closes and the results are published, that this is exactly what'll happen?

Actually, yeah. Particuarly because there aren't 89% non-blacks in this country to begin with. If your poll were reliable, it would indicate universal agreement among white Americans. Not majority; universal..

Patently, there is no valid poll with such results. All you've shown is that a very flaky, very unreliable website has a poll with results of that sort.  Which means that the sort of flaky, semi-literate folks who hang out there feel that way.

I suggest you learn more about the proper methodology of polling.

267 Dec-2   From: grasshopper   To: Sysop Jim Dellon
>>Our side has many more scholars and atorneys working to fight you and the ACLU godless society <<

The Good News is that the lawyers and scholars on your side who are promoting the casues of discrimination and intolerance are consistently losing in the Courts. The Constitution protects the rights of the Minority from the Tyranny of the Majority.

You are lying to these people. We are now winning the stupid court cases brought by the stupid ACLU. And, we will continue to do so! Note, we lit the National CHRISTMAS tree last night on Government Grounds! Your side is losing as we stand up for our rights as Christians and for all religious persons!

268 Dec-2   From: Sysop Alex Krislov   To: grasshopper
Note, we lit the National CHRISTMAS tree last night on Government Grounds!

That's nice. According to the U.S. Agriculture Department pages on the trees over the past several years, all were called Christmas Trees right along.

Visit the Bah! Humbug! thread for details.

269 Dec-2   From: Sysop Jim Dellon   To: grasshopper
grass --

>>Your side is losing as we stand up for our rights as Christians and for all religious persons!<<

Gosh, yet another incoherent "my god can beat up your god" rant.

What a surprise!

-- jim
270 Dec-2   From: grasshopper   To: DonTom
"Hi Don and Tom! How are you two doing?"

Just fine. Hopefully you two are too, even if in your dreamworld of Mormon nonsense!

"Hey, remember Mormons aren't able to practice a commandment for some called polygamy? "

Yes, and if Mormons believed in murder, you also would not be able to practice that! There is nothing unequal or unfair about either of the above laws. They apply to all equally, unlike not allowing gay adults to legally marry another compatible adult.

Mormons would never believe in murder of innocent beings including the unborn. So, the rest of your idea is thus illogical. Start with a non-truth, end with a non-truth or a lot of confusion. Thus, allowing marriage between a man and a woman only is not denying you any of your rights. You are still together in a domestic partnership relationship.

"The 14th ammendment does mean the Federal, State and Local Governments can't write their own laws based upon what society believes is right and wrong."

Sure, as long as they are equal to all.

Are the laws equal to all? No! Minors are treated differently than adults. If you are unborn, you have no rights at all. Those with behavior problems have not the same freedom and liberty if they commit crimes.

BTW, as you know, I am in an interracial relationship, which would have been wrong not long ago even if one of us were of the opposite sex. Times are changing. How long do you think it will be before same sex marriage is allowed in every state in the USA? I think you will agree, the only question is "when?", not "if".

Yes, after all, these are the 2,000's. We should all get with the 2,000's. It's the age of leaving God behind if you had your way. Actually, the religious have had enough of the attacks upon us. We have mobilized and our thousands of attorneys aren't going to let evil just happen without a fight. But, if the Bible is correct, evil will win for a time causing universal wars and tribulations. It's just a matter of when, not if?

It may take a little longer here in the USA as we seem to have more religious fanatics than other so-called free countries and they often like to take away the "free will" that they claim their god gives others. I would think their god would get mad at them!

Actually, they have. Most of the countries you are thinking of have gone the way of socialism. They have less total liberties than we have. Again, universal wars are near.

BTW, in another week, Tom and I will be in Costa Rico for a couple of weeks. We were ready to go to Cancun, Mexico, but Mother Nature blew those plans away. Perhaps Costa Rica will be more interesting anyway.

Have a good time! Stay away from any big wind storms.

271 Dec-2   From: kasaleliah   To: Patricia O.
Nah, that just suggests that 89% of racist bigots who take polls on that particular website want to exile blacks to Africa.

Have you visited the site? It is really and truly head-bangin' loony tunes.
272 Dec-2   From: Patricia O.   To: kasaleliah

>>>> Have you visited the site? It is really and truly head-bangin' loony tunes. <<<

I opened it, decided that I didn't need to pollute my eyes with it, and closed it back down.

273 Dec-2   From: barbhauz   To: grasshopper
*Actually, they have. Most of the countries you are thinking of have gone the way of socialism. They have less total liberties than we have. Again, universal wars are near.

I would love to see you prove that those countries have less total liberties. The fact that in some of those countries gays can marry, pot is legal, sex is viewed with more openmindedness, religions have more freedoms, etc etc..you are very wrong.

274 Dec-2   From: DonTom   To: grasshopper
"Mormons would never believe in murder of innocent beings"

Few people do, but abortion is not murder. Murder, by definition, is the UNLAWFUL killing of people, There are many ways to kill people legally, such as during war or most abortions.

"You are still together in a domestic partnership relationship."

Is your only objection to same sex marriage the name "marriage"? If so, what are we debating?

Please keep the name "marriage". Heterosexuals couples have made that name totally worthless years ago. Let's have a new name for the relationships like mine, that are a real true lifetime monogamous relationship. Let's have a better name than a "marriage". That's what Scott Peterson, Brittney Spears and Bill Clinton (etc, etc, etc, etc) had. It means Nothing (cap intended).

The only thing I care about is if ALL the legal stuff is equal, which covers more than 1,000 laws that change when a couple is married.

"Are the laws equal to all? No! Minors are treated differently than adults."

Which adult was never a child? Seems equal to me, until one can be an adult without ever being a child.

"the religious have had enough of the attacks upon us. "

And God may attack the religious too because:

"If there is a God, atheism must seem to Him as less of an insult than religion."
--Goncourt

Many of the religious deserve to be attacked because too many don't keep their silly nonsense to themselves. Instead, they too often try to force their nonsense on others.

".
Have a good time! "

Thanks, we will be in San Jose, Costa Rica this Sunday. Will will spend 14 days in Costa Rica, only a few days in San Jose.

-Don-




275 Dec-3   From: terrytwright   To: barbhauz
barbhauz wrote

I posted the gallup poll already that showed 86% in favor of interracial marriages. That poll was taken by alot more people than your piddly 900 and it was from all across the country. Now if 86% are in favor of interracial marriages that leaves 14% not in favor but not all of that 14% is going to approve of exiling people. Heh. Your numbers are WAY off

=======================================

Gallup's polls are usually less than 900 people, and this one is now more than 2,000. Gallup is well known for hanging up on people who don't answer the first question properly. They know how to word their question to get the desired response. They know which areas to call to bias their replies. Their own written statements usually dispute their own data. To know the truth about their polls, you have to look at their data and ignore their misleading public pronouncements. All of the above and more are why Gallup was SO FAR off in their sodomite poll that it's not even funny.

They reported that only 42% wanted laws banning "gay marriages", when internet polls reported 75% did--at the exact same time that voters in state after state--56% in lala land California, 70% in Kansas, and 86% in Mississippi--passed exactly the same laws that Gallup reported the people didn't want. The internet polls represented public opinion precisely, yet Gallup wasn't even in the ballpark.

Why?

Because Gallup is biased, and http:///blackexile.com is an open internet poll on which none of the above can occur.

You have no poll which disputes that 89% of Americans think it's time to cut the blacks loose, do you? And why not? Because if Gallup DID conduct such a poll--even they might not be that far off, because this is a real black white issue, so to speak. It's also the perfect reply to blacks who claim that being removed from Africa is worth $18 trillion in reparations. Poof, they'll be right back where they belong, where they can recover that $18 trillion on their own.

Terry

276 Dec-3   From: barbhauz   To: terrytwright
Gallup's polls are usually less than 900 people, and this one is now more than 2,000. Gallup is well known for hanging up on people who don't answer the first question properly. They know how to word their question to get the desired response. They know which areas to call to bias their replies. Their own written statements usually dispute their own data. To know the truth about their polls, you have to look at their data and ignore their misleading public pronouncements. All of the above and more are why Gallup was SO FAR off in their sodomite poll that it's not even funny.

They reported that only 42% wanted laws banning "gay marriages", when internet polls reported 75% did--at the exact same time that voters in state after state--56% in lala land California, 70% in Kansas, and 86% in Mississippi--passed exactly the same laws that Gallup reported the people didn't want. The internet polls represented public opinion precisely, yet Gallup wasn't even in the ballpark.

Why?

Because Gallup is biased, and http:///blackexile.com is an open internet poll on which none of the above can occur.

You have no poll which disputes that 89% of Americans think it's time to cut the blacks loose, do you? And why not? Because if Gallup DID conduct such a poll--even they might not be that far off, because this is a real black white issue, so to speak. It's also the perfect reply to blacks who claim that being removed from Africa is worth $18 trillion in reparations. Poof, they'll be right back where they belong, where they can recover that $18 trillion on their own.
***

The gallup poll was more than 3000 people (as it said in the article I provided) and it is more reliable than your pathetic poll. So please show where blacks are being exiled.

You can't because your poll is worthless and nowhere near the numbers of people you stated want to exile blacks.

277 Dec-4   From: terrytwright   To: barbhauz
The gallup poll was more than 3000 people (as it said in the article I provided) and it is more reliable than your pathetic poll. So please show where blacks are being exiled.

You can't because your poll is worthless and nowhere near the numbers of people you stated want to exile blacks.

=============================================

The only thing that changes by increasing the sample size from 1,000 to 3,000 is that the standard error is reduced from plus or minus 2% to plus or minus 1%. On an issue like this, it's not important, because it's not a contest between two candidates or two parties where one percentage point determines the election results.

What is important is the bias which is built into the poll, which Gallup is an expert at. The "gays" wanted Gallup to produce a poll which showed that only 43% of the American public supported laws outlawing sodomite marriages, in order to attempt to bias the election results with a massive media barrage, so Gallup biased the poll and got just that result.

The problem is, when the actual elections were held, the rubber met the road. TWICE the percentage of voters in Mississippi, or 86% of them, voted this precise initiative into law, so Gallup wasn't even close. Even in the closest state, Oregon, Gallup was off by a whopping 13 points, and the initiative won an overwhelming landslide there as well. The internet polls BEFORE these initiatives were passed showed 70%, which is squack in the middle of how the voters actually voted, just as they were on abortion and affirmative action, two other polls where Gallup missed by a mile while internet polls reflected precisely how the vote went.

Your statement that Gallup "is more reliable" ignores a number of key points:

  1. Gallup hasn't even done such a poll--yet.
  2. Even if they do, missing the mark by 2x on the sodomy poll should cause even you to pause and think about it for a sec.
  3. All you have is an opinion, and so far it appears that your opinion isn't backed by a single cite.
  4. Opinions are just like you know what: we all have one and most of them stink.
  5. Until you have a valid reference which disputes this poll, this poll is your god.

Terry

 

http://blackexile.com

 

 

 

 

278 Dec-4   From: barbhauz   To: terrytwright
Your statement that Gallup "is more reliable" ignores a number of key points:

1. Gallup hasn't even done such a poll--yet.
2. Even if they do, missing the mark by 2x on the sodomy poll should cause even you to pause and think about it for a sec.
3. All you have is an opinion, and so far it appears that your opinion isn't backed by a single cite.
4. Opinions are just like you know what: we all have one and most of them stink.
5. Until you have a valid reference which disputes this poll, this poll is your god.

