# GA anti LGBT discrimination law



## Irish Pixie

GA wants religious law that is in violation of the Constitutional right to same sex marriage and other anti LGBT.

I was mocked me when I said recently that we'd have the christian version of sharia law if the religious could get away with it. Still think it's far fetched?

"Today, Georgia's State Senate voted in favor of a harmful anti-LGBT discrimination that will now be sent to Georgia's House of Representatives for a response. And this so-called "First Amendment Defense Act," is just the first of a series of so-called "religious freedom bills" under consideration in the Georgia legislature, which would allow individuals to cite their religious beliefs to discriminate against LGBT Georgians."

http://www.glaad.org/blog/georgia-senate-advances-anti-lgbt-discrimination-bill


----------



## Shine

Wow, I guess that LGBT people should avoid Georgia then.

In case anyone wants to read what is in the law, here:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2802/text

I really do not see what all the fuss is and I am absolutely certain that this is not your "Sharia Law Apocalypse"

Which portion of the Law do you disagree with?


----------



## po boy

Shine said:


> Wow, I guess that LGBT people should avoid Georgia then.
> 
> In case anyone wants to read what is in the law, here:
> 
> https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2802/text
> 
> I really do not see what all the fuss is and I am absolutely certain that this is not your "Sharia Law Apocalypse"
> 
> Which portion of the Law do you disagree with?


That's not the law...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Wow, I guess that LGBT people should avoid Georgia then.
> 
> In case anyone wants to read* what is in the law*, here:
> 
> https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2802/text
> 
> *I really do not see* what all the fuss is and I am absolutely certain that this is not your "Sharia Law Apocalypse"
> 
> Which portion of the Law do you disagree with?


You linked to a US House bill
The OP is about a GA Senate bill

Different Govts and different laws


----------



## po boy

Cliff Notes


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> GA wants religious law that is in violation of the Constitutional right to same sex marriage and other anti LGBT.
> 
> I was mocked me when I said recently that we'd have the christian version of sharia law if the religious could get away with it. Still think it's far fetched?
> 
> "Today, Georgia's State Senate voted in favor of a harmful anti-LGBT discrimination that will now be sent to Georgia's House of Representatives for a response. And this so-called "First Amendment Defense Act," is just the first of a series of so-called "religious freedom bills" under consideration in the Georgia legislature, which would allow individuals to cite their religious beliefs to discriminate against LGBT Georgians."
> 
> http://www.glaad.org/blog/georgia-senate-advances-anti-lgbt-discrimination-bill


Nope..not far fetched. This is those bad ol Christiains enacting sharia law down in Georgia...I would pull up roots in NY and head down there with the troops to defeat this action right now...I'll be down in just a bit.


----------



## coolrunnin

elevenpoint said:


> Nope..not far fetched. This is those bad ol Christiains enacting sharia law down in Georgia...I would pull up roots in NY and head down there with the troops to defeat this action right now...I'll be down in just a bit.


Did you read the law? If that isn't a dangerous road to go down I don't know what would be.


----------



## coolrunnin

The article is very poorly written and has a hard time conveying a message.


----------



## no really

coolrunnin said:


> The article is very poorly written and has a hard time conveying a message.


Thank you, I thought it was just me. Do not, I repeat do not try to read law speak while under the influence of pain medication!


----------



## Shine

My mistake, I just read the law from:

http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20152016/HB/757

[....hope that is the one that you are referring to, I did not want NSA to see that I was going to the posted site - lol]

So, let me get this straight. The bill makes certain that Pastors, Ministers and other Religious Officials that are tasked to deliver the Holy Writ of Matrimony upon a Man and a Woman will not have to bestow this particular Writ, which is between God and the Couple, upon a couple that violates a tenet of the Bible, correct? Further, with regards to marriage, it essentially states that the Government cannot punish a Church or their Officials that refuses to do a marriage that is outsides of the guidelines of what is stated in the Bible.

It also sets aside the opportunity for a person that takes a day of rest as the Bible suggests to schedule this with their employer and the employer must make allowances in as far as possible.

Are these the items that you find offensive or is there something that I missed?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> *Are these the items that you find offensive *or is there something that I missed?


Which parts do you like?


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Which parts do you like?


OOO All right, we're going to play the question game.... Oh, Boy!!!


----------



## Elevenpoint

coolrunnin said:


> Did you read the law? If that isn't a dangerous road to go down I don't know what would be.





Shine said:


> My mistake, I just read the law from:
> 
> http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20152016/HB/757
> 
> [....hope that is the one that you are referring to, I did not want NSA to see that I was going to the posted site - lol]
> 
> So, let me get this straight. The bill makes certain that Pastors, Ministers and other Religious Officials that are tasked to deliver the Holy Writ of Matrimony upon a Man and a Woman will not have to bestow this particular Writ, which is between God and the Couple, upon a couple that violates a tenet of the Bible, correct? Further, with regards to marriage, it essentially states that the Government cannot punish a Church or their Officials that refuses to do a marriage that is outsides of the guidelines of what is stated in the Bible.
> 
> It also sets aside the opportunity for a person that takes a day of rest as the Bible suggests to schedule this with their employer and the employer must make allowances in as far as possible.
> 
> Are these the items that you find offensive or is there something that I missed?


Yea...my bad...made the mistake of not reading it because I really believed someone would post the truth. One day I will learn how liberal's slant it out of proportion. Of course the Biblical view is beat to nothing...same sex does not work. Plus their domestic voilence issues are through the roof.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> OOO All right, we're going to *play the question game.*... Oh, Boy!!!


It's what you normally do, so why complain if someone else asks a question?

How is it not like "sharia law" if you want regulations based only on religious beliefs?


----------



## Shine

I've got an idea!!! Let's talk about this:

SECTION 1-1.

Chapter 3 of Title 19 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to marriage generally, is amended by adding a new Code section to read as follows:

19-3-11.

(a) No minister of the gospel or cleric or 
religious practitioner ordained or authorized to solemnize marriages, perform rites, or administer sacraments according to the usages of the denomination, when acting in his or her official religious capacity, shall be required to solemnize any marriage, perform any rite, or administer any sacrament in violation of his or her right to free exercise of religion under the Constitution of this state or of the United States.

(b) A refusal by an ordained or authorized person pursuant to subsection (a) of this Code section shall not give rise to a civil claim or cause of action against such person or result
in any state action to penalize, withhold benefits from, or discriminate against such person based on such refusal.

SECTION 1-2.

Chapter 1 of Title 10 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to selling and other trade practices, is amended by revising Code Section 10-1-573, relating to day of rest for employees of business and industry, as follows:

10-1-573.

(a) Any business or industry which operates on either of the two rest days (Saturday or Sunday) and employs those whose habitual day of worship has been chosen by the employer as a day of work shall make all reasonable accommodations to the religious, social, and physical needs of such employees so that those employees may enjoy the same benefits as employees in other occupations.

(b) No business or industry shall be required by ordinance or resolution of any county, municipality, or consolidated government to operate on either of the two rest days (Saturday or Sunday).

SECTION 1-3.

Said chapter is further amended by adding a new article to read as follows:

ARTICLE 35

10-1-1000.

(a) As used in this Code section, the term 'religious organization' means a church, a religious school, an association or convention of churches, a convention mission agency, or an integrated auxiliary of a church or convention or association of churches, when such entity is qualified as an exempt religious organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

(b) No religious organization shall be required to rent, lease, or otherwise grant permission for property to be used by another person for an event which is objectionable to such
religious organization.

(c) A refusal by a religious organization pursuant to subsection (b) of this Code section shall not give rise to a civil claim or cause of action against such religious organization or an employee thereof or result in any state action to penalize, withhold benefits from, or discriminate against the religious organization or employee based on such refusal.

PART II

SECTION 2-1.

This part shall be known and may be cited as the "First Amendment Defense Act of Georgia."

SECTION 2-2.

Title 50 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to state government, is amended by adding a new chapter to read as follows:

CHAPTER 15A

50-15A-1.

As used in this chapter, the term:

(1) 'Adverse action' means any action to:

(A) Alter in any way state tax treatment of an exemption from taxation under state law;

(B) Cause any tax, penalty, or payment to be assessed against a person or faith-based organization or deny, delay, or revoke an exemption from taxation under state law;

(C) Disallow a deduction for state tax purposes of any charitable contribution made to or by a person or faith-based organization;

(D) Deny, withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, reprimand, censure, or otherwise make unavailable any government grant, contract, subcontract, cooperative agreement, loan, guarantee, license, certification, scholarship, accreditation, employment, or other similar position or status from or to a person or faith-based organization;

(E) Deny, withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise make unavailable any public benefit from or to a person or faith-based organization, including for purposes of this chapter admission to, equal treatment in, or eligibility for a degree from any educational program at any educational facility administered by a government; or 

(F) Deny, withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, condition, or otherwise make unavailable access to any speech forum (whether a traditional, limited, or nonpublic forum) administered by a government, including access to education facilities available for use by student or community organizations. (2) 'Faith-based organization' means any organization or other legal entity whose governing documents or mission statement expressly acknowledges a religious belief or purpose.

(3) 'Government' means the state or any local subdivision of the state or public instrumentality or public corporate body created by or under authority of state law, including but not limited to the executive, legislative, and judicial branches and every department, agency, board, bureau, office, commission, authority, or similar body thereof; municipalities; counties; school districts; special taxing districts; conservation districts; authorities; and any other state or local public instrumentality or corporation.

(4) 'Person' means any natural person.

(5) 'Public benefit' shall have the same meaning as set forth in Code Section 50-36-1.

50-15A-2.

(a) Government shall not take any adverse action against a person or faith-based organization wholly or partially on the basis that such person or faith-based organization believes, speaks, or acts in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief regarding lawful marriage between two people, incl
uding the belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a union.

(b) A person or faith-based organization may assert a violation of this chapter as a claim or defense in a judicial, agency, or other proceeding and obtain a declaratory judgment or injunctive relief against a government.

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an action under this chapter may be commenced, and relief may be granted, in a court of competent jurisdiction without regard
to whether the person or faith-based organization commencing the action has sought or exhausted available administrative remedies.

(d) The Attorney General may bring an action for a declaratory judgment or injunctive relief for any violation of this chapter.

(e) When an aggrieved person or faith-based organization prevails in an action pursuant to this Code section, the court may award reasonable attorney's fees and expenses of
litigation.

(f) No person or faith-based organization having a claim against a government under this chapter shall bring any action against such government upon such claim without first
giving notice of the claim to such government, in writing, by certified mail or statutory overnight delivery, at least 30 days prior to filing such action, setting forth the particular adverse action alleged to have been taken by the government against such person or faith-based organization.

- 5 -
50-15A-3.
For purposes of this chapter, government shall consider accredited, licensed, or certified any person or faith-based organization that would have been accredited, licensed, or
certified by a nongovernmental agency but for a determination by the agency against such person or faith-based organization wholly or partially on the basis that the person or faith-based organization believes, speaks, or acts in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief regarding lawful marriage between two people, including that marriage
should only be between a man and a woman or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a union.

(a) This chapter shall be construed in favor of a broad 
protection of free exercise of religious beliefs to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter, the United States Constitution, and the Constitution of this state.

(b) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to narrow the meaning or application of any other law of this state protecting free exercise of religious beliefs.

(c) Any other provisions of this chapter notwithstanding, nothing in this chapter shall be applied to afford any protection or relief to a public officer or employee who fails or refuses to perform his or her official duties.

SECTION 2-3.

Said title is further amended by adding a new Code section to Article 2 of Chapter 21, relating to state tort claims, to read as follows:

50-21-38.

The defense of sovereign immunity is waived as to any claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim brought in the courts of this state by an aggrieved person or faith-based organization seeking a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, or reasonable attorney's fees and expenses of litigation against the state or any political subdivision thereof as provided for in Chapter 15A of this title. In any such case, the applicable provisions of Chapter 15A of this title shall control to the extent of any conflict with the provisions of this article.


PART III

SECTION 3-1.

This Act shall become effective upon its approval by the Governor or upon its becoming law without such approval.

- 6 -
SECTION 3-2.

All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are repealed


----------



## Shine

I do not see much in there to be worried about. The LGBT crowd has their protection, we've got ours. What part bothers you and where are the provisions for Christian Sharia Law?


----------



## poppy

Bearfootfarm said:


> Which parts do you like?


As to the part about not forcing pastors to perform marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs, I seem to remember the left telling us that gay marriage would never require pastors to do that. If it ain't gonna happen anyway, what is wrong with a law making sure it doesn't happen? You know as well as I the gays will try to force pastors to marry them.


----------



## Lisa in WA

poppy said:


> As to the part about not forcing pastors to perform marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs, I seem to remember the left telling us that gay marriage would never require pastors to do that. If it ain't gonna happen anyway, what is wrong with a law making sure it doesn't happen? You know as well as I the gays will try to force pastors to marry them.


Nonsense. Seems like the right tells us all the time that we don't need any more laws, we just need to enforce the ones we have.


----------



## Irish Pixie

poppy said:


> As to the part about not forcing pastors to perform marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs, I seem to remember the left telling us that gay marriage would never require pastors to do that. If it ain't gonna happen anyway, what is wrong with a law making sure it doesn't happen? You know as well as I the gays will try to force pastors to marry them.


No religious whatever has been forced to perform a marriage. The GA law is preemptive.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Seven laws specific to religion and no one can see the resemblance to sharia law? SMH


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> Seven laws specific to religion and no one can see the resemblance to sharia law? SMH


I saw nothing that allowed for stoning or beating. Just protection against forcing people to go against their beliefs, which you say will never happen anyway so what's the harm?


----------



## Lisa in WA

Irish Pixie said:


> Seven laws specific to religion and no one can see the resemblance to sharia law? SMH


I think it's pretty obvious. But as long as they aren't passed by Muslims, it's all good, right?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> I've got an idea!!! Let's talk about this:
> 
> (Insert a useless page of drivel making discrimination legal)
> 
> All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are repealed


So now that you have shown you can copy and paste, which parts of the law do you like?


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> I saw nothing that allowed for stoning or beating. Just protection against forcing people to go against their beliefs, which you say will never happen anyway so what's the harm?


*Religious* *law* in a democratic republic that has the separation of church and state in the Constitution. A state is trying to pass seven religious laws and you say what's the harm?


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> *Religious* *law* in a democratic republic that has the separation of church and state in the Constitution. A state is trying to pass seven religious laws and you say what's the harm?


People wanting to exercise their right to say no...shocking! Now if it said they where going to force gays to not be gay or arrest them for being gay I would agree with you.


----------



## Irish Pixie

basketti said:


> I think it's pretty obvious. But as long as they aren't passed by Muslims, it's all good, right?


Or OK stonings, beatings, or beheadings... I guess mixing religion into law is fine and dandy as long as it's christian, that is.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

poppy said:


> As to the part about not forcing pastors to perform marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs, I seem to remember the left telling us that gay marriage would never require pastors to do that. If it ain't gonna happen anyway, what is wrong with a law making sure it doesn't happen? You know as well as I the gays will try to force pastors to marry them.


It hasn't happened as far as I know so why should a law be needed?

"What is *wrong"* is making a law based on religious beliefs.

You'd all be having hissy fits if someone wanted to pass a law protecting Muslims in a similar manner


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> People wanting to exercise their right to say no...shocking!


Another way of putting it is legalized discrimination, but that just sounds ugly doesn't it?


----------



## JeffreyD

Irish Pixie said:


> *Religious* *law* in a democratic republic that has the separation of church and state in the Constitution. A state is trying to pass seven religious laws and you say what's the harm?


America is a Constitutional Republic, not a democratic republic. Shouldn't you know this? Where exactly does the Constitution say " separation of church and state"?


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> Another way of putting it is legalized discrimination, but that just sounds ugly doesn't it?


Nope not at all. Gays will still have the right to marry, and people who choose not to participate will have the right not to. Sounds perfectly fair to both sides. Of course you don't want fair to both sides, you want to be able to force your beliefs on others. That's discrimination.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> Nope not at all. Gays will still have the right to marry, and people who choose not to participate will have the right not to. Sounds perfectly fair to both sides. Of course you don't want fair to both sides, you want to be able to force your beliefs on others. That's discrimination.


Did you bother to read the other six laws?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Some weren't happy with a simple school assignment since it had to do with Islam, but are thrilled over this legal discrimination law. 

Remember this?:

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/sp...t-assignment-copy-muslem-statement-faith.html


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> Some weren't happy with a simple school assignment since it had to do with Islam, but are thrilled over this legal discrimination law.
> 
> Remember this?:
> 
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/sp...t-assignment-copy-muslem-statement-faith.html


I remember. It was a lot like this scene out of Ghostbusters 

Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?
Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
Mayor: All right, all right! I get the point!


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> I remember. It was a lot like this scene out of Ghostbusters
> 
> Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
> Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?
> Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.
> Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
> Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
> Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
> Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
> Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
> Mayor: All right, all right! I get the point!


Just stay same sex....that normal after alll?


----------



## poppy

Bearfootfarm said:


> It hasn't happened as far as I know so why should a law be needed?
> 
> "What is *wrong"* is making a law based on religious beliefs.
> 
> You'd all be having hissy fits if someone wanted to pass a law protecting Muslims in a similar manner


I have no problem with a law protecting Imams from being forced to marry anyone. In fact, the law in the op would do just that. I have no idea how your thinking process came to that conclusion. I also have no idea why any sane person could object to the law in the OP. It requires gays to give up nothing and it requires pastors to give up nothing. It's completely reasonable. As far as your argument that it hasn't happened yet, so what? Laws are passed all the time preempting things which are likely to occur. When they finally passed concealed carry here in Illinois, the law preempted cities and municipalities from passing many gun laws to circumvent the CC law. It hadn't happened yet, but it was clear they would try.


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> I remember. It was a lot like this scene out of Ghostbusters
> 
> Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
> Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?
> Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.
> Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
> Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
> Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
> Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
> Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
> Mayor: All right, all right! I get the point!


Just read that thread not nearly as dramatic as you get over people praying for you but nice way to try to make like it was. Back to your subject. I see nothing in the laws about forcing gays to denounce their personal faith so it's mute point.


----------



## coolrunnin

It's really scary that someone feels the need to pass a law to protect an amendment to the constitution.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> So now that you have shown you can copy and paste, which parts of the law do you like?


I am OK with the whole thing.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Or OK stonings, beatings, or beheadings... I guess mixing religion into law is fine and dandy as long as it's christian, that is.


You realize that you are becoming an extremist with the views that you are presenting? You are incensed regarding what you call a preemptive law and your logic is to project what you think will happen in the future. That's some great thinking there... lol


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> Just read that thread not nearly as dramatic as you get over people praying for you but nice way to try to make like it was. Back to your subject. I see nothing in the laws about forcing gays to denounce their personal faith so it's mute point.


Fennick (thank you so much!) pointed out to me that I should feel sorry for those that pray for me, if their faith was strong within themselves they wouldn't need to annoy me. It was very freeing. 

I also found this by Paul Coelho, "The warrior who trusts his path doesn't need to prove the other way is wrong. 

So if someone has such little faith in their god that they have to harass me over my lack of faith they have a serious problem. 

It's not moot point, it's legalized discrimination. You may not want to admit it but that is irrelevant.


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> I also found this by Paul Coelho, "The warrior who trusts his path doesn't need to prove the other way is wrong.
> 
> So if someone has such little faith in their god that they have to harass me over my lack of faith they have a serious problem.
> 
> It's not moot point, it's legalized discrimination. You may not want to admit it but that is irrelevant.


Good quote and it goes both ways doesn't it? For it not be discrimination it would have to treat both side equally... the laws you want don't. You may not want to admit it but that too is irrelevant.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

poppy said:


> I have no problem with *a law* protecting Imams from being forced to marry anyone. In fact, *the law* in the op would do just that. I have no idea how your thinking process came to that conclusion. I also have no idea why any sane person could object to *the law* in the OP. It requires gays to give up nothing and it requires pastors to give up nothing. It's completely reasonable. As far as your argument that it hasn't happened yet, so what? Laws are passed all the time preempting things which are likely to occur. When they finally passed concealed carry here in Illinois, the law preempted cities and municipalities from passing many gun laws to circumvent the CC law. It hadn't happened yet, but it was clear they would try.


That "one law" is just part of the package.
Didn't you read the OP?:



> And this so-called "First Amendment Defense Act," is *just the first of a series* of so-called "religious freedom bills" under consideration in the Georgia legislature, which would allow individuals to cite their religious beliefs to discriminate against LGBT Georgians."





> Among the other bills being considered are:
> 
> House Bill 218 - "Preventing Government Overreach on Religious Expression Act"
> Senate Bill 284 - "First Amendment Defense Act of Georgia"
> House Bill 756 - the "Discrimination Protection Act"
> House Bill 816 - "Student Religious Freedom Act"
> House Bill 870 and Senate Bill 309 - Student Athletic Uniforms and Play
> House Bill 757 - the "Pastor Protection Act"
> Senate Resolution 388 - Georgia State Constitutional Amendment to Fund Religious Organizations


http://www.glaad.org/blog/georgia-senate-advances-anti-lgbt-discrimination-bill


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> Good quote and it goes both ways doesn't it? For it not be discrimination it would have to treat both side equally... the laws you want don't. You may not want to admit it but that too is irrelevant.


I'm sure you want to think that legalized discrimination is fine and dandy, but it's not. LGBT are human beings and deserve respect.

If you believe the fairy tale of religion that's fine, I don't.


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm sure you want to think that legalized discrimination is fine and dandy, but it's not. LGBT are human beings and deserve respect.
> 
> If you believe the fairy tale of religion that's fine, I don't.


I agree 100% that they are humans and should be treated as such. Not better than anyone else though. Now as for the snarky comment I can only assume you don't believe respect is a 2 way street.