Terry
***

Gallup did do a poll on interracial marriages. In fact they did several polls over the years. Your poll is not only wrong but it is way wrong. 80+% are in favor of interracial marriages.

:)

279 Dec-4   From: barbhauz   To: terrytwright
The percentage of all U.S. married couples that are interracial nearly doubled from 2.9 percent to 5.4 percent between 1990 and 2000, to a total of more than 3 million.1 And recent surveys reveal that American attitudes toward intermarriage have also steadily improved: While 70 percent of adults in 1986 said they approved of interracial marriage, that figure had climbed to 83 percent by 2003, according to a Roper Reports study.2 "We are seeing declining levels of objection to interracial marriage," says Smith.
***

Yancey collected a sample of 2,561 adults age 18 and older from the Lilly Survey of Attitudes and Friendships, a telephone survey of English- and Spanish-speaking adults conducted from October 1999 to April 2000. He found that 35.7 percent of white Americans had interdated, along with 56.5 percent of African Americans, 55.4 percent of Hispanic Americans, and 57.1 percent of Asian Americans. Men and those who attended racially or ethnically integrated schools were significantly more likely to interdate.
***

While Yancey studied interdating habits among adults, the future of interdating can perhaps best be understood by studying the activities and attitudes of teenagers. Younger people have historically been more open to racial integration and more positive about race relations than older people, according to Jack Ludwig, senior research director at the Gallup Poll in Princeton, N.J. According to a 2002 Gallup survey of 1,360 U.S. adults, 86 percent of people ages 18 to 29 approved of marriage between blacks and whites, but just 30 percent of those ages 65 and older approved of such marriages.
***

A 1997 Gallup national survey of people ages 13 to 19—found that nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of black, Hispanic, or Asian teens who had ever dated and who attended schools with students of more than one race said they had dated someone who was white. (This poll is the latest comprehensive survey of U.S. teens on the topic of interracial dating.)

Consistent with Yancey's findings for adults, only 17 percent of white students who had dated and attended integrated schools in this survey had dated a black person, while 33 percent had dated a Hispanic person and 15 percent had dated an Asian. More than one-third (38 percent) of black students had dated a Hispanic, while 10 percent of black students had dated an Asian student.4

Teens surveyed also had an overwhelmingly positive view of interracial dating. For instance, 72 percent of teens surveyed thought people dated people of other races because they cared about the other person, while less than 20 percent thought their peers interdated as a rebellion against parents or as an attempt to "be cool." Nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of white students who had not dated interracially said they would consider dating someone who was not white, while 58 percent of black students would consider dating a nonblack.
***

See...many polls and information that prove you wrong.

:)

280 Dec-4   From: terrytwright   To: barbhauz
Consistent with Yancey's findings for adults, only 17 percent of white students who had dated and attended integrated schools in this survey had dated a black person, while 33 percent had dated a Hispanic person and 15 percent had dated an Asian. More than one-third (38 percent) of black students had dated a Hispanic, while 10 percent of black students had dated an Asian student.4

***

See...many polls and information that prove you wrong.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

This doesn't at all dispute the results of a poll where 89% agree with at least one exile option for blacks. How do you know that 100% of the 17% of the Whites who dated blacks aren't precisely those who want to exile them? You don't have to be ignorant of who blacks are to want them gone. Wouldn't you think that the odds that a White person who HAS dated a black would be more likely to want to exile them than one who hasn't?

Here's an example. 58.3% of those who've replied to the poll relate crime to poverty rather than to race. Like your false presumption above, many people presume that those who link crime and poverty would not agree to exiling blacks. BUT--83% of them favor at least one exile option. This is lower than the 100% who link crime and race who agree with at least one exile option, but there's no doubt that this 17% bases their opinion on ignorance of the facts rather than solid information.

http://blackexile.com

Terry

 

Only 17% of Americans support interracial marriage in a recent Interchange Poll

THE REAGAN INFORMATION INTERCHANGE

Interchange Polling

NEWLY RETURNED! Reagan.com Debate Forum!

Do you support interracial marriage?

A. Yes. 282 17%
B. No. 1,326 81%
C. No Opinion. 27 1%
281 Dec-4   From: barbhauz   To: terrytwright
This doesn't at all dispute the results of a poll where 89% agree with at least one exile option for blacks. How do you know that 100% of the 17% of the Whites who dated blacks aren't precisely those who want to exile them? You don't have to be ignorant of who blacks are to want them gone. Wouldn't you think that the odds that a White person who HAS dated a black would be more likely to want to exile them than one who hasn't?

Here's an example. 58.3% of those who've replied to the poll relate crime to poverty rather than to race. Like your false presumption above, many people presume that those who link crime and poverty would not agree to exiling blacks. BUT--83% of them favor at least one exile option. This is lower than the 100% who link crime and race who agree with at least one exile option, but there's no doubt that this 17% bases their opinion on ignorance of the facts rather than solid information.
***

Did you read the dates on those polls? Thew newer polls showed RISING approval for interracial dating/marrying so you are wrong again.

282
Messages 185447.282 through 185447.288 were moved to 186212.1
289 Dec-8   From: terrytwright   To: barbhauz
This doesn't at all dispute the results of a poll where 89% agree with at least one exile option for blacks. How do you know that 100% of the 17% of the Whites who dated blacks aren't precisely those who want to exile them? You don't have to be ignorant of who blacks are to want them gone. Wouldn't you think that the odds that a White person who HAS dated a black would be more likely to want to exile them than one who hasn't?

Here's an example. 58.3% of those who've replied to the poll relate crime to poverty rather than to race. Like your false presumption above, many people presume that those who link crime and poverty would not agree to exiling blacks. BUT--83% of them favor at least one exile option. This is lower than the 100% who link crime and race who agree with at least one exile option, but there's no doubt that this 17% bases their opinion on ignorance of the facts rather than solid information.
***

Did you read the dates on those polls? Thew newer polls showed RISING approval for interracial dating/marrying so you are wrong again.

========================================================

You never have explained why you "think" interracial marriages are anywhere near acceptable today when they never were for thousands of years.

You've continued to ignore that 93% of Americans claim to be Christians, and their law, which is God's Law, will never change anyway.

Most countries around the world, just like this country DID until VERY recently, still outlaw interracial marriages, for many very good reasons.

The simple fact that any large perecentage of Americans would accept interracial marriages would be a 100% explanation for what's happened to our socioeconomic statistics in the last 4 decades http://fathersmanifesto.net/decline.htm

It's mostly the mamzers who were created in these interracial marriages who now occupy Washington, DC who have caused the homicide [and all other crime rates] to be MUCH higher than in places where pure, non-mongrelized races like the Negroids live, like Mozambique and Zimbabwe. Even though the homicide rate in Africa is 10 times higher than European and Asian nations, they're still ONE FIFTEENTH (1/15TH) of what they are in Washington, DC, Gary, Indiana, Detroit, and New Orleans.

The vast majority of people in the world would not consider this to be good news, so why don't you explain why you think it IS good news?

My last reply was removed because of [alleged] copyrighted material, which I don't recall including in the last post. This post does not include copyrighted material, so the above reply will continue to be posted until it finally gets through.

 

Terry

http://fathersmanifesto.net/pollblacks.htm

290 Dec-8   From: barbhauz   To: terrytwright
*You never have explained why you "think" interracial marriages are anywhere near acceptable today when they never were for thousands of years.

I dont care about what was not acceptable in the distant past. I believe in marriage between 2 or more consenting adults whatever the race, whatever the gender. Marriage is a civil contract and religion needs to keep out.

*You've continued to ignore that 93% of Americans claim to be Christians, and their law, which is God's Law, will never change anyway.

Inter-racial marriage is allowed all over the world os whatever God's law you think was in effect has definitely changed. :)

*Most countries around the world, just like this country DID until VERY recently, still outlaw interracial marriages, for many very good reasons.

You said that is was banned in most countries. Chanigng your story now after finding out it's not even banned in 1? LOL. Fact is-it is legal in every country so the world is becoming more accepting of inter-racial marriage.

*The simple fact that any large perecentage of Americans would accept interracial marriages would be a 100% explanation for what's happened to our socioeconomic statistics in the last 4 decades

No, it wouldn't be because there are other countries that have accepted inter-racial marriages and have not had the negative effects you are trying to pass off on those marriages.

*It's mostly the mamzers who were created in these interracial marriages who now occupy Washington, DC who have caused the homicide [and all other crime rates] to be MUCH higher than in places where pure, non-mongrelized races like the Negroids live, like Mozambique and Zimbabwe. Even though the homicide rate in Africa is 10 times higher than European and Asian nations, they're still ONE FIFTEENTH (1/15TH) of what they are in Washington, DC, Gary, Indiana, Detroit, and New Orleans.

Then explain why the homocide rate in Europe (where they also allow inter-racial marriages) is lower. :)

*The vast majority of people in the world would not consider this to be good news, so why don't you explain why you think it IS good news?

Where did I say that a high homocide rate is good news?

291 Dec-8   From: terrytwright   To: barbhauz
*Most countries around the world, just like this country DID until VERY recently, still outlaw interracial marriages, for many very good reasons.

You said that is was banned in most countries. Chanigng your story now after finding out it's not even banned in 1? LOL. Fact is-it is legal in every country so the world is becoming more accepting of inter-racial marriage.

=======================================================

You misread that statement. Almost EVERY nation in the world, all the way from the meanest, smallest African nation, all the way to China and India--STILL bans interracial marriages. ALL of them have banned it for most of the history of those nations. It's ONLY this country which only "VERY recently" tried to "legalize" interracial marriages. That will never change people's opinions that they're a sinful, immoral, disruptive arrangement.

South Africa, now that it's run by blacks, DID legalize "homosexual marriages", but not even they legalized interracial marriages. Each of the four different black tribes in South Africa refuse to intermarry with each other, much less with outsiders, which ought to tell you something.

Are you ever going to tell us why you think it's ok?

Gallup is just as far out to lunch on this poll as they were when they claimed that only 43% supported laws against sodomite marriages, at the very same time state after state, including 86% of the voters in Mississippi, passed laws to BAN them.

But just like that doesn't mean that the 16% who didn't support those laws *DID support* sodomite marriages, those who might be tolerant of interracial marriages are STILL the same ones who want to exile blacks http://blackexile.com They are not mutually exclusive opinions as you seem to imply.

Terry

 

292 Dec-8   From: Sysop Alex Krislov   To: terrytwright
Almost EVERY nation in the world, all the way from the meanest, smallest African nation, all the way to China and India--STILL bans interracial marriages. 

Do you have a source for that, or is it like your poll--based on the ravings of a very tiny minority of racists?

293 Dec-8   From: barbhauz   To: terrytwright
You misread that statement. Almost EVERY nation in the world, all the way from the meanest, smallest African nation, all the way to China and India--STILL bans interracial marriages. ALL of them have banned it for most of the history of those nations. It's ONLY this country which only "VERY recently" tried to "legalize" interracial marriages. That will never change people's opinions that they're a sinful, immoral, disruptive arrangement.