----------



## Shine

The government protects others from discrimination, correct? Why cannot the government those that sincerely follow the teachings of Christ? You want the government in the protection, its got to be all around, not just your favored groups.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> The government protects others from discrimination, correct? Why cannot the government those that sincerely follow the teachings of Christ? You want the government in the protection, its got to be all around, not just your favored groups.


The federal government established protected classes to force the citizenry to treat everyone fairly. It's not like they'd do it on their own. LGBT is a protected class at the federal level. 

My "favored groups" are human beings. I don't even mind the religious if they don't harass with me their woo. 

I do not want religious law governing my country. That's why we have the separation of church and state. I don't understand why you (collective you) don't see that having any christian law is like sharia law. It's all religious law.


----------



## Shine

Just finished reading all 7 of the new laws. I am on board with each one. They seem to level the playing field whereas there is much that is taken away from people of faith by the laws set to protect LGBT persons, these laws come to the aid of persons of faith so as to protect them. Equal rights for all? ...or just some?


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> I agree 100% that they are humans and should be treated as such. Not better than anyone else though. Now as for the snarky comment I can only assume you don't believe respect is a 2 way street.


Yes, respect is a two way street. 



dixiegal62 said:


> Just read that thread not nearly as dramatic as you get over people praying for you but nice way to try to make like it was.


So you agree that a business that makes wedding cakes must make a wedding cake for a gay couple, right? That's exactly the same treatment. Good.


----------



## Shine

Show me the text where is calls for the separation of Church and State in the Constitution. It is not in the First Amendment, where is it?


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Yes, respect is a two way street.
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that a business that makes wedding cakes must make a wedding cake for a gay couple, right? That's exactly the same treatment. Good.


Yes, now in Georgia they understand that making a wedding cake can be construed as participating in said wedding. Why do you intend to force people to do that which their religion is against? 

They even covered the wedding cake in their laws, good for them.

All this fluff is just because your chosen group cannot force themselves upon others now in Georgia. Someone said "about time" on the first page, I second that.


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> Yes, respect is a two way street.
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that a business that makes wedding cakes must make a wedding cake for a gay couple, right? That's exactly the same treatment. Good.


I'll put it to you this way. I would never go into a known gay, jewish, muslim, atheist, or christian bakery and ask for them to make something I knew was against their beliefs because I repect their right to practice what they believe.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> Show me the text where is calls for the separation of Church and State in the Constitution. It is not in the First Amendment, where is it?


Sigh. "The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations ...

and 

"Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."[2]"

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> I'll put it to you this way. I would never go into a known gay, jewish, muslim, atheist, or christian bakery and ask for them to make something I knew was against their beliefs because I repect their right to practice what they believe.


How wonderful for you. LGBT have the right to have the exact same wedding cake as straight couples.


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> How wonderful for you. LGBT have the right to have the exact same wedding cake as straight couples.


I never said they didnt, did I?


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> I never said they didnt, did I?


Sigh. The right to refuse to make a cake etc. for a marrying gay couple is one of the proposed laws in GA you agree with...


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> Sigh. The right to refuse to make a cake etc. for a marrying gay couple is one of the proposed laws in GA you agree with...


Yes it is... they shouldn't have to right to force others they do have the right to go elsewhere or repect others beleifs.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> Yes it is... they shouldn't have to right to force others they do have the right to go elsewhere or repect others beleifs.


But you said "I agree 100% that they are humans and should be treated as such. *Not better than anyone else though*." If a bakery that makes wedding cakes refuses to make one for LGBT how equal is that? Hint: not at all.


----------



## dixiegal62

T


Irish Pixie said:


> But you said "I agree 100% that they are humans and should be treated as such. *Not better than anyone else though*." If a bakery that makes wedding cakes refuses to make one for LGBT how equal is that? Hint: not at all.


There you go again thinking respect only goes one way. If some gays hadn't been so quick to start throwing their weight around and not respecting others beliefs this more than likely wouldn't even be an issue.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> The government protects others from discrimination, correct? Why cannot the government those that sincerely follow the teachings of Christ? You want the government in the protection, its got to be all around, not just your favored groups.


This has nothing to do with "protection"

The clergy can't be forced to perform weddings now unless they run "marriage chapels" as a business.

Businesses cannot treat customers nor employees differently based on religion and that is what these laws would do.

Anti-discrimination laws don't protect special groups
They make all groups the same


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> T
> 
> There you go again thinking respect only goes one way. If some gays hadn't been so quick to start throwing their weight around and not respecting others beliefs this more than likely wouldn't even be an issue.


Not what you said, at all. If you want to change your mind that's fine...

Asking a bakery to make you the same wedding cake as a straight couple is not "throwing your weight around" it's simply asking to be treated equally.


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> Not what you said, at all. If you want to change your mind that's fine...
> 
> Asking a bakery to make you the same wedding cake as a straight couple is not "throwing your weight around" it's simply asking to be treated equally.


You are free to try to twist my words to your liking but it doesn't change anything. Its just a worn out liberal tactic to try to prove yourself right. As far as your other comment, it should start or end with ' in your opinion'. My opinion is different.


----------



## arabian knight

dixiegal62 said:


> You are free to try to twist my words to your liking but it doesn't change anything. Its just a worn out liberal tactic to try to prove yourself right. As far as your other comment, it should start or end with ' in your opinion'. My opinion is different.


And I agree with you it is good law. The left always likes to tweak twist and leave out important info just to make them right. And That in and by itself is not the right thing to do.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by dixiegal62 View Post
> You are free to try to twist my words to your liking but it doesn't change anything. Its just a worn out liberal tactic to try to prove yourself right. As far as your other comment, it should start or end with ' in your opinion'. My opinion is different.





arabian knight said:


> And I agree with you it is good law. The left always likes to tweak twist and leave out important info just to make them right. And That in and by itself is *not the right thing to do*.


No one "threw their weight around".

They just wanted to be treated *the same* as all other customers.
That's current law for businesses open to the public

No one needs to twist any words to make these new laws look like discrimination based solely on religion.

This law wants to force businesses to give people days off if they claim it's their "Sabbath" but many were quite happy when a group of Muslims couldn't get a business to let them pray several times a day.

It's funny how "the right thing to do" only applies to your favorite group


----------



## TraderBob

Irish Pixie said:


> Not what you said, at all. If you want to change your mind that's fine...
> 
> Asking a bakery to make you the same wedding cake as a straight couple is not "throwing your weight around" it's simply asking to be treated equally.


...and the baker should have the right to say no..it is his business. You don't have the right to make him do so, and the government shouldn't have the right to force him to. 

That's what wrong with country..everybody wants a law to protect their feelings..oh boohoo. Whiny little children, with a "me, me, me" attitude.

Y'all better be happy I'm not in charge. I'd get rid of most of the prisons, all of the lawyers, frivolous and most other lawsuits, and bring back the death penalty nationwide...and include lethal defense of property.

Punching someone for an insult would be just fine...maybe people would keep their mouths shut more.....and stop demanding someone do something they don't feel like doing.

I think we'd have a much more civil society...if you don't like them rules, there are plenty of other countries to choose from, we'll even help those who wish to leave, do so.


----------



## arabian knight

TraderBob said:


> ...and the baker should have the right to say no..it is his business. You don't have the right to make him do so, and the government shouldn't have the right to force him to.
> 
> *That's what wrong with country..everybody wants a law to protect their feelings..oh boohoo. Whiny little children, with a "me, me, me" attitude.*
> 
> Y'all better be happy I'm not in charge. I'd get rid of most of the prisons, all of the lawyers, frivolous and most other lawsuits, and bring back the death penalty nationwide...and include lethal defense of property.
> 
> Punching someone for an insult would be just fine...maybe people would keep their mouths shut more.....and stop demanding someone do something they don't feel like doing.
> 
> I think we'd have a much more civil society...if you don't like them rules, there are plenty of other countries to choose from, we'll even help those who wish to leave, do so.


Here is a liberal Hurt Feelings Report that was sent out to parents.
A school in Delaware will literally give you something to cry about - instead of sending parents a weekly newsletter, Lombardy Elementary School mistakenly emailed. ya right we all know now that THIS is the agenda of the liberal left for sure in black and white.

A Hurt Feelings Report Card.










Time for the left to get a grip on life and have stronger skin it has gotten so thin from all the progressive thoughts on how THEY think this country should be run.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Not what you said, at all. If you want to change your mind that's fine...
> 
> Asking a bakery to make you the same wedding cake as a straight couple is not "throwing your weight around" it's simply asking to be treated equally.


Without any regard for the person who might have an employer that would force them to make the cake or get fired.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one "threw their weight around".
> 
> They just wanted to be treated *the same* as all other customers.
> That's current law for businesses open to the public
> 
> No one needs to twist any words to make these new laws look like discrimination based solely on religion.
> 
> This law wants to force businesses to give people days off if they claim it's their "Sabbath" but many were quite happy when a group of Muslims couldn't get a business to let them pray several times a day.
> 
> It's funny how "the right thing to do" only applies to your favorite group


Well, with pixie trying to throw her weight around shrilly screaming bout "Sharia Law" and all about how this will destroy America I kind of wonder, maybe this is the right thing to have done. Now we have protections from the LGBT crowd trying to barge into the Churches to demand the "equal rights" that they have "obtained" with this silly cake spat. 

Remember? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, *or prohibiting the free exercise thereof*"

If there is a separation of Church and State and that the Government shall make no law that restricts the free exercise of religion then it would appear that the law requiring Christians to participate in a wedding that is otherwise than what is described in the Bible would be non-constitutional in nature.


----------



## City Bound

Shine said:


> I've got an idea!!! Let's talk about this:
> 
> SECTION 1-1.
> 
> Chapter 3 of Title 19 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to marriage generally, is amended by adding a new Code section to read as follows:
> 
> 19-3-11.
> 
> (a) No minister of the gospel or cleric or
> religious practitioner ordained or authorized to solemnize marriages, perform rites, or administer sacraments according to the usages of the denomination, when acting in his or her official religious capacity, shall be required to solemnize any marriage, perform any rite, or administer any sacrament in violation of his or her right to free exercise of religion under the Constitution of this state or of the United States.
> 
> (b) A refusal by an ordained or authorized person pursuant to subsection (a) of this Code section shall not give rise to a civil claim or cause of action against such person or result
> in any state action to penalize, withhold benefits from, or discriminate against such person based on such refusal.
> 
> SECTION 1-2.
> 
> Chapter 1 of Title 10 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to selling and other trade practices, is amended by revising Code Section 10-1-573, relating to day of rest for employees of business and industry, as follows:
> 
> 10-1-573.
> 
> (a) Any business or industry which operates on either of the two rest days (Saturday or Sunday) and employs those whose habitual day of worship has been chosen by the employer as a day of work shall make all reasonable accommodations to the religious, social, and physical needs of such employees so that those employees may enjoy the same benefits as employees in other occupations.
> 
> (b) No business or industry shall be required by ordinance or resolution of any county, municipality, or consolidated government to operate on either of the two rest days (Saturday or Sunday).
> 
> SECTION 1-3.
> 
> Said chapter is further amended by adding a new article to read as follows:
> 
> ARTICLE 35
> 
> 10-1-1000.
> 
> (a) As used in this Code section, the term 'religious organization' means a church, a religious school, an association or convention of churches, a convention mission agency, or an integrated auxiliary of a church or convention or association of churches, when such entity is qualified as an exempt religious organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
> 
> (b) No religious organization shall be required to rent, lease, or otherwise grant permission for property to be used by another person for an event which is objectionable to such
> religious organization.
> 
> (c) A refusal by a religious organization pursuant to subsection (b) of this Code section shall not give rise to a civil claim or cause of action against such religious organization or an employee thereof or result in any state action to penalize, withhold benefits from, or discriminate against the religious organization or employee based on such refusal.
> 
> PART II
> 
> SECTION 2-1.
> 
> This part shall be known and may be cited as the "First Amendment Defense Act of Georgia."
> 
> SECTION 2-2.
> 
> Title 50 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to state government, is amended by adding a new chapter to read as follows:
> 
> CHAPTER 15A
> 
> 50-15A-1.
> 
> As used in this chapter, the term:
> 
> (1) 'Adverse action' means any action to:
> 
> (A) Alter in any way state tax treatment of an exemption from taxation under state law;
> 
> (B) Cause any tax, penalty, or payment to be assessed against a person or faith-based organization or deny, delay, or revoke an exemption from taxation under state law;
> 
> (C) Disallow a deduction for state tax purposes of any charitable contribution made to or by a person or faith-based organization;
> 
> (D) Deny, withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, reprimand, censure, or otherwise make unavailable any government grant, contract, subcontract, cooperative agreement, loan, guarantee, license, certification, scholarship, accreditation, employment, or other similar position or status from or to a person or faith-based organization;
> 
> (E) Deny, withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise make unavailable any public benefit from or to a person or faith-based organization, including for purposes of this chapter admission to, equal treatment in, or eligibility for a degree from any educational program at any educational facility administered by a government; or
> 
> (F) Deny, withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, condition, or otherwise make unavailable access to any speech forum (whether a traditional, limited, or nonpublic forum) administered by a government, including access to education facilities available for use by student or community organizations. (2) 'Faith-based organization' means any organization or other legal entity whose governing documents or mission statement expressly acknowledges a religious belief or purpose.
> 
> (3) 'Government' means the state or any local subdivision of the state or public instrumentality or public corporate body created by or under authority of state law, including but not limited to the executive, legislative, and judicial branches and every department, agency, board, bureau, office, commission, authority, or similar body thereof; municipalities; counties; school districts; special taxing districts; conservation districts; authorities; and any other state or local public instrumentality or corporation.
> 
> (4) 'Person' means any natural person.
> 
> (5) 'Public benefit' shall have the same meaning as set forth in Code Section 50-36-1.
> 
> 50-15A-2.
> 
> (a) Government shall not take any adverse action against a person or faith-based organization wholly or partially on the basis that such person or faith-based organization believes, speaks, or acts in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief regarding lawful marriage between two people, incl
> uding the belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a union.
> 
> (b) A person or faith-based organization may assert a violation of this chapter as a claim or defense in a judicial, agency, or other proceeding and obtain a declaratory judgment or injunctive relief against a government.
> 
> (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an action under this chapter may be commenced, and relief may be granted, in a court of competent jurisdiction without regard
> to whether the person or faith-based organization commencing the action has sought or exhausted available administrative remedies.
> 
> (d) The Attorney General may bring an action for a declaratory judgment or injunctive relief for any violation of this chapter.
> 
> (e) When an aggrieved person or faith-based organization prevails in an action pursuant to this Code section, the court may award reasonable attorney's fees and expenses of
> litigation.
> 
> (f) No person or faith-based organization having a claim against a government under this chapter shall bring any action against such government upon such claim without first
> giving notice of the claim to such government, in writing, by certified mail or statutory overnight delivery, at least 30 days prior to filing such action, setting forth the particular adverse action alleged to have been taken by the government against such person or faith-based organization.
> 
> - 5 -
> 50-15A-3.
> For purposes of this chapter, government shall consider accredited, licensed, or certified any person or faith-based organization that would have been accredited, licensed, or
> certified by a nongovernmental agency but for a determination by the agency against such person or faith-based organization wholly or partially on the basis that the person or faith-based organization believes, speaks, or acts in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief regarding lawful marriage between two people, including that marriage
> should only be between a man and a woman or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a union.
> 
> (a) This chapter shall be construed in favor of a broad
> protection of free exercise of religious beliefs to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter, the United States Constitution, and the Constitution of this state.
> 
> (b) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to narrow the meaning or application of any other law of this state protecting free exercise of religious beliefs.
> 
> (c) Any other provisions of this chapter notwithstanding, nothing in this chapter shall be applied to afford any protection or relief to a public officer or employee who fails or refuses to perform his or her official duties.
> 
> SECTION 2-3.
> 
> Said title is further amended by adding a new Code section to Article 2 of Chapter 21, relating to state tort claims, to read as follows:
> 
> 50-21-38.
> 
> The defense of sovereign immunity is waived as to any claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim brought in the courts of this state by an aggrieved person or faith-based organization seeking a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, or reasonable attorney's fees and expenses of litigation against the state or any political subdivision thereof as provided for in Chapter 15A of this title. In any such case, the applicable provisions of Chapter 15A of this title shall control to the extent of any conflict with the provisions of this article.
> 
> 
> PART III
> 
> SECTION 3-1.
> 
> This Act shall become effective upon its approval by the Governor or upon its becoming law without such approval.
> 
> - 6 -
> SECTION 3-2.
> 
> All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are repealed


This is a good bill. It is protecting individuals and originations freedom of religion. 

Penalizing a church for not performing a gay marriage is a violation of the individuals or the organizations religious freedom to perform their religion.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> Well, with pixie trying to throw her weight around shrilly screaming bout "Sharia Law" and all about how this will destroy America I kind of wonder, maybe this is the right thing to have done. Now we have protections from the LGBT crowd trying to barge into the Churches to demand the "equal rights" that they have "obtained" with this silly cake spat.
> 
> Remember? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, *or prohibiting the free exercise thereof*"
> 
> If there is a separation of Church and State and that the Government shall make no law that restricts the free exercise of religion then it would appear that the law requiring Christians to participate in a wedding that is otherwise than what is described in the Bible would be non-constitutional in nature.


I've never screamed shrilly in my life, and I don't understand why you insist on being personal. Please try to control your emotional outbursts or continuing discussion will be impossible. 

What is sharia law? "Sharia Law Definition: Muslim or Islamic law, both civil and criminal justice as well as regulating individual conduct both personal and moral. Related Terms: Muslim Law, Muslim, Islamic Law. The custom-based body of law based on the Koran and the religion of Islam" 

From: http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/S/ShariaLaw.aspx

GA is trying to implement christian law, simply substitute christian for muslim in the above definition. You, and others won't admit it but it fits very very well.


----------



## Irish Pixie

TraderBob said:


> ...and the baker should have the right to say no..it is his business. You don't have the right to make him do so, and the government shouldn't have the right to force him to.
> 
> That's what wrong with country..everybody wants a law to protect their feelings..oh boohoo. Whiny little children, with a "me, me, me" attitude.
> 
> Y'all better be happy I'm not in charge. I'd get rid of most of the prisons, all of the lawyers, frivolous and most other lawsuits, and bring back the death penalty nationwide...and include lethal defense of property.
> 
> Punching someone for an insult would be just fine...maybe people would keep their mouths shut more.....and stop demanding someone do something they don't feel like doing.
> 
> I think we'd have a much more civil society...if you don't like them rules, there are plenty of other countries to choose from, we'll even help those who wish to leave, do so.


Sure, a business owner can discriminate against anyone he or she wants but they run the risk of someone filing a discrimination suit against them. 

Think about it this way, would it be fine and dandy to refuse to bake a cake for a black couple? No? That would be discrimination, right? It is with an LGBT couple too. Or do you feel any sort of discrimination is OK?

The violent and anti law and order rhetoric is simply ridiculous.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> You are free to try to twist my words to your liking but it doesn't change anything. Its just a worn out liberal tactic to try to prove yourself right. As far as your other comment, it should start or end with ' in your opinion'. My opinion is different.


I'm not going to argue with you, I quoted exactly what you said. Own your words.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> That "one law" is just part of the package.
> Didn't you read the OP?:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.glaad.org/blog/georgia-senate-advances-anti-lgbt-discrimination-bill


Not part of a "package" but, rather several different, but, similar laws that, basically, say the same thing. 


These bills seem to reinforce the idea of separation of Church and State. What is the problem with that?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Not part of a "package" but, rather several different, but, similar laws that, basically, say the same thing.
> 
> 
> These bills seem to reinforce the idea of separation of Church and State. What is the problem with that?


I thought you've maintained that the government should be smaller, less law? Or am I thinking of someone else? You want _more_ government control in your state? Would that be because it suits your agenda. Say it ain't so.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> I thought you've maintained that the government should be smaller, less law? Or am I thinking of someone else? You want _more_ government control in your state? Would that be because it suits your agenda. Say it ain't so.


If you will notice, I never said that I supported, or, didn't support this law. But, this is not a case of government control, but, rather control of government. I can get behind laws that control government.


----------



## TraderBob

Irish Pixie said:


> Sure, a business owner can discriminate against anyone he or she wants but they run the risk of someone filing a discrimination suit against them.
> 
> Think about it this way, would it be fine and dandy to refuse to bake a cake for a black couple? No? That would be discrimination, right? It is with an LGBT couple too. Or do you feel any sort of discrimination is OK?
> 
> The violent and anti law and order rhetoric is simply ridiculous.


No, there should be no filing a discrimination case, period.

Yes, that would be fine. It is up to the business owner who he wishes to serve.

There should be no laws telling a business owner who he must serve. If people don't like it, they can boycott and refuse to shop there. The owner will either choose to change if he loses his business, or he won't if he is happy.

I also think affirmative action should be completely done away with, as it is slowly disappearing. Choosing the best qualified person for the job is always the best option, no matter the color. Stop dumbing down the tests so everyone can pass....and stop requiring quota hires.

Oh yeah, I hate participation ribbons and awards too... there are winners and losers. Teach your children to compete to win, or what is the point. If you want them to "have fun" then don't offer a trophy in a competition, or don't enter them.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> If you will notice, I never said that I supported, or, didn't support this law. But, this is not a case of government control, but, rather control of government. I can get behind laws that control government.


How is this control of the government? The only thing it is imposing religious law to legalize discrimination. 

Nice try tho.


----------



## Irish Pixie

TraderBob said:


> No, there should be no filing a discrimination case, period.
> 
> Yes, that would be fine. It is up to the business owner who he wishes to serve.
> 
> There should be no laws telling a business owner who he must serve. If people don't like it, they can boycott and refuse to shop there. The owner will either choose to change if he loses his business, or he won't if he is happy.
> 
> I also think affirmative action should be completely done away with, as it is slowly disappearing. Choosing the best qualified person for the job is always the best option, no matter the color. Stop dumbing down the tests so everyone can pass....and stop requiring quota hires.
> 
> Oh yeah, I hate participation ribbons and awards too... there are winners and losers. Teach your children to compete to win, or what is the point. If you want them to "have fun" then don't offer a trophy in a competition, or don't enter them.


Your post seems to be filled with hate...


----------



## oneraddad

Irish Pixie said:


> You seem to hate a lot of things... A life filled with hate must be difficult.


Morning black kettle


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Without any regard for the person who might have an employer that would force them to *make the cake or get fired*.


People should be fired if they refuse to simply do their jobs, which is* NOT* to judge others. It's to just bake the cakes.



> Originally Posted by Shine View Post
> Well, with pixie trying to throw her weight around shrilly screaming bout "Sharia Law" and all about how this will destroy America I kind of wonder, maybe this is the right thing to have done. Now we have protections from the LGBT crowd *trying to barge into the Churches* to demand the "equal rights" that they have "obtained" with this silly cake spat.
> 
> Remember? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
> 
> If there is a separation of Church and State and that the Government shall make no law that restricts the free exercise of religion then it would appear that the law requiring Christians to participate in a wedding that is otherwise than what is described in the Bible would be non-constitutional in nature.


No one forced you to open this thread, so it's not possible for anyone to throw their weight around here. It's all up to you.

No one has tried to "barge into a church". Now who is being "shrill"?
No one has ever been required to "participate" in any weddings.
They were required to sell their products and services to everyone equally.

Why do you insist on twisting the meanings of every word until the truth is unrecognizable?


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> How is this control of the government? The only thing it is imposing religious law to legalize discrimination.
> 
> Nice try tho.



The overarching characteristic is to keep government from forcing the religious from going against their conscience.

One of the major arguments, against these laws, is the fact that they are seen as redundant. Most agree that the 1st amendment already gives the protection that these laws seek to enforce. I don't know about the wisdom of enacting these laws. Sure, in a perfect world, they are redundant, but, we have all seen what the Government thinks of the Constitution.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> *Not part of a "package"* but, rather several different, but, similar laws that, basically, say the same thing.
> 
> These bills seem to reinforce the idea of separation of Church and State. *What is the problem with that?*


It's simply false
If they all said the same thing, only one would be needed.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> The overarching characteristic is to keep government from forcing the religious from going against their conscience.


So it's not _adding_ 7 more laws? How does that work? 

Odd coming from someone that wants less government don't you think?


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's simply false


I hear about these laws just about every day, and what I have said is true.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> So it's not _adding_ 7 more laws? How does that work?
> 
> Odd coming from someone that wants less government don't you think?


 As I have stated before, these are several, largely redundant bills, if any are enacted, certainly not all will be.

BTW, I want less Federal government, this type of thing should be up to State and Local governments.


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> GA is trying to implement christian law, simply substitute christian for muslim in the above definition. You, and others won't admit it but it fits very very well.


 I believe the bill protects the rights of all the different religions not just Christians. 

You want to do away with a segment of the first amendment? You want to revoke the freedom of religion in America?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

Suing a religious organization (Christian, muslim, hindu, or otherwise) for not performing gay marriages is like suing a kosher deli for refusing to sell ham.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's simply false
> If they all said the same thing, only one would be needed.


Several different lawmakers have put forth similar versions of the same thing, for political points. It is an old story.


----------



## City Bound

Farmerga said:


> One of the major arguments, against these laws, is the fact that they are seen as redundant. Most agree that the 1st amendment already gives the protection that these laws seek to enforce. I don't know about the wisdom of enacting these laws. Sure, in a perfect world, they are redundant, but, we have all seen what the Government thinks of the Constitution.


 That was the reason that many insisted that a bill of rights be drawn up. Other people felt such a document was redundant and stating the obvious. Thank god they wrote our freedoms down or we wouldn't have any now.


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> I believe the bill protects the rights of all the different religions not just Christians.
> 
> You want to do away with a segment of the first amendment? You want to revoke the freedom of religion in America?
> 
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
> 
> Suing a religious organization (Christian, muslim, hindu, or otherwise) for not performing gay marriages is like suing a kosher deli for refusing to sell ham.


Your statement may hold weight if it wasn't christians writing the law to use their religion to legally discriminate. 

Nope, a kosher deli doesn't sell ham to anyone. Discrimination is picking and choosing to whom to sell a product.


----------



## painterswife

Why do we need these laws? I read that all the time here. 

Does our constitution not all ready not cover this? Won't these laws simply be challenged and struck down?


----------



## poppy

Irish Pixie said:


> I've never screamed shrilly in my life, and I don't understand why you insist on being personal. I'm have to assume that hyperbole is a way of life for you. Please try to control your emotional outbursts or continuing discussion will be impossible.
> 
> *What is sharia law? "Sharia Law Definition: Muslim or Islamic law, both civil and criminal justice as well as regulating individual conduct both personal and moral. *Related Terms: Muslim Law, Muslim, Islamic Law. The custom-based body of law based on the Koran and the religion of Islam"
> 
> From: http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/S/ShariaLaw.aspx
> 
> GA is trying to implement christian law, simply substitute christian for muslim in the above definition. You, and others won't admit it but it fits very very well.


Read the bolded part. The laws in the OP do nothing of the kind. They do not force or regulate anything. They do not require Muslims, gays, or anyone else to be denied a marriage, a cake, or anything else. It allows people to practice their religious beliefs, period. It does not ban pastors from marring gays if he/she wants to. Should an Imam be forced to marry Christians or Jews? Should a Catholic priest be forced to marry Presbyterians? Why do you hate religion so much? Some churches will not marry straight couples who have been living together out of wedlock. So what? Go somewhere else. If a business owner doesn't want to serve you for any reason, he/she should have that right. The reason does not matter. Perhaps a restaurant requires me to wear a tie but I have no tie. Should they be forced to serve me anyway? How about if I am just an obnoxious person and being rude to the staff? How about if I am homeless and have terrible body odor from not bathing for months? Some places don't want you in their business if you are carrying a gun even though you are carrying it legally. Doesn't mean they have to allow you in. The whiners need to grow up. Life ain't fair yada,yada,yada. Be whatever you want but quit trying to force everyone to accept what you are for any reason.


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> Your statement may hold weight if it wasn't christians writing the law to use their religion to legally discriminate.
> 
> Nope, a kosher deli doesn't sell ham to anyone. Discrimination is picking and choosing to whom to sell a product.


 No, the law generally protects all religious people regardless of who wrote the law. It does not force people to be Christian. The law protects jews and muslims also. It may even protect wiccans on their Sabbaths. 

Could I get married in a jewish temple if I was not jewish and then demand they serve ham at the party I had hosted in their catering hall? 
Should I be able to force them to cook pork in their kosher kitchen and then serve it on their kosher plates?


----------



## TraderBob

Irish Pixie said:


> Your post seems to be filled with hate...


To be expected from you.
If it doesn't agree with you, it must be hate.
How typical.


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> No, the law generally protects all religious people regardless of who wrote the law. It does not force people to be Christian. The law protects jews and muslims also. It may even protect wiccans on their Sabbaths.
> 
> Could I get married in a jewish temple if I was not jewish and then demand they serve ham at the party I had hosted in their catering hall?
> Should I be able to force them to cook pork in their kosher kitchen and then serve it on their kosher plates?


I didn't say, and would never say, it forces people to be christian because it doesn't. The law is written by christians, for christians, my opinion.

I have no idea how marriage in a temple works. But no, you can't force jews to serve ham because *they don't do it for anyone*. Do you understand? If you do something for one group, say make wedding cakes, but *refuse to do the same exact thing* for another group it's discrimination.


----------



## mmoetc

poppy said:


> Read the bolded part. The laws in the OP do nothing of the kind. They do not force or regulate anything. They do not require Muslims, gays, or anyone else to be denied a marriage, a cake, or anything else. It allows people to practice their religious beliefs, period. It does not ban pastors from marring gays if he/she wants to. Should an Imam be forced to marry Christians or Jews? Should a Catholic priest be forced to marry Presbyterians? Why do you hate religion so much? Some churches will not marry straight couples who have been living together out of wedlock. So what? Go somewhere else. If a business owner doesn't want to serve you for any reason, he/she should have that right. The reason does not matter. Perhaps a restaurant requires me to wear a tie but I have no tie. Should they be forced to serve me anyway? How about if I am just an obnoxious person and being rude to the staff? How about if I am homeless and have terrible body odor from not bathing for months? Some places don't want you in their business if you are carrying a gun even though you are carrying it legally. Doesn't mean they have to allow you in. The whiners need to grow up. Life ain't fair yada,yada,yada. Be whatever you want but quit trying to force everyone to accept what you are for any reason.


Thanks for explaining why these laws aren't neccessary and just feed a bit more divisiveness which is good only for politicians. No religous authority should be required to marry someone not in accordance with their faith. The constitution protects that freedom. These laws do nothing to change or enhance that. They do create a boogeyman to be protected against. There's no such thing as a boogeyman but imagination and fear are powerful things.

Everything you cite as a reason for a business denying service is legitimate. They are legitimate because they affect everyone equally. A gay man without a tie is treated the same as you. The smelly Christian is treated the same as the foul smelling athiest. Laws should apply to all people equally. There shouldn't be different laws for different people. Its always interesting that people who benefit the most from anti discrimination laws, those that choose a religion, are the first to try to take those protections from others who choose differently.


----------



## mmoetc

City Bound said:


> No, the law generally protects all religious people regardless of who wrote the law. It does not force people to be Christian. The law protects jews and muslims also. It may even protect wiccans on their Sabbaths.
> 
> Could I get married in a jewish temple if I was not jewish and then demand they serve ham at the party I had hosted in their catering hall?
> Should I be able to force them to cook pork in their kosher kitchen and then serve it on their kosher plates?


Only if the Wiccan sabbath is Saturday or Sunday, the days specifically cited in the law. Hard to schedule a full moon or a solstice that closely. 

You might be able to marry in a temple and serve what you wish. I know churches that rent out their meeting and fellowship halls for a wide variety of purposes. Some religous, some secular. But all have the ability to keep areas like sanctuaries, alters and religous spaced seperate and open only to members. Religous organizations can set rules for the use of their facilities but they generally cannot change those rules based on who walks through the door if they are operating that part of their facility as a business, not a religous entity. If they operate as a business and offer their facilities to all, they must abide by laws that define all. If they wish to only open for members of their own or affiliated religous beliefs they have that right also. It's not really complicated.


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> I didn't say, and would never say, it forces people to be christian because it doesn't. The law is written by christians, for christians, my opinion.
> 
> I have no idea how marriage in a temple works. But no, you can't force jews to serve ham because *they don't do it for anyone*. Do you understand? If you do something for one group, say make wedding cakes, but refuse to do the same exact thing for another group it's discrimination.


Exactly. They serve food but a very specific food based on their religious beliefs. To use an analogy, what the liberals and the militant gays have been trying to do is to generalize that all food (marriage) is the same regardless of whether it is kosher or not. In their quest for equality they have made the mistake of oversimplifying the definition of marriage. 
The over simplification is causing conflict and confusion. 

A kosher restaurant does not serve pork. Many religions do not perform gay marriages. Both are services. So, a gay couple can walk into a church and ask to be served a gay marriage which is not and never was on the menu and sue if they do not get one while I being a non-Jew and non-kosher can not sue the Jewish deli or restaurant for not serving me pork when it clearly was never on the menu and most likely never will be just because I want pork from them? 

All food is not the same and all marriage is not the same and the distinctions should be honored.


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope, a kosher deli doesn't sell ham to anyone.


 And catholic churches don't perform gay marriage to anyone. 

Asking a catholic church to perform gay marriages is like asking a kosher deli to sell ham, it is offensive and violates their freedom to express their religion.


----------



## City Bound

mmoetc said:


> Only if the Wiccan sabbath is Saturday or Sunday, the days specifically cited in the law. Hard to schedule a full moon or a solstice that closely.
> .


 Well, wiccans have four major holidays and four minor holidays a year. I think they should get those days off if they really are a practicing wiccan.


----------



## mmoetc

City Bound said:


> And catholic churches don't perform gay marriage to anyone.
> 
> Asking a catholic church to perform gay marriages is like asking a kosher deli to sell ham, it is offensive and violates their freedom to express their religion.


No one is saying the Catholic Church is in danger of having to perform same sex weddings. Except, of course, those who wish to create a bit more fear and diviseness for their own political gain. I've stated before and I'll repeat it here. When the first church is legally challenged to perform a same sex wedding against their beliefs I'll speak out against the challenge and stand next to any of you in protest.


----------



## poppy

mmoetc said:


> Thanks for explaining why these laws aren't neccessary and just feed a bit more divisiveness which is good only for politicians. No religous authority should be required to marry someone not in accordance with their faith. The constitution protects that freedom. These laws do nothing to change or enhance that. They do create a boogeyman to be protected against. There's no such thing as a boogeyman but imagination and fear are powerful things.
> 
> Everything you cite as a reason for a business denying service is legitimate. They are legitimate because they affect everyone equally. A gay man without a tie is treated the same as you. The smelly Christian is treated the same as the foul smelling athiest. Laws should apply to all people equally. There shouldn't be different laws for different people. Its always interesting that people who benefit the most from anti discrimination laws, those that choose a religion, are the first to try to take those protections from others who choose differently.


Nonsense again. Why should a smelly person be treated differently than a clean person? They're both people. Liberals push to deny people of faith the same rights they give other people. It is a clear hatred of religion and the Christian and Jewish religions in particular. You can make allowance for Muslims and other religions. Jews are always blamed for everything wrong in the ME by the left and Christians blamed for every conceivable problem in society in this country. Hitler would be proud of you folks for carrying on his ideology. Like Muslims who hate the "people of the Book" and the "Saturday people and the Sunday people", you promote those same beliefs. It's totally irrational. As a Christian, I do not want to force you to do anything to accommodate me or my faith. Please allow me the same courtesy. Leave me and others alone. I may or may not agree with others, including other Christians on some issues but I respect their right to worship as they please and have no desire to force them to believe as I do. It's called freedom of religion and I value it highly.


----------



## mmoetc

City Bound said:


> Well, wiccans have four major holidays and four minor holidays a year. I think they should get those days off if they really are a practicing wiccan.


Then start advocating that it be specifically included in the law, just as Saturday and Sunday are included to favor certain religions.


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> And catholic churches don't perform gay marriage to anyone.
> 
> Asking a catholic church to perform gay marriages is like asking a kosher deli to sell ham, it is offensive and violates their freedom to express their religion.


No church, or church pastor, has been _forced_ to perform a gay wedding. 

No jewish center/deli can be forced to serve pork. Period. Can't be done because they don't serve pork to begin with; never have, never will. I don't know how to explain it more simply.


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> No church, or church pastor, has been _forced_ to perform a gay wedding.
> 
> No jewish center/deli can be forced to serve pork. Period. Can't be done because they don't serve pork to begin with; never have, never will. I don't know how to explain it more simply.


Catholic churches never performed gay marriages in the past and they do not believe in them. If they performed one they were coerced to do so.

If a jewish deli was forced to serve pork then I guess they would have to serve it right? If you bully people enough then I guess eventually you get your way. Might makes right in your book it seems. 

Do you want to be forced to go against your beliefs?


----------



## Irish Pixie

mmoetc said:


> Then start advocating that it be specifically included in the law, just as Saturday and Sunday are included to favor certain religions.


If it's a truly religious law, rather than just judeo christian, it should include language for all religions, including muslim.


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> Catholic churches never performed gay marriages in the past and they do not believe in them. If they performed one they were coerced to do so.
> 
> If a jewish deli was forced to serve pork then I guess they would have to serve it right? If you bully people enough then I guess eventually you get your way. Might makes right in your book it seems.
> 
> Do you want to be forced to go against your beliefs?


I'm sorry, I must be failing to explain properly and it's impossible for me to continue to discuss this in a rational manner.


----------



## mmoetc

poppy said:


> Nonsense again. Why should a smelly person be treated differently than a clean person? They're both people. Liberals push to deny people of faith the same rights they give other people. It is a clear hatred of religion and the Christian and Jewish religions in particular. You can make allowance for Muslims and other religions. Jews are always blamed for everything wrong in the ME by the left and Christians blamed for every conceivable problem in society in this country. Hitler would be proud of you folks for carrying on his ideology. Like Muslims who hate the "people of the Book" and the "Saturday people and the Sunday people", you promote those same beliefs. It's totally irrational. As a Christian, I do not want to force you to do anything to accommodate me or my faith. Please allow me the same courtesy. Leave me and others alone. I may or may not agree with others, including other Christians on some issues but I respect their right to worship as they please and have no desire to force them to believe as I do. It's called freedom of religion and I value it highly.


Either you believe a business has a right to refuse service or you don't. If a smelly person, an obnoxious person or a person not adhering to a dress code cannot be refused service on what basis should a gay person be refused. Or a person wearing a crucifix proclaiming their choice of religion. You cannot pretend to have it both ways. 

If you don't wish to have protections I'd suggest you advocate for repeal of all the anti discrimination laws and tax breaks given to the religous and religous organizations rather than speaking out for laws that create more. I don't care who or what you worship. I don't care what you do in your private dealings with anyone else. I do care that laws that are written protect everyone, not just a chosen few.


----------



## City Bound

mmoetc said:


> Then start advocating that it be specifically included in the law, just as Saturday and Sunday are included to favor certain religions.


 If I lived in that state I would. 

If they are giving paid holidays off then I am going to convert to every religion. haha just joking.


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm sorry, I must be failing to explain properly and it's impossible for me to continue to discuss with this you in a rational manner.


 Simply asked: Do you want religious organizations who's religious beliefs prohibit homosexuality to be forced to perform homosexual marriages within their places of worship?

I assumed that is what your position was. If I am wrong tell me.


----------



## mmoetc

City Bound said:


> If I lived in that state I would.
> 
> If they are giving paid holidays off then I am going to convert to every religion. haha just joking.


Why must you live in that state to speak you mind? Most here defending these laws don't live there. You keep talking of delis and churches being forced to act against their will. You've offered no evidence of any these actions pending or being imminent. Why? Because they aren't credible worries no matter how often you repeat them. They exist only to create a bit more fear. Cause a bit seperation between people. Raise a few more dollars for political coffers and get a few more votes from those afraid of losing something. A fear that only has reality in certain states of mind.


----------



## painterswife

City Bound said:


> Simply asked: Do you want religious organizations who's religious beliefs prohibit homosexuality to be forced to perform homosexual marriages within their places of worship?
> 
> I assumed that is what your position was. If I am wrong tell me.


Do we need a law that states that? Is not our constitution enough? They can say no. There is no law that requires them to do this.


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> Simply asked: Do you want religious organizations who's religious beliefs prohibit homosexuality to be forced to perform homosexual marriages within their places of worship?
> 
> I assumed that is what your position was. If I am wrong tell me.


No, I don't. It boggles my mind that what I've said could be taken that way.


----------



## mmoetc

City Bound said:


> Simply asked: Do you want religious organizations who's religious beliefs prohibit homosexuality to be forced to perform homosexual marriages within their places of worship?
> 
> I assumed that is what your position was. If I am wrong tell me.


You know what they say about assuming, right?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

City Bound said:


> Catholic churches never performed gay marriages in the past and they do not believe in them. If they performed one they were coerced to do so.
> 
> If a jewish deli was forced to serve pork then I guess they would have to serve it right? If you bully people enough then I guess eventually you get your way. Might makes right in your book it seems.
> 
> Do you want to be forced to go against your beliefs?


No one has been forced to go against their beliefs.
Your examples are fantasies

Jewish Deli's cannot be forced to serve ham to *anyone* because they serve it to *no one*. It's applied *equally*

No priest has been forced to marry anyone if they chose not to, because they are not a "business" and are not "open to the public".

If you want to argue over this, you will have to use some new ideas that are realistic


----------



## poppy

mmoetc said:


> Either you believe a business has a right to refuse service or you don't. If a smelly person, an obnoxious person or a person not adhering to a dress code cannot be refused service on what basis should a gay person be refused. Or a person wearing a crucifix proclaiming their choice of religion. You cannot pretend to have it both ways.
> 
> If you don't wish to have protections I'd suggest you advocate for repeal of all the anti discrimination laws and tax breaks given to the religous and religous organizations rather than speaking out for laws that create more. I don't care who or what you worship. I don't care what you do in your private dealings with anyone else. I do care that laws that are written protect everyone, not just a chosen few.



I'm not sure why you can't comprehend that I do not need nor want protections over and above what is in the Constitution. Unfortunately those protections have been eroded by lawyers and whiners. If any business refuses to serve me because I am a Christian, I am fine with that. I'll just be a grownup and go somewhere else instead of being a cry baby and filing suit.


----------



## City Bound

mmoetc said:


> Why must you live in that state to speak you mind? Most here defending these laws don't live there. You keep talking of delis and churches being forced to act against their will. You've offered no evidence of any these actions pending or being imminent. Why? Because they aren't credible worries no matter how often you repeat them. They exist only to create a bit more fear. Cause a bit seperation between people. Raise a few more dollars for political coffers and get a few more votes from those afraid of losing something. A fear that only has reality in certain states of mind.


I believe the bill is a good start. Details can be added and it can be tweaked. 

The worries are what will come in the future as they slowly chip away at religious freedom and our other liberties. 