NO, THEY DONT STILL BAN INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE.

Historically, there have been controversies over interracial couples, for reasons of racist origin, such as fears of "racial impurity". South Africa, Canada, Australia and the United States are but a few countries that have had regulations banning interracial marriage. As of 2005, no countries have laws against miscegenation, but opposition to interracial marriages remains part of the program of parties such as the British National Party and hate-groups such as the Ku Klux Klan.

Can you read? No countries have laws against miscegenation. Meianing: inter-racial marriages are not banned.

*South Africa, now that it's run by blacks, DID legalize "homosexual marriages", but not even they legalized interracial marriages. Each of the four different black tribes in South Africa refuse to intermarry with each other, much less with outsiders, which ought to tell you something.

Show where they have inter-racial marriages banned.

n article in the South African Sunday Times on Saturday 27th December 2003 reported the results of a survey conducted amongst 368,000 couples which stated that inter-racial marriage was as unusual in 2003 as it was a generation ago under Apartheid, with only 4 out of every 100 couples marrying someone of a different race. The mixed marriages act of 1949 made inter-racial marriages illegal in South Africa. The law was only repealed in 1985. Almost 20 years on, there were no marriages between African men and white women in the sample and it was found that education in multi-racial schools had not increased the incidence of inter-racial marriages.

Inter-racial marriages in South Africa are LEGAL.

294 Dec-8   From: inkyboy07   To: terrytwright
Gallup is just as far out to lunch on this poll as they were when they claimed that only 43% supported laws against sodomite marriages, at the very same time state after state, including 86% of the voters in Mississippi, passed laws to BAN them.


I have no idea where you came up with this stat, other than another of the the Liars for Jesus websites. There has never be an election in the state of Mississippi in which 86 percent of its voters went to the polls and cast a vote for anything. You can tell all the number tales you want to tell but you can not find any election in the history of the state which meets the criteria which you claim. Check with the office of the Secretary of State of the State of Mississippi.



295 Dec-10   From: terrytwright   To: barbhauz
n article in the South African Sunday Times on Saturday 27th December 2003 reported the results of a survey conducted amongst 368,000 couples which stated that inter-racial marriage was as unusual in 2003 as it was a generation ago under Apartheid, with only 4 out of every 100 couples marrying someone of a different race. The mixed marriages act of 1949 made inter-racial marriages illegal in South Africa. The law was only repealed in 1985. Almost 20 years on, there were no marriages between African men and white women in the sample and it was found that education in multi-racial schools had not increased the incidence of inter-racial marriages.

Inter-racial marriages in South Africa are LEGAL.

==========================================

You have no evidence that those who repealed any of these laws did so with the support of the majority of the population.

You also have no evidence that they're right and God and Jesus, and hundreds of millions of Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists before them, were all wrong.

You have no evidence that A SINGLE PERSON was helped by repealing these laws, and volumes of evidence that it's a HUGE mistake which harmed millions.

You still haven't told us why you think it's a good idea. Are you ever going to do that?

You also ignore that even this article shows that less than 4% of ALL South Africans are victims of interracial marriage--with Whites marrying outside of their race undoubtedly being much less than this 4%.

You also ignore that, just like the rumor in our "news media" that sodomy has been "legalized", the penalty for sodomy in most state laws was never changed.

You have ZERO evidence that a belief that interracial marriages should be "legalized" implies that the same person who holds that view would NOT want to see blacks exiled to Africa http://jacobisrael.us/homicide.htm

And we have indisputable, solid, credible evidence that 90% of the 3,000 who've completed this poll so far DO want to see blacks exiled to Africa, while you have yet to find a single poll, survey, or study which refutes that figure, right?

http://blackexile.com

Terry

 

 

296 Dec-10   From: barbhauz   To: terrytwright
*You have no evidence that those who repealed any of these laws did so with the support of the majority of the population.

What does that have to do with anything? You said that inter-racial marriages were banned in South Africa-they are not banned.

*You also have no evidence that they're right and God and Jesus, and hundreds of millions of Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists before them, were all wrong.

I don't need evidence to prove God, Jesus and the millions of religious people are wrong-I do not care if they are right or wrong. What I care about is that people have freedom of religion and are not oppressed by God, Jesus and the millions of religious people.

*You still haven't told us why you think it's a good idea. Are you ever going to do that?

Yes, I have. Because it is about personal freedoms. It is about being able to marry the person that you love.

*You also ignore that even this article shows that less than 4% of ALL South Africans are victims of interracial marriage--with Whites marrying outside of their race undoubtedly being much less than this 4%.

No, I dont ignore that. That has no bearing on the matter. Who cares if no one marries outside their race. What matters is that they are able to if they want to.

*You also ignore that, just like the rumor in our "news media" that sodomy has been "legalized", the penalty for sodomy in most state laws was never changed.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court Thursday struck down a Texas state law banning private consensual sex between adults of the same sex in a decision gay rights groups hailed as historic.

Although all states banned consensual sodomy in the past, now just four ban sodomy between people of the same sex and nine more ban it for everyone. The Supreme Court last visited the issue in 1986, when it upheld a Georgia statute while ruling that there is no fundamental right to engage in homosexual acts and that the prohibition of sodomy was reasonably related to the legitimate objective of preserving morality.
***

Really now, you need to do a google before you spout off your crap.

*You have ZERO evidence that a belief that interracial marriages should be "legalized" implies that the same person who holds that view would NOT want to see blacks exiled to Africa

The only people that I have seen that want blacks exiled are not the same people that approve of inter-racial marriages.

*And we have indisputable, solid, credible evidence that 90% of the 3,000 who've completed this poll so far DO want to see blacks exiled to Africa, while you have yet to find a single poll, survey, or study which refutes that figure, right?

You have proof that 90% of the white supremicists want blacks exiled and I have provided proof that your poll is wrong. 86% approve of inter-racial marriages.

Oh have you started to exile blacks yet? LOLOL

297 Dec-11   From: Sysop Alex Krislov   To: terrytwright
And we have indisputable, solid, credible evidence that 90% of the 3,000 who've completed this poll so far DO want to see blacks exiled to Africa

Assuming the poll is real --I see nothing whatsoever credible about that web page, and I doubt if half the "testimonials" and messages are genuine-- that means that close to 3,000 racists have logged in their bigotry, hated and ignorance, not that they represent the rest of the country.

You keep pretending not to grasp this, because you want to pretend that a trivial page, of no particular moment, and interesting only to the most debased people on the web, is actually important.

But it's not. It's a bad joke, a misbegotten site with nothing of value.

 

298 Dec-12   From: terrytwright   To: Sysop Alex Krislov
And we have indisputable, solid, credible evidence that 90% of the 3,000 who've completed this poll so far DO want to see blacks exiled to Africa

Assuming the poll is real --I see nothing whatsoever credible about that web page, and I doubt if half the "testimonials" and messages are genuine-- that means that close to 3,000 racists have logged in their bigotry, hated and ignorance, not that they represent the rest of the country.

You keep pretending not to grasp this, because you want to pretend that a trivial page, of no particular moment, and interesting only to the most debased people on the web, is actually important.

But it's not. It's a bad joke, a misbegotten site with nothing of value.

========================================

This is your opinion, Alex. Your opinion is not connected with reality. Your opinion also is that sodomy will be legitimized in this country, yet a minimum of 70%, to 86%, to as many as 93%, depending on how the question is asked, disagree.

You also think that Americans will some day change their minds about it. They will not, and here are just a few of the reasons your opinion is that of a racist extremist minorty and not of the mainstream:

CNN: 86% of Mississippi voters BAN "gay marriages".
 
 The WorldnetDaily poll confirmed that less than 6% think gays should be included in the GOP, and less than 1% favor "gay" marriages.
 
 The Be Counted poll confirmed that only 9% believe that "homosexual" marriages [read: sodomy] should be given the same legal standing as heterosexual marriages".
 
 The General Social Survey reports that 71% believe that "gay sex is always wrong", up from only 67% in 1977.
 
 The Statistical Handbook of the American Family: 86% believe that sodomy is "always wrong" or "almost always wrong".
 
 Fathers' Manifesto survey of women who lie: 70% oppose legalization of sodomy.
 
 New York Magazine: 66% OPPOSE the legalization of sodomite "marriages".
 
 Two thirds of Californians vote to BAN sodomy.
 
 Two thirds of Hawaiian and Alaskan voters ban sodomite "marriages", the only two states in which courts have held that same-sex couples have a right to "marry," voters in both states in November overwhelmingly passed state constitutional amendments to reserve the legal status of marriage to unions between one man and one woman.
 
 Vermont lawmakers who supported sodomy get the BIG FAT BOOT!!
 
 Field Poll: 55% favor initiatives to BAN sodomy.
 
 Vote.com: 53% favor an Constitutional Amendment to BAN "gay marriages" [read: illegal, amoral, and sinful sodomy], and 68% oppose "gay marriages".
 
 Howard W. Odum Survey: 71.6% in Kentucky oppose legalization of sodomy.
 
 Pascoe Poll: only a third of Vermont's voters want sodomy "legalized".
 
 Harris Poll: 83% oppose same-sex marriage.
 
 Vote.com: 72% oppose same sex marriage.
 
 Decision Research: 49% of California voters oppose "same-sex marriages".
 
 Salvation Army rescinds "domestic partner benefits".
 
 Churches give sodomites the boot.
 
 American jewish Committee: 87% of jews want sodomy legalized.
 
 The biased Gallup Organization asked the wrong question and got the "right" answer: 83% believe sodomites should have "equal rights".
 
 Gay forum: only 48% of gays want to boycott the Salvation Army for upholding Christian principles
 
Note who agrees with you, Alex? jews? You are in the majority of jews, that's for sure, as they claim that 87% of jews DO favor legalization of sodomy.

How many jews in the country? 1.9%? An extremist racist minority? And you think you're going to impose your views on the 274 million putative Christians in this nation? Why would you want to even try? Why would you risk your own expulsion over such an issue? http://fathersmanifesto.net/pollblacks.htm

Terry

 

 

299 Dec-12   From: Sgt Saviour   To: terrytwright
<<Why would you risk your own expulsion over such an issue? >>

 

EXPULSION?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

I love what that brown shirt does for your eyes.;o)

300 Dec-12   From: barbhauz   To: terrytwright
Churches give sodomites the boot.

American jewish Committee: 87% of jews want sodomy legalized.

How many jews in the country? 1.9%? An extremist racist minority? And you think you're going to impose your views on the 274 million putative Christians in this nation? Why would you want to even try? Why would you risk your own expulsion over such an issue?

***

If that is true then it shows that The Jewish people are in favor of equality and freedom more than the churches. IN the end the people for equality and freedom will win out.

:)

301 Dec-12   From: barbhauz   To: Sgt Saviour
<<Why would you risk your own expulsion over such an issue? >>

EXPULSION?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

I love what that brown shirt does for your eyes.;o)

-Sarge-

He thinks that because he has a poll of a couple of thousand people that claims they want blacks exiled that blacks really will be exiled.

Heh

302 Dec-12   From: Sgt Saviour   To: barbhauz
<<He thinks that because he has a poll of a couple of thousand people that claims they want blacks exiled that blacks really will be exiled.