I never said a deli was forced to do anything. I was just making the analogy that if homosexuals can, or eventually can, sue a religious organization for discrimination just because the establishment refuses to perform a homosexual marriage ceremony then in the same vain anyone refused non kosher foods at a kosher deli should be able to sue the deli for discrimination. 

The churches perform marriages but not gay marriages.
The kosher deli sells food but not non kosher food. 

Gays are not being denied marriages in churches, they are being denied gay marriages in churches.


----------



## mmoetc

poppy said:


> I'm not sure why you can't comprehend that I do not need nor want protections over and above what is in the Constitution. Unfortunately those protections have been eroded by lawyers and whiners. If any business refuses to serve me because I am a Christian, I am fine with that. I'll just be a grownup and go somewhere else instead of being a cry baby and filing suit.


If you don't need or want them why worry about losing them or having them eroded. The thing is you can say what you might do if turned away for your religous beliefs but there is no real chance of it happening as your protections have been long codified and recognized. If you truly don't wish them or need them why not speak against more laws that provide them and define them even more closely? It's one thing to say what you might do in the abstract, but if "no white male Christian" signs suddenly appeared across your town I doubt you would be so complacent. I could be wrong. You might be a rare and exceptional individual. But you aren't everyone and everyone is who laws should protect.


----------



## City Bound

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one has been forced to go against their beliefs.
> Your examples are fantasies
> 
> Jewish Deli's cannot be forced to serve ham to *anyone* because they serve it to *no one*. It's applied *equally*
> 
> No priest has been forced to marry anyone if they chose not to, because they are not a "business" and are not "open to the public".
> 
> If you want to argue over this, you will have to use some new ideas that are realistic


They are just getting their foot in the door and after that they will bombard churches with lawsuits. It is not fantasy it will come eventually. Right now they have the battering ram at the gates, once the gates are down you will see how far they will take the threat of discrimination lawsuits.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I never said a deli was forced to do anything. I was just making* the analogy* that if homosexuals can, or eventually can, sue a religious organization for discrimination just because the establishment refuses to perform a homosexual marriage ceremony then in the same vain anyone refused non kosher foods at a kosher deli should be able to sue the deli for discrimination.


Repeating isn't going to make it real
It's a flawed analogy, and the reasons have been explained but you continue to repeat it.

Clergy can already refuse to marry anyone they want as long as they aren't operating a business that's open to the public.


----------



## mmoetc

City Bound said:


> I believe the bill is a good start. Details can be added and it can be tweaked.
> 
> The worries are what will come in the future as they slowly chip away at religious freedom and our other liberties.
> 
> I never said a deli was forced to do anything. I was just making the analogy that if homosexuals can, or eventually can, sue a religious organization for discrimination just because the establishment refuses to perform a homosexual marriage ceremony then in the same vain anyone refused non kosher foods at a kosher deli should be able to sue the deli for discrimination.
> 
> The churches perform marriages but not gay marriages.
> The kosher deli sells food but not non kosher food.
> 
> Gays are not being denied marriages in churches, they are being denied gay marriages in churches.


The simple fact is there is no danger of this happening. You keep bringing up kosher delis as an analogy. I can't find a citation for when the first kosher establishment opened but I can reasonably postulate they've been around since Jews arrived here. In those 200+ years of existance has anyone been sued for not serving pork? If not, why the worry now? Catholic Churches have never been sued to perform weddings outside their faith. Why the worry now? There is no realistic chance that any of this will come to pass. All talk of it is simple fear mongering. Designed to scare those of faith and designed to further political careers not provide any real protection from any real threat. I have no real fear of these laws as they're not really laws designed to do anything meaningful. They are designed to appeal to a certain base instinct. It seems more developed among some. And that does cause me some concern.


----------



## City Bound

Bearfootfarm said:


> Repeating isn't going to make it real
> It's a flawed analogy, and the reasons have been explained but you continue to repeat it.
> 
> Clergy can already refuse to marry anyone they want as long as they aren't operating a business that's open to the public.


 They can refuse now and they maybe able to refuse later but just because they can refuse and still may be able to refuse in the future that does not mean that they may not be swamped with discrimination lawsuits.

The bill wants to protect shop keepers and religious organizations from being forced to act against their religion and it wants to give them less ground to be sued.


----------



## arabian knight

Which is a good thing in todays lets sue, my feelings got hurt. LOL


----------



## City Bound

mmoetc said:


> Catholic Churches have never been sued to perform weddings outside their faith. Why the worry now? There is no realistic chance that any of this will come to pass. QUOTE]
> 
> Activists care. Militant homosexual activist who will use lawsuits as a weapon to attack religions that disagree with homosexuality. They will use lawsuits as a way to silence opposition to their lifestyle.
> 
> The liberals and the gays tried to destroy Chick-fla-a because the owner spoke out in disagreement with their views and agenda.
> There are malicious faction on both side of the debate.


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> mmoetc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Catholic Churches have never been sued to perform weddings outside their faith. Why the worry now? There is no realistic chance that any of this will come to pass. QUOTE]
> 
> Activists care. Militant homosexual activist who will use lawsuits as a weapon to attack religions that disagree with homosexuality. They will use lawsuits as a way to silence opposition to their lifestyle.
> 
> The liberals and the gays tried to destroy Chick-fla-a because the owner spoke out in disagreement with their views and agenda.
> There are malicious faction on both side of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that people don't have the right to boycott a business if they don't agree with their views?
Click to expand...


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> City Bound said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that people don't have the right to boycott a business if they don't agree with their views?
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but they did more then that. They tried to rally up a media "lynch mob" with the aim of crushing their business. It did not work though.
Click to expand...


----------



## mmoetc

City Bound said:


> mmoetc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Catholic Churches have never been sued to perform weddings outside their faith. Why the worry now? There is no realistic chance that any of this will come to pass. QUOTE]
> 
> Activists care. Militant homosexual activist who will use lawsuits as a weapon to attack religions that disagree with homosexuality. They will use lawsuits as a way to silence opposition to their lifestyle.
> 
> The liberals and the gays tried to destroy Chick-fla-a because the owner spoke out in disagreement with their views and agenda.
> There are malicious faction on both side of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> It is so much easier to lash out with labels and demonization of those you disagree with than it is to engage in rational conversation, isn't it. Thanks for continuing to make my point that the purpose of laws like this isn't to solve any real problem but to cast fear and score political points.
Click to expand...


----------



## JoePa

I'm for any law that would keep homosexuals from gaining ground for their perverted life style - I want a society that is based on a moral framework - a Jewish/Christian framework - and I have every right to exercise my feelings in this matter - if you don't like it - well that is just too bad - 

It seems like some individuals are really hung up on anything resembling some form of religion - personally I feel sorry for those individuals - where I have a reason for living and enjoy my encounter with God someone else has an empty life - was born by accident, goes through life without meaning and finally dies - just a waste 

I get up in the morning - thank God for the day - and go about my business of doing His will - and you know something - by doing that I have a pleasant day - and a good life - and when death is near I confidentially look towards the future - I wouldn't trade that for anything - yes I feel sorry for all of you who are not so blessed - but then it is your choice - isn't it -


----------



## mmoetc

City Bound said:


> Irish Pixie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but they did more then that. They tried to rally up a media "lynch mob" with the aim of crushing their business. It did not work though.
> 
> 
> 
> Then what do you have to fear from these evil factions? Or is fear itself enough?
Click to expand...


----------



## painterswife

JoePa said:


> I'm for any law that would keep homosexuals from gaining ground for their perverted life style - I want a society that is based on a moral framework - a Jewish/Christian framework - and I have every right to exercise my feelings in this matter - if you don't like it - well that is just too bad -
> 
> It seems like some individuals are really hung up on anything resembling some form of religion - personally I feel sorry for those individuals - where I have a reason for living and enjoy my encounter with God someone else has an empty life - was born by accident, goes through life without meaning and finally dies - just a waste
> 
> I get up in the morning - thank God for the day - and go about my business of doing His will - and you know something - by doing that I have a pleasant day - and a good life - and when death is near I confidentially look towards the future - I wouldn't trade that for anything - yes I feel sorry for all of you who are not so blessed - but then it is your choice - isn't it -


That post is why we have a separation of church and state. All I have to do is change the word Christian to Islam and you can see how you can't make laws based on religion.


----------



## Shine

What do we have to fear? Well, for one thing, the hijacking of the concept of Marriage, the changing of the meaning of that word to mean something other than a man and a woman. That right there tells me that there is an agenda to dilute the Church and therefore the Religion. If the same sex crowd sought to make a civil union identical to the position of marriage then I would have said - Be my guest. No, they have to attack and destroy a central tenet within the Faith that is important to me. If they change the meaning of a well respected and well understood term with a long history then, yes, I am afraid of what they are capable of through the legal system, [which in very little ways provides "justice" anymore] because this premise of Political Correctness is aimed exactly in that direction.

But anyways, all these people from other states railing against what appears to be an action by the people's representatives of Georgia doing the People's work. Are we getting any feedback from those who the laws will actually affect?

I see these laws as bring Christians into the game and placing them on a level playing field, you have to respect gay people's rights? OK, you have to respect Religious people's rights. - ipso facto


ETA: as an example, look to the warning touted as the likely result of these laws, Sharia Law. That is so out of bounds as to be laughable...


----------



## City Bound

mmoetc said:


> City Bound said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then what do you have to fear from these evil factions? Or is fear itself enough?
> 
> 
> 
> The gays are afraid of religions and gov taking their freedom to be gay away. Religious people are afraid of gays and gov trying to take their freedom to be religious away. Both sides try to protect themselves or attack the others by influencing law.
> 
> Both side will never agree. Both side can not live in peace together.
> 
> The bill gives space and lubricant to the conflict allowing the two groups of people to coexist together without rubbing elbows together too much. Elbows rubbing together without lubricant leads to friction, heat, and painful burns.
Click to expand...


----------



## City Bound

painterswife said:


> That post is why we have a separation of church and state. All I have to do is change the word Christian to Islam and you can see how you can't make laws based on religion.


 Or from Christian to catholic, then you are back to the days before Martin Luther.

The law is just to preserve the expression of the first amendment not to force people to convert


----------



## Bearfootfarm

City Bound said:


> *They can refuse now* and they maybe able to refuse later but just because they can refuse and still may be able to refuse in the future that does not mean that they may not be swamped with discrimination lawsuits.
> 
> The bill wants to protect shop keepers and religious organizations from being forced to act against their religion and it wants to give them less ground to be sued.


The bills want to legalize discrimination, and disregard current civil rights laws.

If there are lawsuits they will be decided in court, just as past cases have been


----------



## mmoetc

Shine said:


> What do we have to fear? Well, for one thing, the hijacking of the concept of Marriage, the changing of the meaning of that word to mean something other than a man and a woman. That right there tells me that there is an agenda to dilute the Church and there fore the Religion. If the same sex crowd sought to make a civil union identical to the position of marriage then I would have said - Be my guest. No, they have to attack and destroy a central tenet within the Faith that is important to me. If they change the meaning of a well respected and well understood term with a long history then, yes, I am afraid of what they are capable through the legal system, [which in very little ways provides "justice" anymore] because this premise of Political Correctness is aimed exactly in that direction.
> 
> But anyways, all these people from other states railing against what appears to be an action by the people's representatives of Georgia doing the People's work. Are we getting any feedback from those who the laws will actually affect?
> 
> I see these laws as bring Christians into the game and placing them on a level playing field, you have to respect gay people's rights? OK, you have to respect Religious people's rights. - ipso facto


Actually, Federal law specifically protects the religous from discrimination. It does nothing for gays. To level the playing field laws would have to be changed to protect gays. These laws seek to tilt that field away from them.

How does two men getting married affect yours. Is your vow before your god somehow lessened or diminished because others can now join together and be granted the same legal protections? What was taken away from you? Love isn't a zero sum game.


----------



## mmoetc

An open question to those who advocate for religious freedom. What of those religions who recognize and perform same sex marriages. Are they not free to define and conduct their own sacraments? What right do you or a legislature have to define those practices for them? Are your rights to religous freedom greater than theirs?


----------



## FourDeuce

"I want a society that is based on a moral framework - a Jewish/Christian framework"

Good luck in finding your desired theocracy. Don't get your hopes up about trying to turn the US into a theocracy.:nono:


----------



## FourDeuce

"What do we have to fear? Well, for one thing, the hijacking of the concept of Marriage, the changing of the meaning of that word to mean something other than a man and a woman."
If you fear changing definitions, you should seek professional help. Definitions have been changing ever since languages were invented. Fearing that is like fearing the sunrise.:teehee:


----------



## FourDeuce

City Bound said:


> Irish Pixie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but they did more then that. They tried to rally up a media "lynch mob" with the aim of crushing their business. It did not work though.
> 
> 
> 
> So trying to gather support for a boycott is illegal? Can you point out which law covers that?:shrug:
Click to expand...


----------



## Scott SW Ohio

JoePa said:


> I'm for any law that would keep homosexuals from gaining ground for their perverted life style - I want a society that is based on a moral framework - a Jewish/Christian framework - and I have every right to exercise my feelings in this matter - if you don't like it - well that is just too bad -
> 
> It seems like some individuals are really hung up on anything resembling some form of religion - personally I feel sorry for those individuals - where I have a reason for living and enjoy my encounter with God someone else has an empty life - was born by accident, goes through life without meaning and finally dies - just a waste
> 
> I get up in the morning - thank God for the day - and go about my business of doing His will - and you know something - by doing that I have a pleasant day - and a good life - and when death is near I confidentially look towards the future - I wouldn't trade that for anything - yes I feel sorry for all of you who are not so blessed - but then it is your choice - isn't it -


I have no religious faith, and yet I find joy and meaning in this complex and wonderful life and have no fear of death. So in those important aspects we are the same.

The difference between us seems to be that I am glad you have found an equally satisfying approach to life, though it is different from mine. I promise not to criticize your choices, proclaim that your life is wasted, or condescend to pity you. This world can be a difficult place, and I applaud anyone who finds a path to happiness in it for themselves (without hurting others, of course). Live long and prosper, JoePa.


----------



## Shine

mmoetc said:


> An open question to those who advocate for religious freedom. What of those religions who recognize and perform same sex marriages. Are they not free to define and conduct their own sacraments? What right do you or a legislature have to define those practices for them? Are your rights to religous freedom greater than theirs?


It would be of no consequence to me as far as I see it. With the current efforts of the LGBT crowd, I can see intentions to force all Churches to bend to their will. This is my entire argument, do not allow the LGBT crowd the power to force others to surrender their rights.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> An open question to those who advocate for religious freedom. What of those religions who recognize and perform same sex marriages. Are they not free to define and conduct their own sacraments? What right do you or a legislature have to define those practices for them? Are your rights to religous freedom greater than theirs?


 
If someone wants to officiate at a marriage between two homosexuals, they are free to. These bills are meant to protect that choice when the answer is "NO". As I have said before, the 1st amendment, in reality, already protects that choice, but, we have often seen how the plain words, of that document, can be twisted to fit an agenda.


----------



## mmoetc

Shine said:


> It would be of no consequence to me as far as I see it. With the current efforts of the LGBT crowd, I can see intentions to force all Churches to bend to their will. This is my entire argument, do not allow the LGBT crowd the power to force others to surrender their rights.


But didn't you earlier object to the "redefinition" of marriage? Didn't you say you support something different for gays than marriage? But what if their religion chooses to call it marriage? Shouldn't they have the same freedom to recognize the union as such as you have not to?


----------



## Shine

mmoetc said:


> But didn't you earlier object to the "redefinition" of marriage? Didn't you say you support something different for gays than marriage? But what if their religion chooses to call it marriage? Shouldn't they have the same freedom to recognize the union as such as you have not to?


I did and do. If their "religion" says they do same sex "marriages" I am not going to pay the price for that, that's on them, so it's a wash for me.

It all comes down to those that do not wish to be forced to do a same sex marriage, I stand in support of their wishes.

There are people on here that say I am foolish in thinking this, look at what is happening in schools, a government rule that Christians cannot openly pray, cannot show their love for their God openly during a football game between two Christian schools. Elementary schools that assign students books to read that talk about "Suzy and her two Moms" [or some such nonsense] Don't you think parents should have the right to discuss those matters with their children or should the government run schools do that?

The militant LGBT crowd is pushing every threshold that it can.


----------



## hoddedloki

Good for Georgia.

The state should have no role in determining doctrine for a religion, or discriminating against a religion, which would be the case if a preacher could be forced preform a same-sex wedding. so what is the problem with passing laws specifically to to ensure that the state cannot in the future give itself the power to force the preacher? how about the power to force a baker?

But then again, I've never understood why people allow a government to employ force against it's citizens.

Loki


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> It would be of no consequence to me as far as I see it. With \the current efforts of the LGBT crowd\, *I can see intentions to force all Churches to bend to their will*. This is my entire argument, do not allow the LGBT crowd the power to force others to surrender their rights.


If that's the "plan" then why is it no one can show an example of someone in the US *forcing* a clergyman to perform a wedding?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

I'm betting the bills won't pass, and if they do, they will be ruled unconstitutional


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> If that's the "plan" then why is it no one can show an example of someone in the US *forcing* a clergyman to perform a wedding?


Guess you did not read the rest of that post...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Guess you did not read the rest of that post...


I read the part where you claimed to know their "intentions" but can't offer anything as evidence.
The rest of the post isn't an answer to my question, so I guess you didn't read that:



> If that's the "plan" then why is it no one can *show an example *of someone in the US forcing a clergyman to perform a wedding?


----------



## Shine

They are forcing the schools to indoctrinate the children, what more proof do you need? If there is nothing more baseless than the premise of forcing themselves upon elementary school children to have to try to make sense of this stuff then you will never get it.

I don't think that I have much more to share on this subject unless someone calls for my reply... You've gotten it as straight as I can give it to you. No hidden meanings - nothing to redefine, nothing to misunderstand.


----------



## greg273

Shine said:


> They are forcing the schools to indoctrinate the children, what more proof do you need?


 Would you rather 'indoctrinate' them to hating, fearing, or ostracizing people that are different?


----------



## Shine

greg273 said:


> Would you rather 'indoctrinate' them to hating, fearing, or ostracizing people that are different?


Would you have me explaining things to your children or would you rather do that?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> They are forcing the schools to indoctrinate the children, what more proof do you need? If there is nothing more baseless than the premise of forcing themselves upon elementary school children to have to try to make sense of this stuff then you will never get it.
> *
> I don't think that I have much more to share on this subject* unless someone calls for my reply... You've gotten it as straight as I can give it to you. No hidden meanings - nothing to redefine, nothing to misunderstand.


This thread has nothing to do with elementary schools or children, and you keep avoiding the questions which were asked.

Do you have any examples to show of US clergy being "forced" to perform a wedding?


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> This thread has nothing to do with elementary schools or children, and you keep avoiding the questions which were asked.
> 
> Do you have any examples to show of US clergy being "forced" to perform a wedding?



I can give 3 examples in 3 states.
Would you like the opportunity to change the wording of the request first, to make it harder?
Or would you rather wait until afterwards to do so?


(Never mind, I see you already did earlier)


Bearfootfarm said:


> Repeating isn't going to make it real
> It's a flawed analogy, and the reasons have been explained but you continue to repeat it.
> 
> Clergy can already refuse to marry anyone they want *as long as they aren't operating a business that's open to the public.*





I'll come clean first.
None actually was forced to go thru with it.
One went to jail, and the other two decided not to perform any weddings at all, under after legal action was taken against them.
So, you will win by default.
:goodjob:

No one went as far as to physically force them to go thru with it.:bash:


----------



## farmrbrown

FourDeuce said:


> City Bound said:
> 
> 
> 
> So trying to gather support for a boycott is illegal? Can you point out which law covers that?:shrug:
> 
> 
> 
> Good question.
> It depends on whether it is a "primary" or "secondary" boycott.
> The latter is almost always illegal.
> https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/whats-law/unions/secondary-boycotts-section-8b4
Click to expand...


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> An open question to those who advocate for religious freedom. What of those religions who recognize and perform same sex marriages. Are they not free to define and conduct their own sacraments? What right do you or a legislature have to define those practices for them? Are your rights to religous freedom greater than theirs?


Another good question.
One of the three examples I found involved this issue in a Methodist church in NC.
I found another one, later, in Vermont.
I could NOT find what the final resolution was, the one in NC may be awaiting a decision at the national convention this year.:shrug:


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> Another good question.
> One of the three examples I found involved this issue in a Methodist church in NC.
> I found another one, later, in Vermont.
> I could NOT find what the final resolution was, the one in NC may be awaiting a decision at the national convention this year.:shrug:


Without knowing the details of the cases I'm at a bit of a disadvantage in discussing them. The only cases I could find involved a wedding chapel business in Idaho open to all marriages since 1989 with no mention of a religous test until same sex marriage became legal and some pastors, fearing a non existant threat, refusing to do any weddings for their congregants. If you'd care to provide details and discuss them rather than entering another spitting match with BFF I'd be interested. If not, have fun.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> If someone wants to officiate at a marriage between two homosexuals, they are free to. These bills are meant to protect that choice when the answer is "NO". As I have said before, the 1st amendment, in reality, already protects that choice, but, we have often seen how the plain words, of that document, can be twisted to fit an agenda.


The first amendment does indeed protect the rights of the religous. If your worst fear came to pass and those protections were breached by something like a Supreme Court ruling laws like these would be no help. They would become unconstitutional( parts may already be) and unenforcable. So , again, other than scoring political points by feeding a bit more fear and diviseveness to the base what is the real purpose of even proposing laws like these?