Heh>>

 I've been following this. The racists around here sound a lot like the wingnuts. They parrot talking points ad nauseam.

But the context I took this in, he had moved to talking about expulsion of Jews as well.

In either case not pretty.;o) 

303 Dec-12   From: Sysop Jim Dellon   To: Sgt Saviour
Sarge --

>>But the context I took this in, he had moved to talking about expulsion of Jews as well.<<

We should have had a pool on how long it would take him/her to get around to that. You didn't have to be clairvoyant to see that coming.

-- jim
304 Dec-12   From: Sgt Saviour   To: Sysop Jim Dellon
<<We should have had a pool on how long it would take him/her to get around to that. You didn't have to be clairvoyant to see that coming.>>

 Well yeah. This has a strong feeling of deja vu.

Makes ya wanna holler HAPPY HOLIDAYS!!!!!!

305 Dec-12   From: Sysop Alex Krislov   To: terrytwright
This is your opinion, Alex. Your opinion is not connected with reality.

That's pretty funny, coming from someone touting a poll on an unknown webpage as being more reliable than Gallup. Someone who claims that support for deporting all African-Americans to Africa is so high that it includes every white person in the country.

You're not kidding anyone, Terry. Except, perhaps, yourself.

306 Dec-14   From: terrytwright   To: Sysop Alex Krislov

horizontal rule

This is your opinion, Alex. Your opinion is not connected with reality.

That's pretty funny, coming from someone touting a poll on an unknown webpage as being more reliable than Gallup. Someone who claims that support for deporting all African-Americans to Africa is so high that it includes every white person in the country.

You're not kidding anyone, Terry. Except, perhaps, yourself.

=============================

That's one of the six most popular pages on the site, with almost 10,000 hits per day, and about 1% having taken the time to complete the survey. How exactly do you think on the internet that the audience could be tailered or targeted to exclude any particular group, territory, political persuasion, income or education level, or whatever? I'd bet even you took the poll yourself, and are simply amazed to come face to face with the reality that most of your long held "religious" beliefs are simply not at all popular, and certainly not shared by at least 90% of the people around you.

To come to this country which is based on Scripture and expect even 5% to agree with you about legalizing sodomy by itself suggests that you don't have a good grasp of reality. Reality is when 86% of the voters in Mississippi vote to BAN sodomite marriages, not when some silly organization like Gallup preaches from the rooftops that sodomite victory is just over the next hill.

You should read some of the comments in this poll. They prove that a LOT of folks who disagree have participated, AND, just like on this forum, that they're so noisy and vociferous that they only seem to be large in number. But when the tally's taken, they prove to be less than 10% of the participants, and my bet is that they're less than 5% of all Americans.

http://fathersmanifesto.net/pollblacks.htm

Terry

horizontal rule

Divider line edited to fix screen display.

307 Dec-14   From: Sysop Alex Krislov   To: terrytwright
That's one of the six most popular pages on the site, with almost 10,000 hits per day,

With a total of 3,000 taking the poll in its history?

Balderdash. What utterly contemptible nonsense.

308 Dec-15   From: kasaleliah   To: Sgt Saviour
Makes ya wanna holler HAPPY HOLIDAYS!!!!!!

If only for no better reason than to pi$$ off the religeous right!
309 Dec-15   From: kasaleliah   To: Sysop Alex Krislov
That's pretty funny, coming from someone touting a poll on an unknown webpage as being more reliable than Gallup.

Clearly you haven't clicked on the link. It's a white supremicist site. One of the more disgusting ones, at that!
310 Dec-15   From: kasaleliah   To: terrytwright
How exactly do you think on the internet that the audience could be tailered or targeted to exclude any particular group, territory, political persuasion, income or education level, or whatever?

A lot of special interest groups set up sites for a target audience. I doubt that a lot of blacks, Jews or decent whites spend time on your blatantly racist, white supremicist site.


311 Dec-15   From: Sysop Alex Krislov   To: kasaleliah
Clearly you haven't clicked on the link. It's a white supremicist site. One of the more disgusting ones, at that!

Actually, I have. Yep, it's a racist garbage page. But that's incidental, as what he's claiming is that in its racism it is a reliable barometer of American feeling. The reality that it's a virtually unknown garbage page speaks to that point.

312 Dec-15   From: kasaleliah   To: Sysop Alex Krislov
But that's incidental, as what he's claiming is that in its racism it is a reliable barometer of American feeling.

Exactly. I will never understand how someone can post a link to such a site and expect any reasonable person to look for an unbiased poll.
313 Dec-15   From: Ubik   To: barbhauz
<<< The law once said interracial marriages were wrong >>>

Yup, and I bet you could have gotten a lot of people riled up to pass constitutional amendments against it at one time.

314 Dec-16   From: Sgt Saviour   To: kasaleliah
<<Makes ya wanna holler HAPPY HOLIDAYS!!!!!!

If only for no better reason than to pi$$ off the religeous right!>>

True DAT!

 

315 Dec-16   From: terrytwright   To: Sysop Alex Krislov
Clearly you haven't clicked on the link. It's a white supremicist site. One of the more disgusting ones, at that!

Actually, I have. Yep, it's a racist garbage page. But that's incidental, as what he's claiming is that in its racism it is a reliable barometer of American feeling. The reality that it's a virtually unknown garbage page speaks to that point.
============================================

There are more than ten thousand hits per DAY on that one page. More than 3,000 have completed the poll http://fathersmanifesto.net/pollblacks.htm . More than 2,700 have agreed with one of the three exile options. So, yes, it IS "a reliable barometer of American feeling", but if anyone's a racist extremist, it's the ten percent who DISAGREE, not the 90% who agree.

Out of all those replies, not a SINGLE post suggested harming a SINGLE hair on a SINGLE head of a SINGLE black, just the oppposite of how the majority, but not ALL, of the blacks have responded.

Since you like the OED, Alex, you should know that by THEIR definition, it's YOU who is the racist. Lookit up.

Terry

316 Dec-16   From: barbhauz   To: terrytwright
Out of all those replies, not a SINGLE post suggested harming a SINGLE hair on a SINGLE head of a SINGLE black, just the oppposite of how the majority, but not ALL, of the blacks have responded.
***

Exiling people is harming them.

317 Dec-16   From: Sysop Alex Krislov   To: terrytwright
There are more than ten thousand hits per DAY on that one page. 

And only 3000 entries to the poll? Bull.

Your claim --like most of your postings-- is utterly lacking in credibility, Terry.

318 Dec-16   From: terrytwright   To: barbhauz
Out of all those replies, not a SINGLE post suggested harming a SINGLE hair on a SINGLE head of a SINGLE black, just the oppposite of how the majority, but not ALL, of the blacks have responded.
***

Exiling people is harming them.

======================================

This is only your "opinion". It doesn't fit reality, just as your hope that this putative Christian nation will someday flagrantly violate God's Law and embrace sodomites doesn't fit reality.

That WAS one of the questions on the poll. Care to guess how many disagree with you? Care to guess how many BLACKS disagree with you? When your "opinion" is compared to a poll that 10,000 per DAY read, it's less than meaningless.

Terry

http://blackexile.com

 

319 Dec-16   From: barbhauz   To: terrytwright
Out of all those replies, not a SINGLE post suggested harming a SINGLE hair on a SINGLE head of a SINGLE black, just the oppposite of how the majority, but not ALL, of the blacks have responded.
***

Exiling people is harming them.

======================================

This is only your "opinion". It doesn't fit reality, just as your hope that this putative Christian nation will someday flagrantly violate God's Law and embrace sodomites doesn't fit reality.

That WAS one of the questions on the poll. Care to guess how many disagree with you? Care to guess how many BLACKS disagree with you? When your "opinion" is compared to a poll that 10,000 per DAY read, it's less than meaningless.

Terry
***

No one has been exiled so I will label your poll for what it is-white supremicist trash.

320 Dec-16   From: terrytwright   To: barbhauz
No one has been exiled so I will label your poll for what it is-white supremicist trash.

=============================================

You need to define your racial slurs. What's a "supramicist"?

Terry

http://jacobisrael.us/pollblacks.htm

321 Dec-16   From: Michael H. [SL]   To: terrytwright
>> There are more than ten thousand hits per DAY on that one page. <<

Yeah, right.


322 Dec-16   From: barbhauz   To: terrytwright
No one has been exiled so I will label your poll for what it is-white supremicist trash.

=============================================

You need to define your racial slurs. What's a "supramicist"?

Terry
***

I said white supremicist. The white people that think they are the best race and their rights supercede all others. They think that they own America and have the right to live here and others should be exiled.

323 Dec-17   From: Patricia O.   To: terrytwright

>>>> There are more than ten thousand hits per DAY on that one page. <<<<

Or anyway, that's what YOU claim. Personally, I doubt it.

>>>> So, yes, it IS "a reliable barometer of American feeling", <<<<

No, it isn't, because it isn't a statistically valid poll. It's propaganda put up by the authors of that website. It doesn't matter how often you post your nonsense; it will never be true.

324 Dec-17   From: kasaleliah   To: terrytwright
So, yes, it IS "a reliable barometer of American feeling"

That's absurd. It is a reliable barometer of the feelings and beliefs of the sort of scum that visits white supremicist websites. Nothing more.
325 Dec-19   From: terrytwright   To: Patricia O.

>>>> So, yes, it IS "a reliable barometer of American feeling", <<<<

No, it isn't, because it isn't a statistically valid poll. It's propaganda put up by the authors of that website. It doesn't matter how often you post your nonsense; it will never be true.

================================

You haven't a clue what a statistically valid poll is, and you never will. But just to set the record straight, and for those who are not so easily beguiled, Gallup's poll of 980 Americans, in which only 43% agreed that sodomite marriages should not be outlawed, was obviously not "valid", was not "statistically valid", and was not a "statistically valid poll". Why? Because when the actual votes were counted, EIGHTY SIX PERCENT OF MISSISSIPPI VOTERS passed exactly the law that Gallup claimed only 43% supported--virtually discrediting Gallup in the minds of many, forever and forever.

How did Gallup do that? They targeted their demographics, which makes it a NON-random sample. They hung up on people who didn't answer the first question properly, which makes it a BIASED NON-random sample. They included inflammatory and misleading questions intended to steer people to their preconceived notions, making it a PREJUDICED BIASED NON-random sample. And to top it all off, their commentary didn't even match their own published poll results, making it an ERRONEOUS PREJUDICED BIASED NON-random sample.

Less than 1% of those who've taken this internet poll at http://fathersmanifesto.net/pollblacks.htm were even familiar with the site before they completed the poll. It's known from monitoring software that more than 90% of the 10,000 per day hits to that page never visited that site before. There's no way with a random internet based poll like this to target any demographic, hang up on certain people, nor exclude undesired answers. The results go directly into a data base complete with isp addresses, multiple information about the users' systems, and email addresses, mail addresses, phone and fax numbers when offered, which can be queried, cross compared, and certified. It's known with precision what percentage of the 59% of all respondents who "Strongly Agree" or "Agree" that race mixing is a sin are in favor of repatriating blacks to Liberia:

http://fathersmanifesto.net/pbgraphicalview.htm

It's known with precision what percentage of the 69% who associate race and crime agree with repatriation (which 100% do), and what percentage of those who associate poverty with crime agree (which 83% do).

You haven't got a single solitary shred of statistical or empirical evidence that your extremist minority view is shared by more than a few percent of Americans, and you never will, because the vast majority of Americans simply don't agree with much of what you say, write, believe, espouse, nor dream for.

Terry

326 Dec-19   From: Michael H. [SL]   To: terrytwright
>> You haven't a clue what a statistically valid poll is, and you never will. <<

I see you're still plugging away at trying to promote that dopey web site of yours. Your claims about it are laughable in the extreme, and you're not fooling anybody about the validity of your "poll." It's not even remotely scientific, and it's not even close to being representative of the nation as a whole.

As for me, I don't even take your positions seriously. Your opinions and positions are so far off the loony end of the fringe they're not even a consequential factor in the politics of the United States.


327
Message 185447.327 was moved to 186636.1
328 Dec-20   From: dbudzz1   To: Sysop Jim Dellon


>>I just can't understand why anyone cares much about the whole thing.<<

Easy. You're not gay - and apparently the rights and freedoms of other people are not high on your list of priorities.

Be fair republicans care about the rights and freedoms of Iraqi's, they just don't think American's should have them here
329
Messages 185447.329 through 185447.330 were moved to 186636.2
331 Dec-22   From: terrytwright   To: Michael H. [SL]
I see you're still plugging away at trying to promote that dopey web site of yours. Your claims about it are laughable in the extreme, and you're not fooling anybody about the validity of your "poll." It's not even remotely scientific, and it's not even close to being representative of the nation as a whole.

As for me, I don't even take your positions seriously. Your opinions and positions are so far off the loony end of the fringe they're not even a consequential factor in the politics of the United States.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is my last post on this forum.

You've spent way too much time deleting my messages and way too little time listening to or understanding some basic things about the society you [now] are a guest of. Neither "gay" marriages nor "interracial" marriages will ever be acceptable to the posterity of our Founding Forefathers, who spilt blood to guarantee that ONLY we their posterity, and nobody else, had the right to free speech and religion. Those who continue to try to undermine the fundamental Christian principles and institutions which made this the ONCE-greatest nation on the planet belong to the tutelage of Africa with the blacks, not here under the protection and guidance of this once-and-soon-to-be-again White Christian nation.

The experiment failed. The lab was destroyed. So go home.

Terry

 

332 Dec-22   From: Sysop Jim Dellon   To: terrytwright
Terry --

>>Neither "gay" marriages nor "interracial" marriages will ever be acceptable to the posterity of our Founding Forefathers, who spilt blood to guarantee that ONLY we their posterity, and nobody else, had the right to free speech and religion. Those who continue to try to undermine the fundamental Christian principles and institutions which made this the ONCE-greatest nation on the planet belong to the tutelage of Africa with the blacks, not here under the protection and guidance of this once-and-soon-to-be-again White Christian nation.<<

What nonsense! In fact, here's what one of those founders had to say about an attempt to insert Christianity into official religious policy:

"[When] the [Virginia] bill for establishing religious freedom... was finally passed,... a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination."
Thomas Jefferson

-- jim

333 Dec-22   From: Sgt Saviour   To: terrytwright
You had me at good-bye.
334 Dec-22   From: Sysop Alex Krislov   To: terrytwright
So go home.

We are home. I can't figure out where the heck you're coming from, but it's not America.

335 Dec-22   From: barbhauz   To: terrytwright
This is my last post on this forum.

You've spent way too much time deleting my messages and way too little time listening to or understanding some basic things about the society you [now] are a guest of. Neither "gay" marriages nor "interracial" marriages will ever be acceptable to the posterity of our Founding Forefathers, who spilt blood to guarantee that ONLY we their posterity, and nobody else, had the right to free speech and religion. Those who continue to try to undermine the fundamental Christian principles and institutions which made this the ONCE-greatest nation on the planet belong to the tutelage of Africa with the blacks, not here under the protection and guidance of this once-and-soon-to-be-again White Christian nation.

The experiment failed. The lab was destroyed. So go home.
***

Inter-racial marriages are now legal. Who cares what the *founding forefathers* thought. They lived in an era where racism was considered acceptable behavior.

Oh and just so you know-the christians do not belong here either since this was not their land to begin with so trying to exile blacks while claiming that this nation belongs to white christians is false.

336 Dec-22   From: inkyboy07   To: terrytwright
This is my last post on this forum.


Since no one wanted to play with you and since you do not apparently play well with others, you are going to take your toys and go back home where no one will be mean to you any longer.....?



Alas, all I can say is

Dear Buddah, Siva, Yaweah, Jesus, Ra, Peter, Paul and Mary

PLEASE LET IT BE THE TRUTH.





As it was in the Court of Seti I,
So it is written, so let it be done.



337 Dec-22   From: Patricia O.   To: inkyboy07

>>>> Alas, all I can say is Dear Buddah, Siva, Yaweah, Jesus, Ra, Peter, Paul and Mary PLEASE LET IT BE THE TRUTH. <<<<

Awwww, if we didn't have tackling dummies wander in here on a regular basis, what would we talk about? <g>

And speaking of old conversations, I saw the Turtle Creek Chorale holiday show last night, and it just blew me away.

338 Dec-22   From: inkyboy07   To: Patricia O.
I saw the Turtle Creek Chorale holiday show last night, and it just blew me away.

I think this is the correct shade. Glad you got to enjoy a wonderful Happy Holiday evening.





339 Dec-22   From: Kevin(Sysop)   To: terrytwright
This is my last post on this forum.//

Don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out.

Kevin

340 Dec-24   From: grasshopper   To: Michael H. [SL]
>> I don't doubt that homosexual marriage will eventually be legal in the states of this country. Just like it became the norm of society in the famous cities Sodom and Gamorrah. <<

Where in the Bible does it say that homosexual marriages became the norm of society in Sodom and Gamorrah?

It was the great sin of the day. No reason to think otherwise in a society the widely accepted the sin.

341 Dec-24   From: barbhauz   To: grasshopper
>> I don't doubt that homosexual marriage will eventually be legal in the states of this country. Just like it became the norm of society in the famous cities Sodom and Gamorrah. <<

Where in the Bible does it say that homosexual marriages became the norm of society in Sodom and Gamorrah?

It was the great sin of the day. No reason to think otherwise in a society the widely accepted the sin.
***

So what. Inter-racial relationships were a great sin also. If they were wrong about that then why arent they wrong about gay relationships?

342 Dec-25   From: John Clifton (SL9)   To: terrytwright
<t> This is my last post on this forum.

Oh, darn!

343 Dec-25   From: grasshopper   To: barbhauz
>> I don't doubt that homosexual marriage will eventually be legal in the states of this country. Just like it became the norm of society in the famous cities Sodom and Gamorrah. <<

Where in the Bible does it say that homosexual marriages became the norm of society in Sodom and Gamorrah?

It was the great sin of the day. No reason to think otherwise in a society the widely accepted the sin.
***

So what. Inter-racial relationships were a great sin also. If they were wrong about that then why arent they wrong about gay relationships?

Not a sin. Apples and oranges. Stick on topic. Gay relationships are and always have been a sin. Inter-racial relationships have not always been a sin.

344 Dec-25   From: barbhauz   To: grasshopper
>> I don't doubt that homosexual marriage will eventually be legal in the states of this country. Just like it became the norm of society in the famous cities Sodom and Gamorrah. <<

Where in the Bible does it say that homosexual marriages became the norm of society in Sodom and Gamorrah?

It was the great sin of the day. No reason to think otherwise in a society the widely accepted the sin.
***

So what. Inter-racial relationships were a great sin also. If they were wrong about that then why arent they wrong about gay relationships?

Not a sin. Apples and oranges. Stick on topic. Gay relationships are and always have been a sin. Inter-racial relationships have not always been a sin.
***

In the bible inter-racial marriages were a sin and you are using the bible to say that gay marriages were a sin. Inter-racial marriages are no longer considered a sin so I guess you dont follow what your god teaches.

345 Dec-26   From: grasshopper   To: barbhauz
Where in the Bible does it say that homosexual marriages became the norm of society in Sodom and Gamorrah?

It was the great sin of the day. No reason to think otherwise in a society the widely accepted the sin.

So what. Inter-racial relationships were a great sin also. If they were wrong about that then why arent they wrong about gay relationships?

Not a sin. Apples and oranges. Stick on topic. Gay relationships are and always have been a sin. Inter-racial relationships have not always been a sin.

In the bible inter-racial marriages were a sin and you are using the bible to say that gay marriages were a sin. Inter-racial marriages are no longer considered a sin so I guess you dont follow what your god teaches.

Ham's wife was Black to keep the Negro race alive through the flood. Thus, it was occationally accepted. And, only on occations not accepted. Homosexual unions have never been accepted and will never be accepted.

346
Message 185447.346 was moved to 186843.1
347 Dec-27   From: barbhauz   To: grasshopper
Where in the Bible does it say that homosexual marriages became the norm of society in Sodom and Gamorrah?

It was the great sin of the day. No reason to think otherwise in a society the widely accepted the sin.

So what. Inter-racial relationships were a great sin also. If they were wrong about that then why arent they wrong about gay relationships?

Not a sin. Apples and oranges. Stick on topic. Gay relationships are and always have been a sin. Inter-racial relationships have not always been a sin.

In the bible inter-racial marriages were a sin and you are using the bible to say that gay marriages were a sin. Inter-racial marriages are no longer considered a sin so I guess you dont follow what your god teaches.

Ham's wife was Black to keep the Negro race alive through the flood. Thus, it was occationally accepted. And, only on occations not accepted. Homosexual unions have never been accepted and will never be accepted.
***

Sorry, but you are wrong again (as usual). There are countries that accept homosexual marriages and even one of the states does! So *occasionally* homosexual unions have and are accepted.

348
Messages 185447.348 through 185447.354 were moved to 186843.2
355 Jan-1   From: grasshopper   To: barbhauz
Ham's wife was Black to keep the Negro race alive through the flood. Thus, it was occationally accepted. And, only on occations not accepted. Homosexual unions have never been accepted and will never be accepted.
***

Sorry, but you are wrong again (as usual). There are countries that accept homosexual marriages and even one of the states does! So *occasionally* homosexual unions have and are accepted.

Sin has always been accepted by man. But, sin has not ever been accepted by God. I don't care what a country or state does. I know what God doesn't want.

356 Jan-2   From: barbhauz   To: grasshopper
Sorry, but you are wrong again (as usual). There are countries that accept homosexual marriages and even one of the states does! So *occasionally* homosexual unions have and are accepted.

Sin has always been accepted by man. But, sin has not ever been accepted by God. I don't care what a country or state does. I know what God doesn't want.
***

God doesnt make the laws for the countries.

357 Jan-3   From: grasshopper   To: barbhauz
Sorry, but you are wrong again (as usual). There are countries that accept homosexual marriages and even one of the states does! So *occasionally* homosexual unions have and are accepted.

Sin has always been accepted by man. But, sin has not ever been accepted by God. I don't care what a country or state does. I know what God doesn't want.

God doesnt make the laws for the countries.