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> FourDeuce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good question.
> It depends on whether it is a "primary" or "secondary" boycott.
> The latter is almost always illegal.
> https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/whats-law/unions/secondary-boycotts-section-8b4
> 
> 
> 
> Its a pretty big stretch from private citizens organizing a boycott and laws regulating union activity but I'll give you google research points.
Click to expand...


----------



## Texaspredatorhu

http://gov.texas.gov/news/signature/21027

Pretty sure it hasn't been overturned or deemed in constitutional in Texas yet! Don't get your liberal drawers in a wad because the conservatives are using the constitution to preserve America. Just because you agree with doing anything and everything and living irresponsibly doesn't mean the rest of the country has to or like it for that matter, if the gay people can't get married in Texas or Georgia they can move to New York or Massachusetts, they are more welcoming and have the same lack of values!


----------



## mmoetc

Shine said:


> Would you have me explaining things to your children or would you rather do that?


Who's stopping you from explaining your views and teaching your religion to your children? It's hard for me to object to laws and rules that prohibit school officials from leading prayers and teaching religous principles in public schools. I'm sure you wouldn't want the wrong brand of christianity( I hear there are many), Islam, Buddhism, animism or any other ism or ianity foisted upon your children in public school or have them feel compelled to participate in any of their prayers or rituals. Teach your children whatever you wish about Heather and her two mommies. Don't be surprised if your children learn all on their own a thing or two about them.


----------



## mmoetc

Texaspredatorhu said:


> http://gov.texas.gov/news/signature/21027
> 
> Pretty sure it hasn't been overturned or deemed in constitutional in Texas yet! Don't get your liberal drawers in a wad because the conservatives are using the constitution to preserve America. Just because you agree with doing anything and everything and living irresponsibly doesn't mean the rest of the country has to or like it for that matter, if the gay people can't get married in Texas or Georgia they can move to New York or Massachusetts, they are more welcoming and have the same lack of values!


And the point is is that it's in no danger of being ruled so. But thanks for reaffirming it. The constitution protects the rights of priests, pastors, imams , bishops and all other religious officials far better than laws such as these. They make you feel good. They get politicians done headlines. They let some thump their chests and proclaim their superiority but serve no real purpose. As legislation, their less harmful than most.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu

mmoetc said:


> And the point is is that it's in no danger of being ruled so. But thanks for reaffirming it. The constitution protects the rights of priests, pastors, imams , bishops and all other religious officials far better than laws such as these. They make you feel good. They get politicians done headlines. They let some thump their chests and proclaim their superiority but serve no real purpose. As legislation, their less harmful than most.


They have been put in place so the gay community doesn't sue for not doing their "marriage". I don't understand why they care no religion I know of is ok with homosexuality anyway. The gay community is just trying to make a quick buck by crying that they have had rights infringed upon. You liberals cry that having the 10 commandments up is offensive and against your 1st amendment but it's infringing mine by taking it down! Understand? Probably not but that's ok, liberals have a hard time seeing through their fecal cloud!


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by Texaspredatorhu View Post
> http://gov.texas.gov/news/signature/21027
> 
> Pretty sure it hasn't been overturned or deemed in constitutional in Texas yet! Don't get your liberal drawers in a wad because the conservatives are using the constitution to preserve America. Just because you agree with doing anything and everything and living irresponsibly doesn't mean the rest of the country has to or like it for that matter, *if the gay people can't get married in Texas or Georgia they can move to New York or Massachusetts*, they are more welcoming and have the same lack of values!


It makes no difference if it's been overturned or not.

Laws are never overturned unless someone challenges the law in court, and since no one was forcing clergy to perform weddings it may never be overturned since it's just a useless law in the first place.

It doesn't stop anyone from getting married


----------



## Irish Pixie

Texaspredatorhu said:


> They have been put in place so the gay community doesn't sue for not doing their "marriage". I don't understand why they care no religion I know of is ok with homosexuality anyway. The gay community is just trying to make a quick buck by crying that they have had rights infringed upon. You liberals cry that having the 10 commandments up is offensive and against your 1st amendment but it's infringing mine by taking it down! Understand? Probably not but that's ok, liberals have a hard time seeing through their fecal cloud!


There are denominations that will preform same sex marriage, many are right here in the US of A.  Not everyone, or every church, is anti gay. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessing_of_same-sex_unions_in_Christian_churches#United_States


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Texaspredatorhu said:


> They have been put in place so the gay community doesn't sue for not doing their "marriage". I don't understand why they care *no religion I know of is ok with homosexuality* anyway. The gay community is just trying to make a quick buck by crying that they have had rights infringed upon. You liberals cry that having the 10 commandments up is offensive and against your 1st amendment but it's infringing mine by taking it down! Understand? Probably not but that's ok, liberals have a hard time seeing through their fecal cloud!


That merely shows what you don't know.
There's actually a fairly long list.
You should spend more time researching and less time assigning labels


----------



## mmoetc

Texaspredatorhu said:


> They have been put in place so the gay community doesn't sue for not doing their "marriage". I don't understand why they care no religion I know of is ok with homosexuality anyway. The gay community is just trying to make a quick buck by crying that they have had rights infringed upon. You liberals cry that having the 10 commandments up is offensive and against your 1st amendment but it's infringing mine by taking it down! Understand? Probably not but that's ok, liberals have a hard time seeing through their fecal cloud!


Here you go. http://time.com/3749253/churches-gay-marriage/ You can now educate yourself, if you wish, about religions that allow, perform and recognize same sex marriage. All without the lawsuits you worry about needlessly. 

Maybe you can explain how your freedom to practice your religion is infringed upon by not having the basic tenets of your faith displayed on public buildings. Do Hindus suffer because Sidhartha doesn't greet them at the courthouse entrance? How about a nice statue of the Buddha on the judge's bench? I'm not sure what having a proclamation about having no god but yours plastered on public buildings says about religous freedom to you, but it says much to me. And it says nothing freeing.


----------



## dixiegal62

I agree there are many churches that have no objections to marrying gays. Gay marraige is no longer out of reach for anyone who wants it. So what's the problem with some churches wanting to protect their right not to participate?


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> The first amendment does indeed protect the rights of the religous. If your worst fear came to pass and those protections were breached by something like a Supreme Court ruling laws like these would be no help. They would become unconstitutional( parts may already be) and unenforcable. So , again, other than scoring political points by feeding a bit more fear and diviseveness to the base what is the real purpose of even proposing laws like these?



It gives grounds for dismissal of any lawsuit brought against clergy.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> I agree there are many churches that have no objections to marrying gays. Gay marraige is no longer out of reach for anyone who wants it. So what's the problem with some churches wanting to protect their right not to participate?


That's the point, _this_ proposed law is nothing but a scare tactic and political posturing.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> It gives grounds for dismissal of any lawsuit brought against clergy.


Those grounds existed before the law. The law does nothing to enhance them. But it sounds like it does something so that's important.


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> That's the point, _this_ proposed law is nothing but a scare tactic and political posturing.


Do you blame people for not trusting our government to do what it says it will? How many times have the people been lied to?


----------



## mmoetc

dixiegal62 said:


> I agree there are many churches that have no objections to marrying gays. Gay marraige is no longer out of reach for anyone who wants it. So what's the problem with some churches wanting to protect their right not to participate?


Absolutely nothing. But laws giving them protections they already have serve what real purpose? Unless it's to make some feel better? The perfect role for government, no?


----------



## mmoetc

dixiegal62 said:


> Do you blame people for not trusting our government to do what it says it will? How many times have the people been lied to?


On an almost daily basis. Of course, laws like this purporting to protect the rights of the clergy based on the premise that such rights don't already exist are just another lie. But it makes some feel good and that's what's really important.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> Those grounds existed before the law. The law does nothing to enhance them. But it sounds like it does something so that's important.


 You know that, and I know that, but, a crooked lawyer can twist those words and keep a lawsuit going until the clergy runs out of resources and is forced to give up the fight. It happens all of the time.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> You know that, and I know that, but, a crooked lawyer can twist those words and keep a lawsuit going until the clergy runs out of resources and is forced to give up the fight. It happens all of the time.


That is not true. I myself would give money to that church. There are big pockets that will take on the defense if this went to court.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Irish Pixie said:


> GA wants religious law that is in violation of the Constitutional right to same sex marriage and other anti LGBT.
> 
> I was mocked me when I said recently that we'd have the christian version of sharia law if the religious could get away with it. Still think it's far fetched?
> 
> "Today, Georgia's State Senate voted in favor of a harmful anti-LGBT discrimination that will now be sent to Georgia's House of Representatives for a response. And this so-called "First Amendment Defense Act," is just the first of a series of so-called "religious freedom bills" under consideration in the Georgia legislature, which would allow individuals to cite their religious beliefs to discriminate against LGBT Georgians."
> 
> http://www.glaad.org/blog/georgia-senate-advances-anti-lgbt-discrimination-bill


So don't live in GA. There are 49 other states to live in.
Seems simple enough?


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> You know that, and I know that, but, a crooked lawyer can twist those words and keep a lawsuit going until the clergy runs out of resources and is forced to give up the fight. It happens all of the time.


And if they can twist words to defy the constitution how much easier it must be to twist them to get around laws such as these? But hey, what's a few more laws on the books anyway. A few more laws with a few more unintended consequences leading to a few more lawsuits by crooked lawyers twisting words. I'll be waiting for the pro business backlash when the first cases of businesses having to accomodate all those who insist that Saturday and Sunday are days if rest and cannot work. But you feel more protected by laws like this and that's really what the politicians think is important.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Laura Zone 5 said:


> So don't live in GA. There are 49 other states to live in.
> Seems simple enough?


I'll throw back the typical conservative line- "Because the libs will use it as a jumping off point!!" "Now it's just one state before you know it it's the country!!" 

The amendments are falling, the amendments are falling!!! 

ETA: To be honest it's goring *my* sacred cow. I can admit it.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

I don't know what you are trying to say?

At the end of the day, it's all about $$$$.
People leave the state, businesses leave the state, it hits them in the wallet.

Those folks and businesses go to states that support their agenda, and the money follows.....enriching that state.

Either the state that is losing $$$ and tax payers changes its policy, or it doesn't.
Either way, those tax payers and businesses are happy where they move and are embraced?

Seems like a win win?


----------



## poppy

Irish Pixie said:


> There are denominations that will preform same sex marriage, many are right here in the US of A.  Not everyone, or every church, is anti gay.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessing_of_same-sex_unions_in_Christian_churches#United_States


There are also bakers who will make a gay wedding cake but that didn't stop gays from filing suit against some who wouldn't. Your argument proves nothing. It's only a matter of time before some preacher is sued. You know it and I know it.


----------



## painterswife

poppy said:


> There are also bakers who will make a gay wedding cake but that didn't stop gays from filing suit against some who wouldn't. Your argument proves nothing. It's only a matter of time before some preacher is sued. You know it and I know it.


Churches and businesses have different laws. I always heard we already have the laws we need from conservatives but here they want to add laws that the constitution already covers.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> And if they can twist words to defy the constitution how much easier it must be to twist them to get around laws such as these? But hey, what's a few more laws on the books anyway. A few more laws with a few more unintended consequences leading to a few more lawsuits by crooked lawyers twisting words. I'll be waiting for the pro business backlash when the first cases of businesses having to accomodate all those who insist that Saturday and Sunday are days if rest and cannot work. But you feel more protected by laws like this and that's really what the politicians think is important.


You don't have to wait for a pro-business backlash. They are already against these laws. To be honest, I see no real need for these laws, but, I see no real harm in them either, other than people's over-reactions.


----------



## Heritagefarm

painterswife said:


> That is not true. I myself would give money to that church. There are big pockets that will take on the defense if this went to court.


Some churches have pockets as deep as big companies. Many of them will willingly get involved in politics, to enforce their sense of egomaniac morality on the whole country, but wo if the government pries into their business!


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> Churches and businesses have different laws. I alway here we already have the laws we need from conservatives but here they want to add laws that the constitution already covers.


Huge difference between a church and a business. I'm surprised people don't know that.


----------



## Shine

mmoetc said:


> Who's stopping you from explaining your views and teaching your religion to your children? It's hard for me to object to laws and rules that prohibit school officials from leading prayers and teaching religous principles in public schools. I'm sure you wouldn't want the wrong brand of christianity( I hear there are many), Islam, Buddhism, animism or any other ism or ianity foisted upon your children in public school or have them feel compelled to participate in any of their prayers or rituals. Teach your children whatever you wish about Heather and her two mommies. Don't be surprised if your children learn all on their own a thing or two about them.


I guess that my allusion to a father or a mother having the right to teach their own children about certain things rather than someone else teaching them of those things didn't pan out, sorry. 

It the religions are done in a respectful manner, then I do not have an issue with others practicing their religion anywhere.

I have two children who think about some important subjects differently than I do and I respect their viewpoints.


----------



## mmoetc

poppy said:


> There are also bakers who will make a gay wedding cake but that didn't stop gays from filing suit against some who wouldn't. Your argument proves nothing. It's only a matter of time before some preacher is sued. You know it and I know it.


What makes a wedding cake gay? Did it choose to be gay or was it baked that way?


----------



## mmoetc

Shine said:


> I guess that my allusion to a father or a mother having the right to teach their own children about certain things rather than someone else teaching them of those things didn't pan out, sorry.
> 
> It the religions are done in a respectful manner, then I do not have an issue with others practicing their religion anywhere.
> 
> I have two children who think about some important subjects differently than I do and I respect their viewpoints.


I simply asked who was stopping you. It doesn't seem to be a difficult question. Who's stopping you from teaching your children what you wish? Who's stopping you from attending school board meetings and bringing up your concerns? Who's stopping you from backing candidates or running yourself in an effort to steer curriculum choices in your public schools?


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> You don't have to wait for a pro-business backlash. They are already against these laws. To be honest, I see no real need for these laws, but, I see no real harm in them either, other than people's over-reactions.


It's your government at work. Enjoy the fruits . It is good to know they've solved all the other problems in Georgia freeing up time to concentrate on issues like these.


----------



## oneraddad

A church is just an untaxed business.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> It's your government at work. Enjoy the fruits . It is good to know they've solved all the other problems in Georgia freeing up time to concentrate on issues like these.


 I look at it differently. As long as they are distracted with redundant laws, such as these, they have less time to foul up important stuff.


----------



## Shine

mmoetc said:


> I simply asked who was stopping you. It doesn't seem to be a difficult question. Who's stopping you from teaching your children what you wish? Who's stopping you from attending school board meetings and bringing up your concerns? Who's stopping you from backing candidates or running yourself in an effort to steer curriculum choices in your public schools?


"no one" person is stopping me from teaching my children what I want them to know, however as a single parent I must depend upon the public schools to teach them that which they need to get a diploma.  How is it that we find out about things almost always after the fact? 

Backing my candidates??? Diebold, shenanagens like the Hillary is pulling, running myself? Lots of hurdles there...


----------



## mmoetc

Shine said:


> "no one" person is stopping me from teaching my children what I want them to know, however as a single parent I must depend upon the public schools to teach them that which they need to get a diploma. How is it that we find out about things almost always after the fact?
> 
> Backing my candidates??? Diebold, shenanagens like the Hillary is pulling, running myself? Lots of hurdles there...


And what does getting a diploma have to do with religion and prayer in schools. Parenthood, single or co-, has its challenges. Being as involved as possible is the only good answer. There's a woman named Hillary you don't like running for your local school board? I'd suggest you not vote for her and find someone you approve of to support. Excuses are easy. Life is hard.


----------



## Shine

mmoetc said:


> And what does getting a diploma have to do with religion and prayer in schools. Parenthood, single or co-, has its challenges. Being as involved as possible is the only good answer. There's a woman named Hillary you don't like running for your local school board? I'd suggest you not vote for her and find someone you approve of to support. Excuses are easy. Life is hard.


OK, you are going off on a tangent that I do not wish to follow. I was trying to honestly answer your questions...


----------



## JoePa

I truly feel sorry for people who are gay - if they were born that way they were born with a burden - just like so many people who were born with mental or physical problems - the question is what do you do about it - if someone is born with a very bad temper that person should resist that inclination - if someone is born with an sexual attraction to children that person should resist that inclination - if someone is born with a tendency to commit adultery that person should resist that - if someone is born with a tendency to kill they should resist that inclination - we are all born with some kind of flaw - its what you do to overcome it what counts - 

There will never be an agreement between people who support homosexual activity and those that think it is a sin - it just will never happen and by rights it shouldn't ever happen - if a person thinks that something is evil that person should do something about it - not just keep quiet - evil prevails when good people do nothing - 

And that thought also is true when there is a discussion between people who believe in God and those who don't - there is just no way these people will see things the same way - the basic foundation of their belief system is so different that they have few things in common other than the fact that they are human beings - 

Christians must stand up for what they believe in otherwise they will be tossed into being a group without any influence - and society will suffer dearly - remember it was Christ who taught to love your neighbor as yourself - to honor you father and mother - to help the poor - not to steal - not commit adultery - on and on - before He taught these things the world was mostly occupied by barbarians who had little value for life or virtues - so be thankful for the Christian faith and what it has provided you -


----------



## wr

Shine said:


> "no one" person is stopping me from teaching my children what I want them to know, however as a single parent I must depend upon the public schools to teach them that which they need to get a diploma. How is it that we find out about things almost always after the fact?
> 
> Backing my candidates??? Diebold, shenanagens like the Hillary is pulling, running myself? Lots of hurdles there...


I was a single parent as well and my kids also attended public school but it sure didn't stop me from having dinner table discussions about things I didn't agree with or felt needed emphasis. 

I can't think of anything I found out about after the fact because every single night we reviewed homework together, we discussed classroom activities and my bedtime reading was often their text books and reading material. 

Sometimes the best answer for kids is simply, showing them that if they don't agree with something and they can either paw dirt or work for change.


----------



## FourDeuce

"I truly feel sorry for people who are gay - if they were born that way they were born with a burden"

All people are born with a burden. Some people try to make other people carry their burdens.:bash:

" if a person thinks that something is evil that person should do something about it - not just keep quiet - evil prevails when good people do nothing"

Evil also prevails when some people try to control other people's lives.

"remember it was Christ who taught to love your neighbor as yourself - to honor you father and mother - to help the poor - not to steal - not commit adultery - on and on"

We'll remember that as soon as somebody proves it.


----------



## poppy

mmoetc said:


> What makes a wedding cake gay? Did it choose to be gay or was it baked that way?


Dumb question. What makes it gay is the same thing that makes gay weddings gay.


----------



## painterswife

poppy said:


> Dumb question. What makes it gay is the same thing that makes gay weddings gay.


That is hysterical. I did not know that a cake could be male or female.


----------



## poppy

FourDeuce said:


> "I truly feel sorry for people who are gay - if they were born that way they were born with a burden"
> 
> All people are born with a burden. Some people try to make other people carry their burdens.:bash:
> 
> " if a person thinks that something is evil that person should do something about it - not just keep quiet - evil prevails when good people do nothing"
> 
> *Evil also prevails when some people try to control other people's lives.*
> 
> "remember it was Christ who taught to love your neighbor as yourself - to honor you father and mother - to help the poor - not to steal - not commit adultery - on and on"
> 
> We'll remember that as soon as somebody proves it.


Is forcing someone to do things they believe are wrong not controlling someone's life? If gays want to get married, fine. But don't force those who don't believe it is right to go against their beliefs and contribute or participate. Seems pretty simple. It's equally fair and forces no one into anything.


----------



## painterswife

poppy said:


> Is forcing someone to do things they believe are wrong not controlling someone's life? If gays want to get married, fine. But don't force those who don't believe it is right to go against their beliefs and contribute or participate. Seems pretty simple. It's equally fair and forces no one into anything.


Do carpenters make sure they are not building a house for a gay couple? Do butchers make sure they are not providing meat for a gay wedding? Do farmers make sure they are not growing flower for that gay cake? Until all those good upstanding religious people take a stand about everything instead of just part of the process then it is hypocritical to just balk at the end product.


----------



## MO_cows

oneraddad said:


> A church is just an untaxed business.


And so is the Boy Scouts, NAACP and a lot of others. To carry out their mission they have to conduct "business" of some sort. Are you in favor of doing away with "non profit" status and tax exemptions that go along with it?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> You know that, and I know that, but, a crooked lawyer can twist those words and keep a lawsuit going until the clergy runs out of resources and is forced to give up the fight. *It happens all of the time.*


Then *show* us an example


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> OK, *you are going off on a tangent* that I do not wish to follow. I was trying to honestly answer your questions...


You first went off on the tangent talking about schools around post # 142
Everyone else was talking about Govt, churches and businesses

By post # 148 you had progressed to:



> They are forcing the schools to indoctrinate the children, what more proof do you need? If there is nothing more baseless than the premise of forcing themselves upon elementary school children to have to try to make sense of this stuff then you will never get it.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> You first went off on the tangent talking about schools around post # 142
> Everyone else was talking about Govt, churches and businesses
> 
> By post # 148 you had progressed to:


Silly person, someone, maybe you, asked me for instances of the pushing of the envelope, go bark up some other tree can ya?


----------



## greg273

JoePa said:


> I truly feel sorry for people who are gay - if they were born that way they were born with a burden - just like so many people who were born with mental or physical problems - the question is what do you do about it - if someone is born with a very bad temper that person should resist that inclination - if someone is born with an sexual attraction to children that person should resist that inclination - if someone is born with a tendency to commit adultery that person should resist that - if someone is born with a tendency to kill they should resist that inclination - we are all born with some kind of flaw - its what you do to overcome it what counts - -


 Look at the things you listed after 'being gay'... pedophilia, murder, adultery, now all of those things HURT others. Two consenting adults who happen to be born gay aren't hurting ANYONE, and as such, what they do is none of my business, and I sure as heck won't go out of my way to ostracize them. 
I don't think anyone chooses who they are attracted to, so if someone was born attracted to the same sex, I don't have a problem with that person, in fact i feel sorry for them because of the hateful, hurtful things people say about them, and you're right JoPa it does seem to be a burden. Why would anyone ADD to that burden??


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> *Silly person*, someone, maybe you, asked me for instances of the pushing of the envelope, go bark up some other tree can ya?


I just pointed out the truth, and showed the evidence.

I asked you for examples of US clergy being forced to perform weddings, but you keep ignoring that one.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Irish Pixie said:


> Huge difference between a church and a business. I'm surprised people don't know that.


Not really. It's just that one actually gives you something in return for your money. Now, I realize that's a broad paintbrush. But really, a lot of them run with people's money. Ever noticed how grand those mega churches are?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Heritagefarm said:


> Not really. It's just that one actually gives you something in return for your money. Now, I realize that's a broad paintbrush. But really, a lot of them run with people's money. Ever noticed how grand those mega churches are?


Churches pay no taxes and receive no money from the federal government, businesses do. Churches are private, businesses are not. 

I think the mega churches (all churches?) _should_ be taxed.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Irish Pixie said:


> Churches pay no taxes and receive no money from the federal government, businesses do. Churches are private, businesses are not.
> 
> I think the mega churches (all churches?) _should_ be taxed.


Agreed. In fact, though, that was one of the original issues that polarized the religious right: tax end toon status, Bob Jones U and racism. Nothing motivates people like taxes and supremecy.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu

Bearfootfarm said:


> That merely shows what you don't know.
> There's actually a fairly long list.
> You should spend more time researching and less time assigning labels


10-4 good buddy, I'll take that under advisement. From looking through the list provided it seems many are branches off a main church, so basically half way newer churches. No mention of baptist or Catholic though! So basically in a matter 100 years or so people have relaxed their morals and gave in to the discrimination fight of gays because that is their sexual preference. What if the pedophiles decide they are being discriminated because they can't express their sexual preference legally? Of course this is not rational to you but it kind of goes along the lines of having the 10 commandments removed because it offends non believers but offends me because I do. If your offended by my faith and you feel the need to remove God from everything then you would be infringing on those who believes right. If you don't like it, don't look at it. If it's such a pointless law they why do certain individuals start the thread that they know will start arguments? Because they like to stir the pot because their lives are probably void of something! Pleasant evening.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Texaspredatorhu said:


> 10-4 good buddy, I'll take that under advisement. From looking through the list provided it seems many are branches off a main church, so basically half way newer churches. No mention of baptist or Catholic though! So basically in a matter 100 years or so people have relaxed their morals and gave in to the discrimination fight of gays because that is their sexual preference. What if the pedophiles decide they are being discriminated because they can't express their sexual preference legally? Of course this is not rational to you but it kind of goes along the lines of having the 10 commandments removed because it offends non believers but offends me because I do. If your offended by my faith and you feel the need to remove God from everything then you would be infringing on those who believes right. If you don't like it, don't look at it. If it's such a pointless law they why do certain individuals start the thread that they know will start arguments? Because they like to stir the pot because their lives are probably void of something! Pleasant evening.


Pedophilia is illegal. It will always be illegal because a child cannot consent to sex. It's funny that you brought up pedophilia _and_ the catholic church tho, all those pedophile priests that the church covered up for at least decades, and probably centuries. And you have a problem with same sex consenting adults. Unbelievable. 

If you don't like the gay lifestyle, don't look at it. Easy peasy.


----------



## keenataz

Texaspredatorhu said:


> 10-4 good buddy, I'll take that under advisement. From looking through the list provided it seems many are branches off a main church, so basically half way newer churches. No mention of baptist or Catholic though! So basically in a matter 100 years or so people have relaxed their morals and gave in to the discrimination fight of gays because that is their sexual preference. What if the pedophiles decide they are being discriminated because they can't express their sexual preference legally? Of course this is not rational to you but it kind of goes along the lines of having the 10 commandments removed because it offends non believers but offends me because I do. If your offended by my faith and you feel the need to remove God from everything then you would be infringing on those who believes right. If you don't like it, don't look at it. If it's such a pointless law they why do certain individuals start the thread that they know will start arguments? Because they like to stir the pot because their lives are probably void of something! Pleasant evening.


Why is it that a lot of you right wing christians can some how veer off to things like pedophilia. I am surprised you aren't bringing out the bestiality argument.

I will say the same thing to you-if you are bothered by gay people-ignore them-it isn't that hard. I promise they aren't like some religious peddlers who are going to come knocking on your door trying to convert you.

But I am guessing you like to stir the pot as your life is void of something.

And I am not gay but it does offend me when people bring up pedophilia in threads like this. It reeks of desperation.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Heritagefarm said:


> Not really. It's just that one actually gives you something in return for your money. Now, I realize that's a broad paintbrush. But really, a lot of them run with people's money. Ever noticed how grand those mega churches are?


The laws that apply to retail businesses are far different from those which apply to churches or religious organizations


----------



## Irish Pixie

keenataz said:


> Why is it that a lot of you right wing christians can some how veer off to things like pedophilia. I am surprised you aren't bringing out the bestiality argument.
> 
> I will say the same thing to you-if you are bothered by gay people-ignore them-it isn't that hard. I promise they aren't like some religious peddlers who are going to come knocking on your door trying to convert you.
> 
> But I am guessing you like to stir the pot as your life is void of something.
> 
> And I am not gay but it does offend me when people bring up pedophilia in threads like this. It reeks of desperation.


Spot on- as usual.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu

mmoetc said:


> Here you go. http://time.com/3749253/churches-gay-marriage/ You can now educate yourself, if you wish, about religions that allow, perform and recognize same sex marriage. All without the lawsuits you worry about needlessly.
> 
> Maybe you can explain how your freedom to practice your religion is infringed upon by not having the basic tenets of your faith displayed on public buildings. Do Hindus suffer because Sidhartha doesn't greet them at the courthouse entrance? How about a nice statue of the Buddha on the judge's bench? I'm not sure what having a proclamation about having no god but yours plastered on public buildings says about religous freedom to you, but it says much to me. And it says nothing freeing.


It's the principle of it. You think it infringes on your right and I think it infringes on my right to be put away. In the end you and yours will win because some liberal judge will agree with your side and that it infringes your right to not believe but could care less because I have the same right as you! Chalk it up to difference in opinion and morals, nothing more, nothing less. The biggest difference is that I amexpected to accept it all when you and yours don't! A touch of hypocrisy of you ask me.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Texaspredatorhu said:


> 10-4 good buddy, I'll take that under advisement. From looking through the list provided it seems many are branches off a main church, so basically half way newer churches. No mention of baptist or Catholic though! So basically in a matter 100 years or so people have relaxed their morals and gave in to the discrimination fight of gays because that is their sexual preference. What if the pedophiles decide they are being discriminated because they can't express their sexual preference legally? Of course this is not rational to you but it kind of goes along the lines of having the 10 commandments removed because it offends non believers but offends me because I do. If your offended by my faith and you feel the need to remove God from everything then you would be infringing on those who believes right. If you don't like it, don't look at it. *If it's such a pointless law they why do certain individuals start the thread that they know will start arguments?* Because they like to stir the pot because their lives are probably void of something! Pleasant evening.


It was for *discussion*. 

There doesn't have to be any "argument", and there is plenty of :stirpot: to go around

No one is trying to keep you from doing anything you want, nor trying to "remove God" from anything. The thread is about some trying to force their beliefs on others

(Paragraphs are helpful)


----------



## Texaspredatorhu

Irish Pixie said:


> Pedophilia is illegal. It will always be illegal because a child cannot consent to sex. It's funny that you brought up pedophilia _and_ the catholic church tho, all those pedophile priests that the church covered up for at least decades, and probably centuries. And you have a problem with same sex consenting adults. Unbelievable.
> 
> If you don't like the gay lifestyle, don't look at it. Easy peasy.


Yup I sure did. The Lutherans did it too but they are a touch less lax than Catholics. I also think every last one of those priests should be hung. 

If you don't like God then don't look. So if a kid that is under the age of 18 decides to have sex it automatically isn't consensual? Yeah I'll believe that when my turds turn purple and taste like rainbow sherbet, good effort!


----------



## keenataz

Texaspredatorhu said:


> It's the principle of it. You think it infringes on your right and I think it infringes on my right to be put away. In the end you and yours will win because some liberal judge will agree with your side and that it infringes your right to not believe but could care less because I have the same right as you! Chalk it up to difference in opinion and morals, nothing more, nothing less. The biggest difference is that I amexpected to accept it all when you and yours don't! A touch of hypocrisy of you ask me.


I am just curious-what liberal judge has ever ruled you can't have your religious beliefs. Has anyone told you you must attend a gay wedding or dispaly a rainbow sticker?Because if they have I would stand beside you in protest.

I actually accept your right to your beliefs as long as you accept my right to think they don't apply to me.


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> Pedophilia is illegal. It will always be illegal because a child cannot consent to sex. It's funny that you brought up pedophilia _and_ the catholic church tho, all those pedophile priests that the church covered up for at least decades, and probably centuries. And you have a problem with same sex consenting adults. Unbelievable.
> 
> If you don't like the gay lifestyle, don't look at it. Easy peasy.


Yes as far as I'm concerned all those gay priest should be in prison for what they did to those boys amd the ones who harmed girls also.


----------



## greg273

Texaspredatorhu said:


> I think it infringes on my right to be put away.


 What does that even mean?


----------



## Texaspredatorhu

keenataz said:


> Why is it that a lot of you right wing christians can some how veer off to things like pedophilia. I am surprised you aren't bringing out the bestiality argument.
> 
> I will say the same thing to you-if you are bothered by gay people-ignore them-it isn't that hard. I promise they aren't like some religious peddlers who are going to come knocking on your door trying to convert you.
> 
> But I am guessing you like to stir the pot as your life is void of something.
> 
> And I am not gay but it does offend me when people bring up pedophilia in threads like this. It reeks of desperation.


It's hard to ignore them when they have a rip roar parade through the streets of Houston and leave a giant mess and run through the street half naked. 

Up until about 20 minutes ago my life was void of wild turkey and keystone light.

It's not desperation, it's a fact. There are girls in boy scouts and on football teams now too! Just going against nature.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Yup I sure did. The Lutherans did it too but they are a touch less lax than Catholics. I also think every last one of those priests should be hung.
> 
> If you don't like God then don't look. So if a kid that is under the age of 18 decides to have sex it automatically isn't consensual? Yeah I'll believe that when my turds turn purple and taste like rainbow sherbet, good effort!


You don't understand what constitutes consensual sex?

Educate yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> Pedophilia is illegal. It will always be illegal because a child cannot consent to sex. It's funny that you brought up pedophilia _and_ the catholic church tho, all those pedophile priests that the church covered up for at least decades, and probably centuries. And you have a problem with same sex consenting adults. Unbelievable.
> 
> If you don't like the gay lifestyle, don't look at it. Easy peasy.


I have often wondered and worried as kids are forced to grow up faster and seem to be more sexual younger if in time the age of consent will be lowered. Not many people blink an eye anymore when they hear of 12 year olds having sex.


----------



## greg273

Texaspredatorhu said:


> If you don't like God then don't look.


 At what???


----------



## wr

Texaspredatorhu said:


> It's the principle of it. You think it infringes on your right and I think it infringes on my right to be put away. In the end you and yours will win because some liberal judge will agree with your side and that it infringes your right to not believe but could care less because I have the same right as you! Chalk it up to difference in opinion and morals, nothing more, nothing less. The biggest difference is that I amexpected to accept it all when you and yours don't! A touch of hypocrisy of you ask me.


I'm more than fine with publicly displaying the 10 Commandments but are you just as fine with putting the guidelines for for other faiths alongside it?


----------



## greg273

dixiegal62 said:


> . Not many people blink an eye anymore when they hear of 12 year olds having sex.


 Huh?? What kind of people are you hanging out with???


----------



## dixiegal62

greg273 said:


> Huh?? What kind of people are you hanging out with???


Believe me it's not a crowd I hang out with.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu

keenataz said:


> I am just curious-what liberal judge has ever ruled you can't have your religious beliefs. Has anyone told you you must attend a gay wedding or dispaly a rainbow sticker?Because if they have I would stand beside you in protest.
> 
> I actually accept your right to your beliefs as long as you accept my right to think they don't apply to me.


Oklahoma, Florida, Alabama all come to mind! Saw a huge 20x30 rainbow flag in Massachusetts when I drive through there on public property. That was ok because it wasn't a Dixie flag!


----------



## Texaspredatorhu

Irish Pixie said:


> You don't understand what constitutes consensual sex?
> 
> Educate yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape


No, I understand. I guess the minors are being infringed on now too because they cannot decide if they can have sex or not! I guess those that do can always get an abortion or birth control, just not in Texas I guess, we like low income mothers here!


----------



## Texaspredatorhu

Irish Pixie said:


> You don't understand what constitutes consensual sex?
> 
> Educate yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape


You should also read the entire link!


----------



## Irish Pixie

Texaspredatorhu said:


> No, I understand. I guess the minors are being infringed on now too because they cannot decide if they can have sex or not! I guess those that do can always get an abortion or birth control, just not in Texas I guess, we like low income mothers here!


I'd suggest birth control rather than abortion... 

Yes, you do! Do you like paying for those low income babies rather than convenient, effective birth control? Psst. The birth control is much much cheaper.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu

wr said:


> I'm more than fine with publicly displaying the 10 Commandments but are you just as fine with putting the guidelines for for other faiths alongside it?


Honestly, I could care less. I honestly don't care if someone is gay or not. I don't agree with their outrageous celebrations where they run through the streets half naked. I also don't like watching a straight couple making out and feeling each other up in public either. I have yet to see a parade of 10000 straight couples half naked and trashing the streets.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu

Irish Pixie said:


> I'd suggest birth control rather than abortion...
> 
> Yes, you do! Do you like paying for those low income babies rather than convenient, effective birth control? Psst. The birth control is much much cheaper.


Why not? I support all the other low life low rent turds that refuse to get a job and live off the government, what's wrong with a low INCOME mother? Key word being income!


----------



## mmoetc

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Honestly, I could care less. I honestly don't care if someone is gay or not. I don't agree with their outrageous celebrations where they run through the streets half naked. I also don't like watching a straight couple making out and feeling each other up in public either. I have yet to see a parade of 10000 straight couples half naked and trashing the streets.


Never been to Mardi Gras, huh?


----------



## coolrunnin

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Honestly, I could care less. I honestly don't care if someone is gay or not. I don't agree with their outrageous celebrations where they run through the streets half naked. I also don't like watching a straight couple making out and feeling each other up in public either. I have yet to see a parade of 10000 straight couples half naked and trashing the streets.


Don't go to South Padre here in a week or 2 then it'll burn your eyes out.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu

mmoetc said:


> Never been to Mardi Gras, huh?


Nope, not planning on it either. Not a celebration of marriage or marriage rights to boot!


----------



## Texaspredatorhu

coolrunnin said:


> Don't go to South Padre here in a week or 2 then it'll burn your eyes out.


Too far to drive and could care less about spring break. Once agin not a celebration of traditional marriage.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> I have often wondered and worried as kids are forced to grow up faster and seem to be more sexual younger if in time the age of consent will be lowered. Not many people blink an eye anymore when they hear of 12 year olds having sex.


It's 16 in some states now


----------



## mmoetc

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Too far to drive and could care less about spring break. Once agin not a celebration of traditional marriage.


But that's not what you'd claimed not to have seen. I can give you countless examples of large numbers of heterosexuals acting out in public. But why bother?


----------



## Texaspredatorhu

mmoetc said:


> But that's not what you'd claimed not to have seen. I can give you countless examples of large numbers of heterosexuals acting out in public. But why bother?


In celebration of traditional marriage?

I can give examples of them too, but doing it in celebration of traditional marriage I highly doubt. When Obama signed the marriage equality act is when the things I stated happened.


----------



## mmoetc

dixiegal62 said:


> I have often wondered and worried as kids are forced to grow up faster and seem to be more sexual younger if in time the age of consent will be lowered. Not many people blink an eye anymore when they hear of 12 year olds having sex.


Or maybe we're going back to a simpler, better time when the age of consent was much younger than today. http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230


----------



## dixiegal62

mmoetc said:


> Or maybe we're going back to a simpler, better time when the age of consent was much younger than today. http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230


History does tend to repeat itself.


----------



## mmoetc

Texaspredatorhu said:


> In celebration of traditional marriage?
> 
> I can give examples of them too, but doing it in celebration of traditional marriage I highly doubt. When Obama signed the marriage equality act is when the things I stated happened.


And when exactly did he sign this act?


----------



## Texaspredatorhu

Excuse me not act, the Supreme Court ruled on it. My apologies.


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> Without knowing the details of the cases I'm at a bit of a disadvantage in discussing them. The only cases I could find involved a wedding chapel business in Idaho open to all marriages since 1989 with no mention of a religous test until same sex marriage became legal and some pastors, fearing a non existant threat, refusing to do any weddings for their congregants. If you'd care to provide details and discuss them rather than entering another spitting match with BFF I'd be interested. If not, have fun.


Certainly.
Spitting matches have never been my idea of "fun". LOL

http://www.umc.org/news-and-media/church-says-no-i-dos-until-all-can-marry

This one and others involving the Anglican and Episcopal churches in several states brings up the uncomfortable point you and a few others have made.
That is, pressure hewing brought from *within* the congregation to either allow or disallow gay marriages.

Defending from outside forces may be a little difficult, but coming from their own members may prove to be a much bigger challenge.

BTW.
I don't know why that story about the Vermont guy going to jail for a year keeps resurfacing, but despite the different links and sources, it appears to be completely false.

There was a Vermont pastor/bishop/clergywoman who was the subject of another link I've yet to retrieve. It was another example of a similar internal rift.


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> Certainly.
> Spitting matches have never been my idea of "fun". LOL
> 
> http://www.umc.org/news-and-media/church-says-no-i-dos-until-all-can-marry
> 
> This one and others involving the Anglican and Episcopal churches in several states brings up the uncomfortable point you and a few others have made.
> That is, pressure hewing brought from *within* the congregation to either allow or disallow gay marriages.
> 
> Defending from outside forces may be a little difficult, but coming from their own members may prove to be a much bigger challenge.
> 
> BTW.
> I don't know why that story about the Vermont guy going to jail for a year keeps resurfacing, but despite the different links and sources, it appears to be completely false.
> 
> There was a Vermont pastor/bishop/clergywoman who was the subject of another link I've yet to retrieve. It was another example of a similar internal rift.


Again your point eludes me. Churches and religions change and adapt to needs and wishes of their congregants. Martin Luther posted bans on a church door that radically changed Christianity. The good Christians in church can't agree so some split off and form their own church. And again and again and again. Every little storefront church and every mega church practice slightly different brands of christianity. Many claim that all others aren't true Christians. To somehow try to equate these internal struggles to lawsuits being brought by outsiders ( something that hasn't happened and is constitutionally prohibited) is more than a reach. Its a stretch worthy of the greatest yoga master.


----------



## coolrunnin

Why is it a problem if the Methodists want to allow gay marriage in their church.


----------



## mmoetc

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Excuse me not act, the Supreme Court ruled on it. My apologies.


No worries. It's not the most ridiculous claim you've made and at least you owned up to your error.


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> Its a pretty big stretch from private citizens organizing a boycott and laws regulating union activity but I'll give you google research points.


There's actually more to it than that, but naturally a NLRB site is going to focus a lot on labor laws.
I was thinking about the international boycott of Israel when I posted that.
The law about secondary boycotts applies not only to unions.

I wondered why and how some in the U.S. government were warning of the illegalities of participating in it, and that explained it for me.
If the gov't were to suspend contracts of businesses that dealt with Israel as they were asked to do, that would fall under the definition of a secondary boycott.


People are free to act on their own and organizing a boycott of Israeli owned businesses would be legal, but to publicly start one against other businesses that are NOT Israeli, is illegal.

Not very relevant to this thread, other than it was mentioned a few pages ago. But I don't mind a little incidental education now and then.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Oklahoma, Florida, Alabama all come to mind! Saw a huge 20x30 rainbow flag in Massachusetts when I drive through there on public property. That was ok because it wasn't a Dixie flag!


Who made rainbows?


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> There's actually more to it than that, but naturally a NLRB site is going to focus a lot on labor laws.
> I was thinking about the international boycott of Israel when I posted that.
> The law about secondary boycotts applies not only to unions.
> 
> I wondered why and how some in the U.S. government were warning of the illegalities of participating in it, and that explained it for me.
> If the gov't were to suspend contracts of businesses that dealt with Israel as they were asked to do, that would fall under the definition of a secondary boycott.
> 
> 
> People are free to act on their own and organizing a boycott of Israeli owned businesses would be legal, but to publicly start one against other businesses that are NOT Israeli, is illegal.
> 
> Not very relevant to this thread, other than it was mentioned a few pages ago. But I don't mind a little incidental education now and then.


And still quite the stretch from private citizens organizing a boycott to government coercion in enforcing one. Is the ban on trade to Cuba a primary or secondary boycott?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Honestly, I could care less. I honestly don't care if someone is gay or not. I don't agree with their outrageous celebrations where they run through the streets half naked. I also don't like watching a straight couple making out and feeling each other up in public either. I have yet to see a parade of 10000 straight couples half naked and trashing the streets.


You've never heard of Woodstock?


----------



## mmoetc

Bearfootfarm said:


> Who made rainbows?


Skittles.