In a way, he can. Again, through the voting of one's conscience, God's words can make it into the laws we have. Most of the laws in America do have origins in Christian-Judeo laws. And, in good conscience, I cannot accept such a hidious law to be allowed as to denegrate the Godly ordinance of marriage. And, most still don't either and thus, most countries and states of America don't allow homosexual marriage. So, do we force gays to stay unmarried? Yes. Do we force pedifiliers to not harm children, yes we do. Do gays and pedifiliers try to circumvent the laws, yes they do. If you support gays in this, then you must also support child molesters too. After all, you try to connect gay marriage and slavery of blacks. Thus, if you think I'm off base with you supporting child molesters, then you are also off base trying to connect me supporting slavery because I support the blocking of gay marriage. Hope now you'll stop trying to connect the two or I'll be forced by you to call you a child molester supporter. Comprende'?

358 Jan-3   From: barbhauz   To: grasshopper
*In a way, he can. Again, through the voting of one's conscience, God's words can make it into the laws we have. Most of the laws in America do have origins in Christian-Judeo laws. And, in good conscience, I cannot accept such a hidious law to be allowed as to denegrate the Godly ordinance of marriage. And, most still don't either and thus, most countries and states of America don't allow homosexual marriage. So, do we force gays to stay unmarried? Yes. Do we force pedifiliers to not harm children, yes we do. Do gays and pedifiliers try to circumvent the laws, yes they do. If you support gays in this, then you must also support child molesters too. After all, you try to connect gay marriage and slavery of blacks. Thus, if you think I'm off base with you supporting child molesters, then you are also off base trying to connect me supporting slavery because I support the blocking of gay marriage. Hope now you'll stop trying to connect the two or I'll be forced by you to call you a child molester supporter. Comprende'?

Gays do not harm people-pedophiles do. The fact that you think that gays harm people is forcing your religious beliefs onto others.

What about if people think that people like you are sinful and harming people with your beliefs-is it then perfectly fine to ban you from being able to marry?

If you say that I am a child molester supporter I will just refer you to your hero Smith who married girls that were underage-AND YOU DO SUPPORT SMITH ;)

Pedophilia harms people. Gay marriage between 2 consenting adults harms no one just as hetero marriage between 2 consenting adults harms no one.

Being against gay marriage is no different than being against inter-racial marriage. People had the right to marry someone of the same race so going by the anti gay argument that gays have the right to marry someone of the opposite gender that that somehow shows they have equal rights then banning inter-racial marriage is fine because everyone has the equal right to marry someone of the same race.

359 Jan-3   From: Michael H. [SL]   To: grasshopper
>> Most of the laws in America do have origins in Christian-Judeo laws. <<

Who told you that ridiculous lie? It's pure BS.

For example, what portions of the Constitution were derived from Christian-Judeo laws as laid out in the Bible? The fact of the matter is that NONE of the Constitution was derived from any Christian-Judeo laws as laid out in the Bible. None of it. In fact, portions of it are actually CONTRARY to the Christian-Judeo laws in the Bible.

Example:

Christian-Judeo law from the Bible -- Exodus 20:2-3 -- "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me."

Contrary portion of the Constitution -- From Article VI -- "[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."


Clearly the Constitution allows people to hold elected office and other positions of public trust within the government even though they openly violate the law given in Exodus 20:2-3.

horizontal rule


>> And, in good conscience, I cannot accept such a hidious law to be allowed as to denegrate the Godly ordinance of marriage. <<

You'll just have to learn to live with it.


360
Messages 185447.360 through 185447.364 were moved to 187024.1
365 Jan-4   From: DonTom   To: barbhauz
"Being against gay marriage is no different than being against inter-racial marriage."

Yes, it is. And it's a very big difference.

The heterosexuals who could not marry a different race could still marry any one of many millions of other compatible people of the same race.

This is unlike gays, who may not legally marry any person of who they find compatible.

So these two issues do not compare at all.

What compares well to not letting gays marry the same sex would be not letting heterosexuals marry the opposite sex. This would compare well because then both would ONLY be able to marry who they are NOT at all compatible with.

-Don-
366
Messages 185447.366 through 185447.368 were moved to 187024.4
369 Jan-4   From: barbhauz   To: DonTom
"Being against gay marriage is no different than being against inter-racial marriage."

Yes, it is. And it's a very big difference.

The heterosexuals who could not marry a different race could still marry any one of many millions of other compatible people of the same race.

This is unlike gays, who may not legally marry any person of who they find compatible.

So these two issues do not compare at all.

What compares well to not letting gays marry the same sex would be not letting heterosexuals marry the opposite sex. This would compare well because then both would ONLY be able to marry who they are NOT at all compatible with.
***

I meant in the sense that it is depriving people of their equal rights to marry whom they love.

But you are right. Gays cannot marry anyone who they are attracted to while the heteros could.

370 Jan-4   From: Michael H. [SL]   To: DonTom
>> Yes, it is. And it's a very big difference.

The heterosexuals who could not marry a different race could still marry any one of many millions of other compatible people of the same race.

This is unlike gays, who may not legally marry any person of who they find compatible.

So these two issues do not compare at all.

What compares well to not letting gays marry the same sex would be not letting heterosexuals marry the opposite sex. This would compare well because then both would ONLY be able to marry who they are NOT at all compatible with. <<


You've certainly got an interesting point there, Don. Well said.


371 Jan-4   From: terrytwright   To: barbhauz
No one has been exiled so I will label your poll for what it is-white supremicist trash.

=============================================

You need to define your racial slurs. What's a "supramicist"?

Terry
***

I said white supremicist. The white people that think they are the best race and their rights supercede all others. They think that they own America and have the right to live here and others should be exiled.

============================================

I asked you to define your racial slur, which you didn't do.

Instead, you repeated the word "supremicist", which isn't even in the dictionary.

So since it's only YOU who defines "supremicist" as "white people that think they are the best race and their rights supercede all others", doesn't YOUR definition include our Founding Forefathers, who wrote:

Act of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat 103-104)

"That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character..." [end of quote].

I mean, they didn't merely BELIEVE this--they codified it into law. So does your definition INCLUDE WHITE men like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson?

Terry

 

372 Jan-4   From: Michael H. [SL]   To: terrytwright
>> Instead, you repeated the word "supremicist", which isn't even in the dictionary. <<

Actually, the word is spelled "supremacist" and the Britanica entry on the expression "white supremacy" (which is what he was talking about) describes it as "beliefs and ideas asserting the natural superiority of the lighter-skinned, or 'white,' human races over other racial groups."

That's your position, isn't it?


373 Jan-4   From: inkyboy07   To: Michael H. [SL]
Michael-Am I losing it or didn't terrytwright take some kind of blood oath that he/she/it was never going to post to this form again because of how horribly he/she/it had been treated by the participants in regards to his white racist anti-black website polls?
374 Jan-4   From: Michael H. [SL]   To: inkyboy07
>> Michael-Am I losing it or didn't terrytwright take some kind of blood oath that he/she/it was never going to post to this form again because of how horribly he/she/it had been treated by the participants in regards to his white racist anti-black website polls? <<

Right you are. What he said was this:

horizontal rule

>> This is my last post on this forum. <<

horizontal rule


That was from the message you can read by clicking on the blue text link HERE.

It was Msg # 185447.331 if anybody is interested.



375 Jan-4   From: barbhauz   To: terrytwright
I asked you to define your racial slur, which you didn't do.

Instead, you repeated the word "supremicist", which isn't even in the dictionary.

So since it's only YOU who defines "supremicist" as "white people that think they are the best race and their rights supercede all others", doesn't YOUR definition include our Founding Forefathers, who wrote:

Act of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat 103-104)

"That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character..." [end of quote].

I mean, they didn't merely BELIEVE this--they codified it into law. So does your definition INCLUDE WHITE men like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson?

Terry
***

What are you talking about? Supremacist is in the dictionary.

su�prem�a�cist Audio pronunciation of "supremacist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-prm-sst)
n.

One who believes that a certain group is or should be supreme.

Main Entry: supremist
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: one who takes supreme authority for him/herself; one who believes in the supremacy of one race, sex, or social group; also called supremacist
Etymology: supremacy + -ist
***

Now a white supremacist is one that believes thw white race is the supreme race.

I never defined supremacist as that-I defined WHITE supremacist...you know, like the kkk is a white supremacist group.

Oh and yes, it would include some of the founding fathers-they were definitely racists. Some of them owned slaves.

376 Jan-4   From: Patricia O.   To: Michael H. [SL]

>>>> That was from the message you can read by clicking on the blue text link HERE. It was Msg # 185447.331 if anybody is interested. <<<<

I asked him about that several days ago; he told me he needed to keep posting so that the *truth* would be seen.

Personally, I think he just missed the attention.

377 Jan-4   From: Michael H. [SL]   To: Patricia O.
>> I asked him about that several days ago; he told me he needed to keep posting so that the *truth* would be seen. <<

ROTFLMAO!


These guys are so predictable.

From Games Fundes Play by John Richards:

:)


horizontal rule

>> 54. The 'flounce' is the announcement that they are leaving the forum and the discussion, never ever to return. The "flounce" is also applied to individuals with a "I will never speak to you again!" proclamation. Unfortunately they never follow through. It is just a play for attention. <<

horizontal rule


:)


378 Jan-4   From: inkyboy07   To: Patricia O.
I asked him about that several days ago; he told me he needed to keep posting so that the *truth* would be seen.




Personally, I think he just missed the attention.





The amazing thing is that he could even spell "truth".
379 Jan-4   From: Bob   To: barbhauz
>The law once said interracial marriages were wrong and homosexuality does not fall under the category of bad behavior.<

Don’t confuse interracial marriage and “gay marriage” because they have absolutely nothing to do with each other. People have been marrying across racial lines for almost as long as marriage has existed as an institution. Bans on mixed race marriage are a relatively recent and short lived phenomenon. When bans on mixed race marriage were lifted, things just went back they way they have always been. That is in sharp contrast to the non-existent history of “gay marriage”.

380 Jan-5   From: grasshopper   To: Michael H. [SL]
>> Most of the laws in America do have origins in Christian-Judeo laws. <<

Who told you that ridiculous lie? It's pure BS.

For example, what portions of the Constitution were derived from Christian-Judeo laws as laid out in the Bible? The fact of the matter is that NONE of the Constitution was derived from any Christian-Judeo laws as laid out in the Bible. None of it. In fact, portions of it are actually CONTRARY to the Christian-Judeo laws in the Bible.

Example:

Christian-Judeo law from the Bible -- Exodus 20:2-3 -- "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me."

Contrary portion of the Constitution -- From Article VI -- "[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Clearly the Constitution allows people to hold elected office and other positions of public trust within the government even though they openly violate the law given in Exodus 20:2-3.

How do elected people break this law just because they hold a government office. The last time I looked Congress still opens with a word of prayer to the Almighty. And, nothing in that Article says that Government Officials can't believe there is no other god but the God of Abraham nor any person in America. It does say that even an atheist can enter Government Offices. But, how does that affect the commandment? It doesn't. The commandment still stands even if no one in America believed in the God of Abraham. Apples and oranges here. But, the First Ammendment clearly states that no entity including Government can stop the worship of the God in the Old Testament. Thus, it is not contrary to the Constitution.