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> Again your point eludes me. Churches and religions change and adapt to needs and wishes of their congregants. Martin Luther posted bans on a church door that radically changed Christianity. The good Christians in church can't agree so some split off and form their own church. And again and again and again. Every little storefront church and every mega church practice slightly different brands of christianity. Many claim that all others aren't true Christians. To somehow try to equate these internal struggles to lawsuits being brought by outsiders ( something that hasn't happened and is constitutionally prohibited) is more than a reach. Its a stretch worthy of the greatest yoga master.


Ok, let me clarify before you go any further.

You, Irish Pixie and Painterswife (IIRC) made an excellent point earlier.
Y'all were right, and had an insight others were missing, including me.

Most of these examples I found didn't include a lawsuit, they never made it out of the Church's council of elders (or their equivalent).
It didn't come from a gay couple that weren't members seeking to force an issue. Mostly it was a congregation that agreed with them but ran afoul of the church's doctrine and by-laws.

That's something no government law will ever be able to touch, and it is much more devastating.

I realize it's easy to assume that if someone is on opposites sides of an issue, they will use an irrational defense if they can, but you know what they say about assuming.........


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> Who made rainbows?


I know that one!:good job:

But you'll say "Prove it.":awh:


----------



## Texaspredatorhu

Bearfootfarm said:


> You've never heard of Woodstock?


Once again was it a celebration of traditional marriage? I highly doubt it was.


----------



## keenataz

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Once again was it a celebration of traditional marriage? I highly doubt it was.


Actually it was a heckuva lot of fun I hear. And you'd like it. At that time most gays were still in the closet.


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> Ok, let me clarify before you go any further.
> 
> You, Irish Pixie and Painterswife (IIRC) made an excellent point earlier.
> Y'all were right, and had an insight others were missing, including me.
> 
> Most of these examples I found didn't include a lawsuit, they never made it out of the Church's council of elders (or their equivalent).
> It didn't come from a gay couple that weren't members seeking to force an issue. Mostly it was a congregation that agreed with them but ran afoul of the church's doctrine and by-laws.
> 
> That's something no government law will ever be able to touch, and it is much more devastating.
> 
> I realize it's easy to assume that if someone is on opposites sides of an issue, they will use an irrational defense if they can, but you know what they say about assuming.........


Or it's the natural evolution of all religions and , indeed, all of man's social interaction. Not wishing to start another argument but Jesus was most likely just a Jew with new ideas who gained a following. Not much different than many clergy who have formed their own church.


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> Or it's the natural evolution of all religions and , indeed, all of man's social interaction. Not wishing to start another argument but Jesus was most likely just a Jew with new ideas who gained a following. Not much different than many clergy who have formed their own church.


Well..........
My attempt at a simple compliment, sure went South rather quickly, lol.

eep:


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> Well..........
> My attempt at a simple compliment, sure went South rather quickly, lol.
> 
> eep:


I was simply pointing out that religions change. That some are changing to be more accepting of gays isn't surprising. You can believe in Jesus's divinity and I won't quibble. I find it perfectly plausable that Jesus lived and gained a following by offering ideas other religions of his day didn't. Not much different than many preachers through many eras.


----------



## Heritagefarm

mmoetc said:


> Or it's the natural evolution of all religions and , indeed, all of man's social interaction. Not wishing to start another argument but Jesus was most likely just a Jew with new ideas who gained a following. Not much different than many clergy who have formed their own church.


Even if one does not accept his divine nature, one can, I believe, still fully appreciate his highly moral teachings alongside those of other great religious figures and philosophers.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Once again was it a celebration of traditional marriage? I highly doubt it was.


You didn't say "celebrate marriage"
You said "naked and trashing"

You still haven't explained why you hate rainbows


----------



## Bearfootfarm

mmoetc said:


> Skittles.


Exactly.
It was either a candy advertisement or a Trayvon memorial


----------



## Texaspredatorhu

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Honestly, I could care less. I honestly don't care if someone is gay or not. I don't agree with their outrageous celebrations where they run through the streets half naked. I also don't like watching a straight couple making out and feeling each other up in public either. I have yet to see a parade of 10000 straight couples half naked and trashing the streets.


I ised THEIR, as in the gay people and their celebration on that day!


----------



## Texaspredatorhu

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Oklahoma, Florida, Alabama all come to mind! Saw a huge 20x30 rainbow flag in Massachusetts when I drive through there on public property. That was ok because it wasn't a Dixie flag!


Rainbow FLAG as stated , a symbol of their sexuality. But you knew what I meant.


----------



## mmoetc

Texaspredatorhu said:


> I ised THEIR, as in the gay people and their celebration on that day!


But you made no mention of any specific day, event or even marriage in your post. You were offered many other examples of half baked couples trashing streets which did meet the criteria you put forth. You're free to modify your statement and try to make your new words and standards fit what you think you meant but the the rest of us aren't psychics. We can only comment on what you did post. To put it simply, say what you mean and mean what you say.


----------



## haypoint

For any civilization to exist there needs to be actions and behaviors that serve the greater good, insuring health, order and survivability. Often these rules are enhanced with magic. Sometimes they are enforced by invoking fear of an unseen power. Many religions have a set of laws, a foundation, a sort of contract with the community for behavior that allows open commerce and encourages a healthy growth of the community.

While Christianity has had to resort to violence, (running Islamic Terrorists back south out of Europe, commonly referred to as the Crusades) generally its history is one of peace. The Christian model has played a part in guiding Europe and North America to be the most successful areas on Earth.

Sometimes rules/laws/commandments/directions were followed blindly, but hundreds of years later there came advancements in science, medicine and psychology that supported the validity of the Bible.

The founding fathers and the majority of our elected leaders were/are Christian. There are many signs of this on display in our public buildings.

To go against this long tradition is not ever taken lightly. Generally, man&#8217;s created laws reflect what is seen as God&#8217;s laws. Other nations have adopted their set of standards and based their standards upon those beliefs. On a purely practical level, we can judge the effectiveness of their moral road map by the prosperity and freedom of their citizenry. 

In countries controlled by Islam and populated by Muslims, Sharia Law follows that. History measures their success.

If non-Christians want to think of the Bible as Christian Sharia, I won&#8217;t argue that point. If you live in Iran, you best follow Islamic Sharia. If you want to bask in the economic and social stability of America, learn the Commandments and follow the nations laws, often based on the Bible. 

But if you want laws changed to fit a lifestyle seen as perverted by the population, you can&#8217;t expect to be welcomed at every turn. In a sincere display of tolerance, most Christians will ignore your deviant behavior. Even when LGBT groups band together to pick on individuals or family run businesses, Christians seldom lash back. 

As your friend, neighbor, co-worker or employer, I don&#8217;t need to know who or how you have sex. So, tone it down a notch or two.

This Country was founded by people fleeing religious persecution. If you feel this Christian based society is messed up, please go somewhere else. I&#8217;d like to warn you, Islam isn&#8217;t going to tolerate you at all.


----------



## FourDeuce

"For any civilization to exist there needs to be actions and behaviors that serve the greater good, insuring health, order and survivability."

It's always funny watching people rationalize their desire to control everybody.


----------



## mmoetc

haypoint said:


> For any civilization to exist there needs to be actions and behaviors that serve the greater good, insuring health, order and survivability. Often these rules are enhanced with magic. Sometimes they are enforced by invoking fear of an unseen power. Many religions have a set of laws, a foundation, a sort of contract with the community for behavior that allows open commerce and encourages a healthy growth of the community.
> While Christianity has had to resort to violence, (running Islamic Terrorists back south out of Europe, commonly referred to as the Crusades) generally its history is one of peace. The Christian model has played a part in guiding Europe and North America to be the most successful areas on Earth.
> Sometimes rules/laws/commandments/directions were followed blindly, but hundreds of years later there came advancements in science, medicine and psychology that supported the validity of the Bible.
> The founding fathers and the majority of our elected leaders were/are Christian. There are many signs of this on display in our public buildings.
> To go against this long tradition is not ever taken lightly. Generally, manâs created laws reflect what is seen as Godâs laws. Other nations have adopted their set of standards and based their standards upon those beliefs. On a purely practical level, we can judge the effectiveness of their moral road map by the prosperity and freedom of their citizenry.
> In countries controlled by Islam and populated by Muslims, Sharia Law follows that. History measures their success.
> If non-Christians want to think of the Bible as Christian Sharia, I wonât argue that point. If you live in Iran, you best follow Islamic Sharia. If you want to bask in the economic and social stability of America, learn the Commandments and follow the nations laws, often based on the Bible.
> But if you want laws changed to fit a lifestyle seen as perverted by the population, you canât expect to be welcomed at every turn. In a sincere display of tolerance, most Christians will ignore your deviant behavior. Even when LGBT groups band together to pick on individuals or family run businesses, Christians seldom lash back.
> As your friend, neighbor, co-worker or employer, I donât need to know who or how you have sex. So, tone it down a notch or two.


Very little about the history of Christianity has been that of peace. It was largely spread at the tip of a sword and behind a shield sporting a cross. You might ask those who practiced the religions existant here in North America how they feel about Christianity. That is if you can find any of them whose ancestors survived the choice between conversion and death. You might also explain the peaceful times in Europe following the Protestant reformation and the peaceful transition of power it brought about. A legacy that I witnessed in Northern Ireland in my own lifetime. Before you speak you should learn your history.

No one expects to be welcomed at every turn. All that LGBT folks wish is to be treated like everyone else. Not better. Not special . Just the same. To expect to be able to walk through the door of a business that has an open to the public sign in the window and be treated the same as the public that walked in five minutes ago or will five minutes later hardly seems a lot to ask. Especially from those whose religion purports to be one of love and peace.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mmoetc said:


> Very little about the history of Christianity has been that of peace. It was largely spread at the tip of a sword and behind a shield sporting a cross. You might ask those who practiced the religions existant here in North America how they feel about Christianity. That is if you can find any of them whose ancestors survived the choice between conversion and death. You might also explain the peaceful times in Europe following the Protestant reformation and the peaceful transition of power it brought about. A legacy that I witnessed in Northern Ireland in my own lifetime. Before you speak you should learn your history.
> 
> No one expects to be welcomed at every turn. All that LGBT folks wish is to be treated like everyone else. Not better. Not special . Just the same. To expect to be able to walk through the door of a business that has an open to the public sign in the window and be treated the same as the public that walked in five minutes ago or will five minutes later hardly seems a lot to ask. Especially from those whose religion purports to be one of love and peace.


Thank you for posting this.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Texaspredatorhu said:


> I ised THEIR, as in the gay people and their celebration on that day!


Why were you watching a gay parade?


----------



## mmoetc

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why were you watching a gay parade?


Not that there's anything wrong with that.


----------



## greg273

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why were you watching a gay parade?


 We always hear from the anti-gay folks how 'tempting' that 'sinful lifestyle' is, so maybe they were just curious.


----------



## FourDeuce

I see MANY more posts about gay sex from people who call it an "abomination" than from people who say they are gay.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

FourDeuce said:


> I see MANY more posts about gay sex from people who call it an "abomination" than from people who say they are gay.


I've also noticed they say things like "shove it in our face" or "ram it down our throats"

I asked one once what exactly was "shoved in his face" but never got answer

I wonder if that's Freudian in any way?


----------



## keenataz

haypoint said:


> For any civilization to exist there needs to be actions and behaviors that serve the greater good, insuring health, order and survivability. Often these rules are enhanced with magic. Sometimes they are enforced by invoking fear of an unseen power. Many religions have a set of laws, a foundation, a sort of contract with the community for behavior that allows open commerce and encourages a healthy growth of the community.
> 
> While Christianity has had to resort to violence, (running Islamic Terrorists back south out of Europe, commonly referred to as the Crusades) generally its history is one of peace. The Christian model has played a part in guiding Europe and North America to be the most successful areas on Earth.
> 
> Sometimes rules/laws/commandments/directions were followed blindly, but hundreds of years later there came advancements in science, medicine and psychology that supported the validity of the Bible.
> 
> The founding fathers and the majority of our elected leaders were/are Christian. There are many signs of this on display in our public buildings.
> 
> To go against this long tradition is not ever taken lightly. Generally, manâs created laws reflect what is seen as Godâs laws. Other nations have adopted their set of standards and based their standards upon those beliefs. On a purely practical level, we can judge the effectiveness of their moral road map by the prosperity and freedom of their citizenry.
> 
> In countries controlled by Islam and populated by Muslims, Sharia Law follows that. History measures their success.
> 
> If non-Christians want to think of the Bible as Christian Sharia, I wonât argue that point. If you live in Iran, you best follow Islamic Sharia. If you want to bask in the economic and social stability of America, learn the Commandments and follow the nations laws, often based on the Bible.
> 
> But if you want laws changed to fit a lifestyle seen as perverted by the population, you canât expect to be welcomed at every turn. In a sincere display of tolerance, most Christians will ignore your deviant behavior. Even when LGBT groups band together to pick on individuals or family run businesses, Christians seldom lash back.
> 
> As your friend, neighbor, co-worker or employer, I donât need to know who or how you have sex. So, tone it down a notch or two.
> 
> This Country was founded by people fleeing religious persecution. *If you feel this Christian based society is messed up, please go somewhere else.* Iâd like to warn you, Islam isnât going to tolerate you at all.


That good old Christian values, very welcoming-don't like us leave. No idea if Islam would tolerate me or not. Don't care

What I want is to live in a country where I don't need to been concerned about any religion tolerating me or judging me or condemning me.

And why do you anti gay people continue to use words like perversion and deviants. That showing absolutely no tolerance and is incredible insulting. And as far as I can tell the majority of the population does not consider being gay as a so called perversion.

To me me that would be similar to a non believer to call a religious person-any religion, delusional. Very insulting, intolerant and inappropriate.


----------



## dixiegal62

Gay bashers, Christian bashers...seems you're all on even playing fields. Ones as bad as the other as far as tolerance of others views. But don't let the hypocrisy of all of it stop you... by all means carry on and show us how much more mature and tolerant you are.


----------



## keenataz

dixiegal62 said:


> Gay bashers, Christian bashers...seems you're all on even playing fields. Ones as bad as the other as far as tolerance of others views. But don't let the hypocrisy of all of it stop you... by all means carry on and show us how much more mature and tolerant you are.


I actually agree with you. Personally I could care less what a person's sexuality or religion is. My whole point that certain words used by either side in the debate can be hurtful. And you can disagree with those views avoiding those words.

Statements like " I don't believe in gay marriage" or "I don't believe as you do". Gets the same point across without the incendiary language.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Gay bashers, Christian bashers...seems you're all on even playing fields. Ones as bad as the other as far as tolerance of others views. But don't let the hypocrisy of all of it stop you... by all means carry on and show us how much more mature and tolerant you are.


I personally have never been a Christian basher. I just don't respect those Christians individuals that use their religion to bash others. My Christian relatives, friends, employers and coworkers never say the hateful things that some Christians here post.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why were you watching a gay parade?


Trying to get to the Garth brooks concert, mama took a wrong turn in Houston. Slightly hard to miss. 

I guess y'all need everything defined and spelled out in crayons in every single statement to comprehend so here goes.

While going to the arena in Houston the day the Supreme Court made same sex marriages legal in all 50 states we took a wrong turn by the city hall which is near the arena Garth brooks was playing that evening we witness a gay pride parade with the gay community half naked trashing the streets in celebration of the ruling from the Supreme Court. The city hall was also lit up like a rainbow. I do not believe any celebration for traditional marriage has gone that way.

There that should work. All my statements more clearly defined and together for you. I even broke it out into paragraphs. 

Hope this suits your needs and clears some things up.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> Yes as far as I'm concerned all those gay priest should be in prison for what they did to those boys amd the ones who harmed girls also.


I missed this. What do you mean "those gay priests"? You do realize that most child molesters are heterosexual, right?


----------



## Texaspredatorhu

Failed to mention it was Houston, Texas.


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> I missed this. What do you mean "those gay priests"? You do realize that most child molesters are heterosexual, right?


Yes gay priest as in the men who molested boys. I realise some of them molested girls which is why I added girls being molested in my statement.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> Yes gay priest as in the men who molested boys.


They are called pedophiles, and the majority of them are heterosexual. Pedophilia has more to do age than sex. 

Do you have a non biased link that supports your statement that only gay men molest boys?


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> They are called pedophiles, and the majority of them are heterosexual. Pedophilia has more to do age than sex.
> 
> Do you have a non biased link that supports your statement that only gay men molest boys?


So a male pedophile who prefers boys wouldn't be considered gay? A female pedophile who prefers girls wouldn't be a lesbian? What about a man who molested girls, or a woman who prefers boys.....wouldn't they be considered heterosexual?


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> So a male pedophile who prefers boys wouldn't be considered gay? A female pedophile who prefers girls wouldn't be a lesbian? What about a man who molested girls, or a woman who prefers boys.....wouldn't they be considered heterosexual?


Absolutely not. All of your scenarios are pedophiles. Pedophiles have sexual interest in children, their interest is more in the age rather than the sex of the child. 

Can their be gay pedophiles? Absolutely, but the majority are male and heterosexual.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/pedophilia


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> Absolutely not. All of your scenarios are pedophiles. Pedophiles have sexual interest in children, their interest is more in the age rather than the sex of the child.
> 
> Can their be gay pedophiles? Absolutely, but the majority are male and heterosexual.


Yes they all have interest in children but obviously some do have a gender preference be it heterosexual, gay or lesbian.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> Yes they all have interest in children but obviously some do have a gender preference be it heterosexual, gay or lesbian.


Did you read the link? Please do so.


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> Did you read the link? Please do so.


Yes I did. I saw nothing supporting your claim.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> Yes I did. I saw nothing supporting your claim.


I missed the link supporting your statement, can you supply it? Please.


----------



## Shine

I see on here over and over, people stating that anyone believing the Bible and what it says must be haters of gay people. The thing that, I believe , is missed is that Christians are called to be aware of the fact that they are sinners. With a God that is Holy, who exudes Pure Holiness, a sin is a sin, it does not carry any degrees. One sin, doesn't matter which one, is something that can cancel your ticket to Heaven. Enter into the equation Jesus Christ. He is our intercessor for our Holy God. Every time that God calls our name or hears our prayer He knows that this is one that He gave into the hand of Jesus Christ. Through Jesus Christ we are granted access to God and to Heaven.

We had [I do not attend this particular Church due to a different call at this point] people that were gay attending our Church, to my knowledge, they might still be attending. I remember one service that included some need for the members to stay after Church, the rest of the congregation was welcomed to attend. The session was regarding one of the local Church's promotion of a pastor who was a lesbian to be the lead pastor. It was a Church who was a member of Presbyterian USA of which we too were a member. The Presbytery had made the choice to accept gay pastors. For us, we had to look to the Word of God to understand our path forward, the matter was discussed at length and always with an eye towards the Word. We chose to seek a Graceful Dismissal from Presbyterian USA, the gay couple actually voted for the Graceful Dismissal. I sought no comment from them on their reasons and can state for a fact that they worshiped side by side with others of our congregation until I left.

Christians who are really Christians understand that we all sin. They understand that this fact puts us on par with all of the world's sinners, as a Christian [or better put, follower of Christ's teachings] for anyone to attempt to gain the high ground on this planet because of that label is only to demonstrate that you do not deserve to be called that. To be first, we must be last.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> Yes they all have interest in children but obviously some do have a gender preference be it heterosexual, gay or lesbian.


That isn't what you originally said, "those gay priests" and "So a male pedophile who prefers boys wouldn't be considered gay? A female pedophile who prefers girls wouldn't be a lesbian? What about a man who molested girls, or a woman who prefers boys.....wouldn't they be considered heterosexual?" Which simply isn't true.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> Yes I did. I saw nothing supporting your claim.


From my link: "Pedophilia is considered a paraphilia, an "abnormal or unnatural attraction." Pedophilia is defined as the fantasy or act of sexual activity with prepubescent children. Pedophiles are usually men, and can be attracted to either or both sexes. How well they relate to adults of the opposite sex varies."


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> I missed the link supporting your statement, can you supply it? Please.


I am under no delusion that anyone's sexual preference be it gay, lesbian or heterosexual makes them automatically an angel. If it bothers you that I label a man who prefers boys gay, a woman that prefers girls lesbain, a man or woman who prefer children of the opposite sex heterosexual I guess you'll have to just deal with it. All 3 groups who prey on innocents are the lowest lifeforms imo and I refuse to pretend any group is better than the other to satisfy your need for political correctness.


----------



## keenataz

Shine said:


> I see on here over and over, people stating that anyone believing the Bible and what it says must be haters of gay people. The thing that, I believe , is missed is that Christians are called to be aware of the fact that they are sinners. With a God that is Holy, who exudes Pure Holiness, a sin is a sin, it does not carry any degrees. One sin, doesn't matter which one, is something that can cancel your ticket to Heaven. Enter into the equation Jesus Christ. He is our intercessor for our Holy God. Every time that God calls our name or hears our prayer He knows that this is one that He gave into the hand of Jesus Christ. Through Jesus Christ we are granted access to God and to Heaven.
> 
> We had [I do not attend this particular Church due to a different call at this point] people that were gay attending our Church, to my knowledge, they might still be attending. I remember one service that included some need for the members to stay after Church, the rest of the congregation was welcomed to attend. The session was regarding one of the local Church's promotion of a pastor who was a lesbian to be the lead pastor. It was a Church who was a member of Presbyterian USA of which we too were a member. The Presbytery had made the choice to accept gay pastors. For us, we had to look to the Word of God to understand our path forward, the matter was discussed at length and always with an eye towards the Word. We chose to seek a Graceful Dismissal from Presbyterian USA, the gay couple actually voted for the Graceful Dismissal. I sought no comment from them on their reasons and can state for a fact that they worshiped side by side with others of our congregation until I left.
> 
> Christians who are really Christians understand that we all sin. They understand that this fact puts us on par with all of the world's sinners, as a Christian [or better put, follower of Christ's teachings] for anyone to attempt to gain the high ground on this planet because of that label is only to demonstrate that you do not deserve to be called that. To be first, we must be last.