>> And, in good conscience, I cannot accept such a hidious law to be allowed as to denegrate the Godly ordinance of marriage. <<

You'll just have to learn to live with it.

I may have to. But, I don't have to sit idly by since the Constitution doesn't prohibit my free speech against such abominations and to teach man to reject such abominations and have no other gods before the God of Abraham.

381 Jan-5   From: barbhauz   To: Bob
>The law once said interracial marriages were wrong and homosexuality does not fall under the category of bad behavior.<

Don’t confuse interracial marriage and “gay marriage” because they have absolutely nothing to do with each other. People have been marrying across racial lines for almost as long as marriage has existed as an institution. Bans on mixed race marriage are a relatively recent and short lived phenomenon. When bans on mixed race marriage were lifted, things just went back they way they have always been. That is in sharp contrast to the non-existent history of “gay marriage”.
***

And people would have been marrying across gender lines for as long as marriage has existed except that people who are antigay put them to death. So they had to hide the fact that they were gay and have gay relationships in private.

And yes it is the same as inter-racial marriages in that the homophobes are trying to deny gays equal rights of being allowed to marry.

382 Jan-5   From: Jim Odom   To: barbhauz
<<And yes it is the same as inter-racial marriages in that the homophobes are trying to deny gays equal rights of being allowed to marry.>>

What evidence do you have that those who oppose gay marriage are suffering from a phobia?

383 Jan-5   From: barbhauz   To: Jim Odom
<<And yes it is the same as inter-racial marriages in that the homophobes are trying to deny gays equal rights of being allowed to marry.>>

*What evidence do you have that those who oppose gay marriage are suffering from a phobia?

The evidence of their words. They believe, as they have stated on here, that gay marriage will be the downfall of the country. They believe that allowing gay marriage will bring about allowing people to marry animals or children. They equate homoseuxality with pedophilia and beastiality. What it all comes down to is an irrational fear that if gays are allowed to marry that it is going to be the end of civilization.

384 Jan-5   From: Michael H. [SL]   To: grasshopper
>> How do elected people break this law just because they hold a government office. <<

You're obviously confused. I did not say that they broke that law just because they hold government office.


385 Jan-5   From: Sysop Jim Dellon   To: grasshopper
grass --

>>The last time I looked Congress still opens with a word of prayer to the Almighty.<<

And here's what the man who WROTE the Constitution had to say about that unfortunate and non-Constitutional practice:

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In the strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U.S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?

The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain! To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the veil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.

If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expense. How small a contribution from each member of Cong wd suffice for the purpose! How just wd it be in its principle! How noble in its exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the Constitution; and the divine right of conscience! Why should the expence of a religious worship be allowed for the Legislature, be paid by the public, more than that for the Ex. or Judiciary branch of the Gov.
James Madison, Detached Memoranda (emphasis mine)

As a member of one of those so-called 'smaller" sects, one would think that you would have a greater appreciation of the dangers of allowing government and religion to mingle.

-- jim


386 Jan-5   From: Jim Odom   To: barbhauz
<<The evidence of their words. They believe, as they have stated on here, that gay marriage will be the downfall of the country. They believe that allowing gay marriage will bring about allowing people to marry animals or children.>>

Not everyone who is opposed to gay marriage believes all of these things about gays. This forum is hardly a representative sampling of opinions on the subject from either side.

And even so, beliefs such as these, while extreme to the point of absurdity, hardly qualify as "phobic" in the clinical sense: intense panic-like fear as welll as physical symptoms including rapid heartbeat, shortness of breath, feelings of impending doom, etc.

 

387 Jan-5   From: barbhauz   To: Jim Odom
<<The evidence of their words. They believe, as they have stated on here, that gay marriage will be the downfall of the country. They believe that allowing gay marriage will bring about allowing people to marry animals or children.>>

Not everyone who is opposed to gay marriage believes all of these things about gays. This forum is hardly a representative sampling of opinions on the subject from either side.

And even so, beliefs such as these, while extreme to the point of absurdity, hardly qualify as "phobic" in the clinical sense: intense panic-like fear as welll as physical symptoms including rapid heartbeat, shortness of breath, feelings of impending doom, etc.
***

Yes it is a phobia because there is no rationale to it. A phobia is a strong dislike, aversion or fear of something and thinking that the world will end or the country will be destroyed would count as an irrational fear.

388 Jan-6   From: Jim Odom   To: barbhauz
<<Yes it is a phobia because there is no rationale to it. A phobia is a strong dislike, aversion or fear of something and thinking that the world will end or the country will be destroyed would count as an irrational fear.>>

Again, this does not describe most people who oppose gay rights.

Having worked for almost thirty years in the mental health field, I know that "homophobia" used to be a term you almost never heard; it was an extremely rare, obscure phobia that described people who literally trembled or broke into a sweat when they were in the presence of someone they knew, or believed, was gay. It's a complete perversion of the word to use it in a political sense to describe people who oppose homosexuality for religious or other personal reasons

389 Jan-6   From: barbhauz   To: Jim Odom
<<Yes it is a phobia because there is no rationale to it. A phobia is a strong dislike, aversion or fear of something and thinking that the world will end or the country will be destroyed would count as an irrational fear.>>

Again, this does not describe most people who oppose gay rights.

Having worked for almost thirty years in the mental health field, I know that "homophobia" used to be a term you almost never heard; it was an extremely rare, obscure phobia that described people who literally trembled or broke into a sweat when they were in the presence of someone they knew, or believed, was gay. It's a complete perversion of the word to use it in a political sense to describe people who oppose homosexuality for religious or other personal reasons

No, it is not a complete perversion to use the word for antigays.

As you an see from the definition of phobia it does indeed apply to people that strongly dislike gays to the point where they would deny them equal rights and dont want them to be teachers or be around their children or to work with them, etc etc

pho�bi�a Audio pronunciation of "phobia" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fb-)
n.

1. A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.
2. A strong fear, dislike, or aversion.

390 Jan-6   From: Sysop Jim Dellon   To: Jim Odom
Jim --

>>It's a complete perversion of the word to use it in a political sense to describe people who oppose homosexuality for religious or other personal reasons<<

So what term would you use to describe those who would seek to deny their fellow human beings equal rights and dignity under the law?

-- jim
391 Jan-6   From: Michael H. [SL]   To: Sysop Jim Dellon
>> So what term would you use to describe those who would seek to deny their fellow human beings equal rights and dignity under the law? <<

The words "bigots," "oppressors," and "tyrants" come to mind. So do some others, but forum rules preclude me from posting a portion of them here.


392 Jan-8   From: Bob   To: barbhauz

>And people would have been marrying across gender lines for as long as marriage has existed except that people who are antigay put them to death.<

 

No, there has never been such a thing as “gay marriage” because people understood that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. Two men or two women do not qualify for marriage.

 

>And yes it is the same as inter-racial marriages in that the homophobes are trying to deny gays equal rights of being allowed to marry.<

Interracial marriage has nothing to do with “gay marriage”.  It has nothing to do with rights, “gay marriage” is entirely different than marriage and does not qualify for the same status. Pro homosexual militants are simply trying to take a donkey and call it a horse. If they want to do that they can but the rest of us are not about to do such a thing.

393 Jan-8   From: barbhauz   To: Bob
>And people would have been marrying across gender lines for as long as marriage has existed except that people who are antigay put them to death.<

*No, there has never been such a thing as “gay marriage” because people understood that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. Two men or two women do not qualify for marriage.

You're wrong. Several countries have gay marriage so there is indeed such a thing as gay marriage and yes, 2 men or 2 women qualify.

;)

>And yes it is the same as inter-racial marriages in that the homophobes are trying to deny gays equal rights of being allowed to marry.<

*Interracial marriage has nothing to do with “gay marriage”. It has nothing to do with rights, “gay marriage” is entirely different than marriage and does not qualify for the same status. Pro homosexual militants are simply trying to take a donkey and call it a horse. If they want to do that they can but the rest of us are not about to do such a thing.

Yes, it does have to deal with the same issues. People tried to deny others the right to marry because of their race and now people are trying to deny people the right to marry because of their gender. It is all about trying to correct an injustice because people are so bigotted that they think everyone that doesn't believe in the same things must not be allowed freedom.

394 Jan-8   From: Jim Odom   To: Sysop Jim Dellon
<<So what term would you use to describe those who would seek to deny their fellow human beings equal rights and dignity under the law?>>

Depends on what's inspiring their opposition. But it's probably not something that distillable to a single "term", and in any event, does not constitute a "phobia".

395 Jan-8   From: Jim Odom   To: barbhauz
<<pho�bi�a Audio pronunciation of "phobia" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fb-)
n.

1. A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.
2. A strong fear, dislike, or aversion.>>

Many medical terms, especially of a psychiatric nature, over time take on a somewhat different meaning when (over)used by the lay public. "Schizophrenia", for example, is a chronic, disabling mental illness, but as used by the general public means a "split", or "contradiction". Unfortunately, many of these alternative definitions find their way into dictionaries. Such is the case with "phobia".

396 Jan-8   From: barbhauz   To: Jim Odom
<<pho�bi�a Audio pronunciation of "phobia" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fb-)
n.

1. A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.
2. A strong fear, dislike, or aversion.>>

Many medical terms, especially of a psychiatric nature, over time take on a somewhat different meaning when (over)used by the lay public. "Schizophrenia", for example, is a chronic, disabling mental illness, but as used by the general public means a "split", or "contradiction". Unfortunately, many of these alternative definitions find their way into dictionaries. Such is the case with "phobia".
***

So you're trying to say that the meaning of phobia is not the real meaning of phobia?

Heh.

397 Jan-9   From: Jim Odom   To: barbhauz
<<So you're trying to say that the meaning of phobia is not the real meaning of phobia?

Heh.>>

Heh?

I think most people understand what I'm saying.

398 Jan-9   From: barbhauz   To: Jim Odom
<<So you're trying to say that the meaning of phobia is not the real meaning of phobia?

Heh.>>

Heh?

I think most people understand what I'm saying.
***

Yeah, that you think that phobia is limited to what you think it means when the dictionary meaning proves you wrong.

399 Jan-9   From: Jim Odom   To: barbhauz
<<Yeah, that you think that phobia is limited to what you think it means when the dictionary meaning proves you wrong.>>

No, just that dictionaries aren't bibles and sometimes stray from original meanings, just like people do.

400 Jan-9   From: grasshopper   To: Michael H. [SL]
>> How do elected people break this law just because they hold a government office. <<

You're obviously confused. I did not say that they broke that law just because they hold government office.

I just followed your words and got confused. That should say something about your teachings concerning having a free mind. You cause confusion.

401 Jan-9   From: Michael H. [SL]   To: grasshopper
>> I just followed your words and got confused. That should say something about your teachings concerning having a free mind. You cause confusion. <<

It's not my fault that your mind is so muddled up within the slavery of superstition and ignorance that you weren't able to follow plain English sentences.


402 Jan-9   From: grasshopper   To: Sysop Jim Dellon

>>The last time I looked Congress still opens with a word of prayer to the Almighty.<<

And here's what the man who WROTE the Constitution had to say about that unfortunate and non-Constitutional practice:

The man who wrote the Constitution??? I believe there were many who helped write the Constitution.

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In the strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U.S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?

The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain! To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the veil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.

If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expense. How small a contribution from each member of Cong wd suffice for the purpose! How just wd it be in its principle! How noble in its exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the Constitution; and the divine right of conscience! Why should the expence of a religious worship be allowed for the Legislature, be paid by the public, more than that for the Ex. or Judiciary branch of the Gov.
James Madison, Detached Memoranda (emphasis mine)

As a member of one of those so-called 'smaller" sects, one would think that you would have a greater appreciation of the dangers of allowing government and religion to mingle.

We aren't a part of one of those "smaller sects" anymore. We are a large Church and growing world wide. And, when we were much smaller is when we incurred the greatest attacks from both private churches and their leaders and the Government. But, none of this came because of reciting a prayer each day in Congress. The fact is, the framers were affraid of establishing a "church" as the "nation's church." With so many different Christian churches, they weren't affraid of a religion or several religions praying for Congress in Congress. So, the Supreme Court has never agreed with Madison's questioning of ministers or chaplins praying for Congress, which they really need. And, the Congress doesn't seem to mind any assistance they can get from God.

403 Jan-9   From: freethinkertp   To: Jim Odom
No, just that dictionaries aren't bibles and sometimes stray from original meanings, just like people do.<<

It's good that dictionaries aren't bibles, because then they would be absurd and meaningless. Funny how you used a phrase of distortion to describe a term of distortion.

404   From: ALL   To: ALL
405 Jan-9   From: barbhauz   To: Jim Odom
<<Yeah, that you think that phobia is limited to what you think it means when the dictionary meaning proves you wrong.>>

*No, just that dictionaries aren't bibles and sometimes stray from original meanings, just like people do.

Or people dont realize that words have multiple meanings.

;)

406 Jan-9   From: freethinkertp   To: Bob

Don’t confuse interracial marriage and “gay marriage” because they have absolutely nothing to do with each other. People have been marrying across racial lines for almost as long as marriage has existed as an institution. Bans on mixed race marriage are a relatively recent and short lived phenomenon. When bans on mixed race marriage were lifted, things just went back they way they have always been. That is in sharp contrast to the non-existent history of “gay marriage”.<<

 


 

“In the big sweep of human history and broad cross-cultural comparison, monogamous, heterosexual marriage, voluntarily entered into, is a pretty rare form of marriage,“ says Roger N. Lancaster, a professor of anthropology at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. ... “A wide swath of cultures have allowed or encouraged or celebrated same-sex unions,“ Lancaster says.

“The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution,“ his group says in a prepared statement.

In North America, Lancaster points to Native American cultures that allowed men to marry other men, if one partner underwent a ritual that assigned him a woman's responsibilities. In the 1800s, Lancaster says, two women could live together and be spoken of as a “Boston marriage.“ Two examples from elsewhere in the world are the Nuer people of Sudan in Africa, who allowed women to marry other women, and the samurai warriors of Japan, who sometimes married other men, he says.


It is unquestionable that the one man + one woman definition of marriage is more common today and has been for a while more common than other definitions, but it is also unquestionable that other conceptions of marriage have also been very common and that some forms of gay marriage have existed right alongside standards heterosexual definitions. No one who is even slightly familiar with the research and literature can deny this. Thus, either conservative opponents of gay marriage are unfamiliar with the research (which makes their pronouncements on the nature of marriage completely worthless) or they are familiar with it, but are lying to people.

407 Jan-9   From: freethinkertp   To: grasshopper

 Most of the laws in America do have origins in Christian-Judeo laws.<<

 

The foundation law of America has nothing to do with any Christian- Jewish law. It is called the Constitution and it came about this way:

 

When Thomas Jefferson went to Paris as ambassador in July of 1784, he and James Madison came to an agreement about services they could render to each other. From this agreement, Madison received two trunks of books which Jefferson had procured in Europe for Madison since books were in short supply and difficult to obtain in America.

 

 Madison used the books in study for preparation for the forthcoming Constitutional Convention of which he a delegate from Virginia. The books ranged far and wide in subject matter. Examples are - the coveted Encyclopedia Methodic, which Madison called a 'a complete scientific library,' treaties on morality and historic studies of ancient and not so ancient confederacies and leagues. These included the Amphictyonic and the Achean confederacy of ancient Greece; the Helvitic Confederacy of the fourteenth and fifteenth century in Switzerland; the Belgic confederacy after 1679; the Germanic confederacy, the Achaean League and Helvitic system and the German empire and Lycian Confederacy.

 

 Madison studied these systems as related to republicanism and in particular their faults and failures. From the study came our Constitution. The study was done at Montpelier. The Bible was not included in the study. Madison, as influenced by Jefferson was for absolute Separation of Church and State. Read his Detached Memoranda and his Memorial and Remonstrance.

Separation of Church and State is the Greatest Moral and Political Achievement in History.

408 Jan-10   From: Jim Odom   To: barbhauz
<<No, just that dictionaries aren't bibles and sometimes stray from original meanings, just like people do.

Or people dont realize that words have multiple meanings.>>

Some do. Others, like "homophobia", take on new meanings for no reason except to advance a political or ideological agenda. And that's a perversion of language.

409 Jan-10   From: barbhauz   To: Jim Odom
<<No, just that dictionaries aren't bibles and sometimes stray from original meanings, just like people do.

Or people dont realize that words have multiple meanings.>>

Some do. Others, like "homophobia", take on new meanings for no reason except to advance a political or ideological agenda. And that's a perversion of language.
***

And a phobia is an irrational fear-wanting to deny gays the right to be teachers, to marry, to have their shows on television, etc etc just because they are gay is an irrational fear.

;)

410   From: ALL   To: ALL
411 Jan-11   From: Jim Odom   To: barbhauz
<<And a phobia is an irrational fear-wanting to deny gays the right to be teachers, to marry, to have their shows on television, etc etc just because they are gay is an irrational fear.>>

You're going in circles.

Opposition to gay marriage has nothing inherently to do with fear, rational or otherwise; it may have little to do with attitude toward gays at all, but simply attitude toward marriage.

412 Jan-11   From: barbhauz   To: Jim Odom
<<And a phobia is an irrational fear-wanting to deny gays the right to be teachers, to marry, to have their shows on television, etc etc just because they are gay is an irrational fear.>>

You're going in circles.

Opposition to gay marriage has nothing inherently to do with fear,

It has everything to do with fear-fear that if it is allowed that people will go to hell, fear that it will bring about the end of the country or the end of the world, revulsion to the point where they want to deny people the right to work, live and believe ...it is all about fear.

*rational or otherwise; it may have little to do with attitude toward gays at all, but simply attitude toward marriage.

Hardly.

413 Jan-11   From: Jim Odom   To: barbhauz
<<It has everything to do with fear-fear that if it is allowed that people will go to hell, fear that it will bring about the end of the country or the end of the world, revulsion to the point where they want to deny people the right to work, live and believe ...>>

I know many people who oppose gay marriage, but very few who believe these things. You're doing the cause in which we both believe a disservice by exaggerating the nature and extent of the opposition.

414 Jan-11   From: terrytwright   To: Jim Odom
<<It has everything to do with fear-fear that if it is allowed that people will go to hell, fear that it will bring about the end of the country or the end of the world, revulsion to the point where they want to deny people the right to work, live and believe ...>>

I know many people who oppose gay marriage, but very few who believe these things. You're doing the cause in which we both believe a disservice by exaggerating the nature and extent of the opposition.

======================================================

How could you POSSIBLY do a "disservice" to a "cause" for which God commands us to implement the DEATH PENALTY against those who promote it?

But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you, Matthew 11:24

There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Deuteronomy 23:17

And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel. 1Kings 14:24

They die in youth, and their life is among the sodomites. Job 36:14

`And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood is on them. Lev 20:13

415 Jan-11   From: barbhauz   To: Jim Odom
<<It has everything to do with fear-fear that if it is allowed that people will go to hell, fear that it will bring about the end of the country or the end of the world, revulsion to the point where they want to deny people the right to work, live and believe ...>>

I know many people who oppose gay marriage, but very few who believe these things. You're doing the cause in which we both believe a disservice by exaggerating the nature and extent of the opposition.

And I know many people that do believe what I stated and I have also read the comments of many anti gays and their beliefs are based on fear.

From Falwel to Swaggart to Lott to Bush to Santorum..and the countless others that have made their beliefs public I will go by what I hear them say and it is based on their fear.

416 Jan-12   From: Jim Odom   To: barbhauz
<<And I know many people that do believe what I stated and I have also read the comments of many anti gays and their beliefs are based on fear.>>

From Falwel to Swaggart to Lott to Bush to Santorum..and the countless others that have made their beliefs public I will go by what I hear them say and it is based on their fear.>>

Bush is merely an opportunist on the issue, and has always done whatever was politically necessary to court the religious right vote. Yet he's also made overtures to groups like the Log Cabin Republicans, (something that Santorum, Falwell, Swaggart, etc. would never do). and which would never be done by someone who "fears" gays.

Your tendency to lump together everyone whose only similarity is that they oppose certain components of a gay rights agenda reflects the same kind of narrow-minded ignorance that so upsets you when it's practiced by religious conservatives. 

Ignorance and stereotyping aren't the way to advance an agenda, whether practiced by the Right or the Left.

417   From: ALL   To: ALL
418 Jan-12   From: freethinkertp   To: chr1stianparty

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story on the First Amendment<<

 

Discredited footnotes ain't gonna get it, along with arrogant 1s.

419 10:30 PM  From: terrytwright   To: freethinkertp

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story on the First Amendment<<

 

Discredited footnotes ain't gonna get it, along with arrogant 1s.

===============================

Discredited?

 

In what way has Joseph Story been "discredited"?

 

How about Thomas Jefferson and his view of the use of "governmenet property" for "religious purposes"?

 

"In our village of Charlottesville, there is a good degree of religion, with a small spice only of fanaticism. We have four sects, but without either church or meeting-house. The court-house is the common temple, one Sunday in the month to each. Here, Episcopalian and Presbyterian, Methodist and Baptist, meet together, join in hymning their Maker, listen with attention and devotion to each others' preachers, and all mix in society with perfect harmony."

 

TRAITOR McCain

jewn McCain

ASSASSIN of JFK, Patton, many other Whites

killed 264 MILLION Christians in WWII

killed 64 million Christians in Russia

holocaust denier extraordinaire--denying the Armenian holocaust

millions dead in the Middle East

tens of millions of dead Christians

LOST $1.2 TRILLION in Pentagon
spearheaded torture & sodomy of all non-jews
millions dead in Iraq

42 dead, mass murderer Goldman LOVED by jews

serial killer of 13 Christians

the REAL terrorists--not a single one is an Arab

serial killers are all jews

framed Christians for anti-semitism, got caught
left 350 firemen behind to die in WTC

legally insane debarred lawyer CENSORED free speech

mother of all fnazis, certified mentally ill

10,000 Whites DEAD from one jew LIE

moser HATED by jews: he followed the law

f.ck Jesus--from a "news" person!!

1000 fold the child of perdition

 

Hit Counter

 

Modified Saturday, March 11, 2017

Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party