Don't believe for a second that all bible believers hate gays. I have known some devout believers who were very tolerant and welcoming to them. They may have not agreed with sexuality but I believe they believed in judging based on actions. 

But when I see so called devout believers using hateful words like deviants or perverted or compare homosexuality to pediophilia or bestiality I am going to doubt their beliefs.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> I am under no delusion that anyone's sexual preference be it gay, lesbian or heterosexual makes them automatically an angel. If it bothers you that I label a man who prefers boys gay, a woman that prefers girls lesbain, a man or woman who prefer children of the opposite sex heterosexual I guess you'll have to just deal with it. All 3 groups who prey on innocents are the lowest lifeforms imo and I refuse to pretend any group is better than the other to satisfy your need for political correctness.


If you prefer to remain ignorant on the fact that people who are sexually interested in children are correctly known as pedophiles, not gay, that's fine with me.


----------



## JoePa

OK - seems like a lot of comments but no one answered this question - why should I mind if some homosexuals are doing their thing behind closed doors - well the answer is I really don't give a dam - but that is not the argument - when they try to pass their behavior as normal and acceptable then its time to mind - why - because a society is judged on what it accepts - gays won't rest until their perverted life style is accepted as normal - unfortunately they are sick and really need help - society must stand up against those who would accept anything and drag our society down into the gutter - on this issue you can't sit on the fence - you are either for a good, clean, moral and God oriented society or you are for a society that promotes any behavior and crawls in the gutter 

Go over to a Muslim country and tell everybody that you are a practicing homosexual - see what happens - they will probably throw you off a roof to see if you bounce - 

I believe that the Bible is the word of God and there is no doubt what it says about homosexual behavior - if God is against it so am I - if you claim to be a Christian or a Muslim and don't oppose this life style - you are a liar -


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> If you prefer to remain ignorant on the fact that people who are sexually interested in children are correctly known as pedophiles, not gay, that's fine with me.


And yet you had no problem labeling them as heterosexual.... pot meet kettle


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> And yet you had no problem labeling them as heterosexual.... pot meet kettle


Where did I say all of them were heterosexual? Can you point it out, please? ETA: You absolutely said that male on boy and female on girl were gay. That's not true.


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> Where did I say all of them were heterosexual? Can you point it out, please?


Ah..... words games... OK I'll play...where did I say, you said 'all'


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> Ah..... words games... OK I'll play...where did I say, you said 'all'





dixiegal62 said:


> So a male pedophile who prefers boys wouldn't be considered gay? A female pedophile who prefers girls wouldn't be a lesbian? What about a man who molested girls, or a woman who prefers boys.....wouldn't they be considered heterosexual?


You said if it was same sex the pedophile is gay, which is not true. The majority of pedophiles are male and heterosexual.

I'm not going to argue with you. If you prefer to remain ignorant on the subject it's up to you. What you have posted is telling.

Have a wonderful day.


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> You said if it was same sex the pedophile is gay, which is not true. The majority of pedophiles are male and heterosexual.
> 
> I'm not going to argue with you. If you prefer to remain ignorant on the subject it's up to you. What you have posted is telling.
> 
> Have a wonderful day.


What I posted is here for all to see. Pretending I'm trying to deny it is silly but predictable. As to your opinion on it, as I said you'll just have to deal. Of course ignore is always an option. Oh and BTW nowhere in your proof link states, ' the *majority*of pedophiles are heterosexual' but don't let stand in the way of your bias...it's very telling. You have a wonderful day too


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> You said if it was same sex the pedophile is gay, which is not true. The majority of pedophiles are male and heterosexual.
> 
> I'm not going to argue with you. If you prefer to remain ignorant on the subject it's up to you. What you have posted is telling.
> 
> Have a wonderful day.


If a pedophile engages in same sex molestation....you bet your life they are homosexual.


----------



## Shine

keenataz said:


> Don't believe for a second that all bible believers hate gays. I have known some devout believers who were very tolerant and welcoming to them. They may have not agreed with sexuality but I believe they believed in judging based on actions.
> 
> But when I see so called devout believers using hateful words like deviants or perverted or compare homosexuality to pediophilia or bestiality I am going to doubt their beliefs.




Fair enough...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> Gay bashers, Christian bashers...seems you're all on even playing fields. Ones as bad as the other as far as tolerance of others views. But don't let the hypocrisy of all of it stop you... by all means carry on and show us how much more mature and tolerant you are.


Only one side claims to be "superior".

Here's how one summed things up:



> you are either for a good, clean, moral and God oriented society or you are for a society that promotes any behavior and crawls in the gutter


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> *I see on here over and over*, people stating that anyone believing the Bible and what it says must be haters of gay people.


Can you show one example where anyone other than you ever said that?


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> Only one side claims to be "superior".
> 
> Here's how one summed things up:


If you don't think it comes from both sides your in serious denial.


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> Can you show one example where anyone other than you ever said that?


Ever hear of a homophobe? Wonder where that little term of endearment originated? As I said both sides are guilty.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> If you don't think it comes from both sides your in serious denial.


Show your example. I did



> Ever hear of a homophobe? Wonder where that little term of endearment originated? As I said both sides are guilty.


It originated with some psychiatrist somewhere, but has nothing to do with Shine's claim of what was said "over and over"


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Can you show one example where anyone other than you ever said that?



...wrong tree.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> ...wrong tree.


So once more you make claims about others but can't/won't back them up.
It seems to be the same old "tree" as always

Keep this in mind the next time you complain about me not answering your questions


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> So once more you make claims about others but can't/won't back them up.
> It seems to be the same old "tree" as always
> 
> Keep this in mind the next time you complain about me not answering your questions



I am pretty sure that you've not answered any question that I've put to you in a straight forward manner - so I choose not to deal with you - run along now...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> I am pretty sure that you've not answered any question that I've put to you in a straight forward manner - so *I choose not to deal with you* - run along now...


You've said that before also, and yet here you are again.

It would take less energy to just prove what you stated instead of pretending I don't answer your questions. 

You just don't like the answers :shrug:


----------



## haypoint

Just as women don't want a man looking at them with " I'd like to pull your clothes off and make love to you." because it is an unwelcome sexual gesture, I don't want to deal with a guy that displays the overt mannerisms that signal to me that he enjoys getting naked with men and preforming sex acts thought my most humans to be un-natural. 

Near Grand Rapids, MI, there is a really good diesel truck repair place. His work is repairing and modifying diesel pickup trucks. Many are 3/4 ton 4 wheel drive hot rods. 

He posted that he will not serve openly gay people. You would have thought he was running a Planned Parenthood in a Catholic Church basement. Made National News. He had death threats, protesters, damage to his building.

Hold on folks. First, lets be honest, there aren't many monster trucks in the Gay Community. This policy affects no one or almost no one. Second, why would you want to take your truck to a guy that states right up front that he objects to you and your lifestyle. Easy to go elsewhere. Third, can't you put your sexuality in check for the moment you are telling the guy what's wrong with your truck? Talk and act like the rest of the population, just for a moment. Too much to ask?

My generation said it was wrong to beat up Gays just for being Gay. We thought it fair to treat them like every other person. We befriend the ones we like and ignore the rest. Apparently being ignored is rubbing them the wrong way. Big whoop, you are out of the closet, but I'm not going to uphold laws that force others to be nice to you. Keep it up and you'll make me regret ignoring you and this society will return to the once common beat down, going back, spanning from 1970 about three thousand years.


----------



## wr

dixiegal62 said:


> Yes they all have interest in children but obviously some do have a gender preference be it heterosexual, gay or lesbian.


I understand why you feel that way but even with an interest in a certain gender of child, they're considered a pedophile because they prey on children. 

Gay men and lesbians would not be considered pedophiles because they don't prey on children.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> You've said that before also, and yet here you are again.
> 
> It would take less energy to just prove what you stated instead of pretending I don't answer your questions.
> 
> You just don't like the answers :shrug:


non-answers is more of what I do not like from you. You are a baiter, I'm not up to being baited anymore.


If you want to have a discussion with me, uphold your end of the discussion - no? then I'll be non-replying to you.


----------



## Shine

wr said:


> I understand why you feel that way but even with an interest in a certain gender of child, they're considered a pedophile because they prey on children.
> 
> Gay men and lesbians would not be considered pedophiles because they don't prey on children.


I really do not understand the disconnect here, male pedophiles that prey on male children would have to be considered gay as the same gender target would identify them as homosexual.


----------



## wr

Shine said:


> I really do not understand the disconnect here, male pedophiles that prey on male children would have to be considered gay as the same gender target would identify them as homosexual.


I don't believe it's a disconnect because their interest lies in children. Certainly the gender of the child is relevant to them but age and development are far more significant than a simple gender issue. A male pedophile that preys on young boys has no interest in an adult male. 


When labeling a pedophile as gay/homosexual or lesbian, you generate the impression that gays/homosexuals or lesbians will or would be just as interested in a child, which is incorrect and the term is intended to generate fear of people based on misinformation.


----------



## Shine

wr said:


> I don't believe it's a disconnect because their interest lies in children. Certainly the gender of the child is relevant to them but age and development are far more significant than a simple gender issue. A male pedophile that preys on young boys has no interest in an adult male.
> 
> 
> When labeling a pedophile as gay/homosexual or lesbian, you generate the impression that gays/homosexuals or lesbians will or would be just as interested in a child, which is incorrect and the term is intended to generate fear of people based on misinformation.


My observation was not to label but to identify the specific traits of one version or the other. There are pedophiles that I would identify as heterosexual.


----------



## dixiegal62

wr said:


> I understand why you feel that way but even with an interest in a certain gender of child, they're considered a pedophile because they prey on children.
> 
> Gay men and lesbians would not be considered pedophiles because they don't prey on children.


 I would never consider or label ALL gay men and lesbians pedohiles just because of their sexual preference.Nor more than I would all heterosexual men or women. But I do think in each group there could be some.


----------



## dixiegal62

wr said:


> I don't believe it's a disconnect because their interest lies in children. Certainly the gender of the child is relevant to them but age and development are far more significant than a simple gender issue. A male pedophile that preys on young boys has no interest in an adult male.
> 
> 
> When labeling a pedophile as gay/homosexual or lesbian, you generate the impression that gays/homosexuals or lesbians will or would be just as interested in a child, which is incorrect and the term is intended to generate fear of people based on misinformation.


And labeling them as heterosexual doesn't give the same impression?


----------



## Elevenpoint

wr said:


> I don't believe it's a disconnect because their interest lies in children. Certainly the gender of the child is relevant to them but age and development are far more significant than a simple gender issue. A male pedophile that preys on young boys has no interest in an adult male.
> 
> 
> When labeling a pedophile as gay/homosexual or lesbian, you generate the impression that gays/homosexuals or lesbians will or would be just as interested in a child, which is incorrect and the term is intended to generate fear of people based on misinformation.


A male pedophile that is after young boys is also a homosexual. No doubt.


----------



## wr

dixiegal62 said:


> I would never consider or label ALL gay men and lesbians pedohiles just because of their sexual preference.Nor more than I would all heterosexual men or women. But I do think in each group there could be some.


I hope you don't feel I was implying you did. I was simply clarifying why the different terms. 

Things are a lot better for gay people than but there was a time when it was assumed that gay people actually were child molesters.


----------



## wr

dixiegal62 said:


> And labeling them as heterosexual doesn't give the same impression?


Although I do now it was mentioned, I wouldn't consider a pedophile as heterosexual because they aren't. 

The legal and clinical definition of pedophile is pretty much the same and is someone who is sexually attracted to children.


----------



## dixiegal62

wr said:


> I hope you don't feel I was implying you did. I was simply clarifying why the different terms.
> 
> Things are a lot better for gay people than but there was a time when it was assumed that gay people actually were child molesters.


No wr, I didn't think you where implying that at all.


----------



## Irish Pixie

wr said:


> Although I do now it was mentioned, I wouldn't consider a pedophile as heterosexual because they aren't.
> 
> The legal and clinical definition of pedophile is pretty much the same and is someone who is sexually attracted to children.


From what I've read, most pedophiles are white males that identify heterosexual with _adults_. Of course there can be gay pedophiles, but that would mean their preference with _adults_ would be same sex. I linked this but apparently it wasn't understood, or perhaps I didn't explain it correctly...

The ignorant assumption that a pedophile is gay because he (or she) molests same sex is just ridiculous. It's also hugely derogatory toward LGBT.


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> From what I've read, most pedophiles are white males that identify heterosexual with _adults_. Of course there can be gay pedophiles, but that would mean their preference with _adults_ would be same sex. I linked this but apparently it wasn't understood, or perhaps I didn't explain it correctly...
> 
> The ignorant assumption that a pedophile is gay because he (or she) molests same sex is just ridiculous. It's also hugely derogatory toward LGBT.


I have read your link several times and still haven't seen this what it says is how they relate to adult sex varies. Nor does it say pedohiles are white hetros. You explained your opinion well, it's just that your link doesn't back it.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> I have read your link several times and still haven't seen this what it says is how they relate to adult sex varies. Nor does it say pedohiles are white hetros. You explained your opinion well, it's just that your link doesn't back it.


Spinning my link (I actually provided a link to pedophilia and age vs. sex) to try to support your statement that pedophiles that molested same sex children were gay is expected. 

Here is another link that indicates that it's age rather than sex of victim and that the majority of pedophiles identify as heterosexual. Accept it or not, I really don't care. You're right in that what you've stated is there for everyone to see. 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/9/18/903178/-


----------



## mmoetc

Here's some information from UC Davis discussing the differences between pedophilia and homosexuality. http://psc.dss.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html


It's a longer read but outlines the distinctions rather clearly. Pedophiles come in all shapes, sizes and sexual orientations. What they have in common is a sexual attraction to children.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mmoetc said:


> Here's some information from UC Davis discussing the differences between pedophilia and homosexuality. http://psc.dss.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html
> 
> 
> It's a longer read but outlines the distinctions rather clearly. Pedophiles come in all shapes, sizes and sexual orientations. What they have in common is a sexual attraction to children.


I saw this information too, but the link is not an easy read. Insightful tho if you're interested in learning the truth.


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> Spinning my link (I actually provided a link to pedophilia and age vs. sex) to try to support your statement that pedophiles that molested same sex children were gay is expected.
> 
> Here is another link that indicates that it's age rather than sex of victim and that the majority of pedophiles identify as heterosexual. Accept it or not, I really don't care. You're right in that what you've stated is there for everyone to see.
> 
> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/9/18/903178/-


Spinning? I'm beginning to think you never read the first one. Thanks for the morning laugh  and another link. Yes my words are right here for all to see and so is the link you already claimed supported your views but didn't.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> Spinning? I'm beginning to think you never read the first one. Thanks for the morning laugh  and another link. Yes my words are right here for all to see and so is the link you already claimed supported your views but didn't.


At least I provide links.  We're just supposed to accept your opinion as fact, no matter how wrong it is... _That's_ funny. 

I'm done- keep on, keepin' on if you'd like. The back and forth is annoying for other people.


----------



## dixiegal62

Nowhere have I ever said you should accept my opinion as fact but don't let that stop your assuming. Most people come on here for the back and forth debates. I'm sure if I've broken any rules defending myself from you our discussion would be deleted.


----------



## dixiegal62

wr said:


> Although I do now it was mentioned, I wouldn't consider a pedophile as heterosexual because they aren't.
> 
> The legal and clinical definition of pedophile is pretty much the same and is someone who is sexually attracted to children.


Thank you for your explanation. Honestly I can't say my opinion will change on it, it's a subject that hits too close to home for me. In the future I will choose my words more carefully.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> non-answers is more of what I do not like from you. You are a baiter, I'm not up to being baited anymore.
> 
> 
> If you want to have a discussion with me, uphold your end of the discussion - no? then *I'll be non-replying to you*.


Again you *say* that, and then disprove it all in the same action.

Can you prove what you say is true?

It's a simple question


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Again you *say* that, and then disprove it all in the same action.
> 
> Can you prove what you say is true?
> 
> It's a simple question


Please - I do not wish to have any dialog with you. There is no need for you to reply. 

Reply to others as you wish, but leave me out of your realm of discourse.


----------



## wr

dixiegal62 said:


> Thank you for your explanation. Honestly I can't say my opinion will change on it, it's a subject that hits too close to home for me. In the future I will choose my words more carefully.



I do understand. I mind a young boy who was molested by a pedophile and I have nothing but contempt. I know some very fine gay men who feel exactly the same way I do and prefer not to ever be put in the same category as someone who harms children.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Please - *I do not wish to have any dialog with you.* There is no need for you to reply.
> 
> Reply to others as you wish, but leave me out of your realm of discourse.


Do you not *see* the irony in continually repeating such things?


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> Do you not *see* the irony in continually repeating such things?


I see that he keeps dialoguing with you while telling you to stop. He does not follow his own advise.


----------



## Shine

painterswife said:


> I see that he keeps dialoguing with you while telling you to stop. He does not follow his own advise.


um... I am just asking him to stop, nicely. He continually decides to keep replying to my posts. I understand these acts to be similar to childish behavior. We'll see if he decides that it would be a "nice" thing to do, that which someone asks you nicely to do or will it be that he is one of "those" people...


----------



## painterswife

Shine said:


> um... I am just asking him to stop, nicely. He continually decides to keep replying to my posts. I understand these acts to be similar to childish behavior. We'll see if he decides that it would be a "nice" thing to do, that which someone asks you nicely to do or will it be that he is one of "those" people...


How about you stop responding to him. You can't make decisions for him. You can only make them for yourself. How about you do what you want others to do.

I can see you asking him to not do something like call you names but to not respond to you when you keep responding to him seems a bit over the top.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> um... I am just asking him to stop, nicely. He continually decides to keep replying to my posts. I understand these acts to be similar to childish behavior. We'll see if he decides that it would be a "nice" thing to do, that which someone asks you nicely to do or will it be that he is *one of "those" people.*..


One of "those people", like *this person*, who once told me when I asked them nicely to stop sending me PM's and keep all replies on the open forum?:



> As long as you send me a message, *it is within forum rules to reply*.


One of "those people"? 

Put me on ignore :shrug:


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> One of "those people", like *this person*, who once told me when I asked them nicely to stop sending me PM's and keep all replies on the open forum?:
> 
> 
> 
> One of "those people"?
> 
> Put me on ignore :shrug:


One of those persons.

Your turn to reply like an automaton.

...just out of curiosity, does it hurt you when someone PMs you?


----------



## greg273

haypoint said:


> Keep it up and you'll make me regret ignoring you and this society will return to the once common beat down, going back, spanning from 1970 about three thousand years.


 Think Jesus would serve a 'beat down' to these gay people? You may be more at home in the Islamic faith and with Sharia law, you seem to have some things in common with them.


----------



## greg273

Shine said:


> Your turn to reply like an automaton.


 
And some folks turn to ancient Hebrew scriptures to justify their bigotry. Of course, they only use the scriptures they find convenient while ignoring the others. 

You're probably a good person Shine, I can tell from your posts you care about people, but I do believe you are adhering to a backwards philosophy regarding gay people. If God created them, and they're not hurting anyone, let them be. Let them be proud of who they are, instead of ashamed. And be glad YOU don't have that burden. And they're not 'harming traditional marriage', either. Us straight folks did that a long time ago.


----------



## painterswife

Shine said:


> One of those persons.
> 
> Your turn to reply like an automaton.
> 
> ...just out of curiosity, does it hurt you when someone PMs you?


Why are you engaging him in conversation when you don't want him to respond to you?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> One of those persons.
> 
> Your turn to reply like an automaton.
> 
> ...just out of curiosity, does it hurt you when someone PMs you?


Does it hurt when I behave *identically* to the way you have?
You say one thing then do another, while trying to make it my fault

Remember saying this to me?:



> I shall do as I see fit within the rules of this forum.
> You want to dictate the rules - buy the forum.


Put me on ignore, or continue saying one thing but doing another.
It makes little difference to me


----------



## haypoint

greg273 said:


> Think Jesus would serve a 'beat down' to these gay people? You may be more at home in the Islamic faith and with Sharia law, you seem to have some things in common with them.


Traditional society, over the span of a few centuries, under the direction of their religious beliefs, Christian and Islamic, were pretty tough on Gays. 

But, during more recent times, my generation saw the unfairness of such oppression. Started before my time with admitting how women were treated, and changing that by insuring them equal treatment. Then, opening opportunities for Blacks. I saw great strides made in rectifying these past discriminations. Often times, I took a back seat so Affirmative Action could level the playing field. 

Generally, my generation, has continued this non-judgmental, acceptance of people, without placing stereotypes upon them. This is reflected in the fact that most GLTB have stepped out of the closet for the first time in 3,000 years. That is a huge change in societal evolution. 

What is the result in this new found acceptance? Demanding to be treated by everyone, all the time, with full acceptance. But the world doesn't work like that.

The Confederate Flag might be a symbol of Southern freedom. But I'm not going into a Detroit barbershop with that flag draped over my shoulders. I have to accept that not everyone shares my beliefs and I must be respectful of these differences.

So don't assume you have a right to force my Christian family to attend and provide catering services at your Gay wedding. Work within the framework that exists. This is all fairly new, give society a chance to chew the first bite before you go shoving in the next bite. 

I measure my acceptance by how much I don't care. I won't wear a tee shirt that says "I have sex with women" and you stop telling me you are gay on our first handshake. I get it. I don't need to know. Get along, fit in, we all do it, it won't hurt.

I am concerned that society will stop being ambivalent about sexual orientation when enough people feel they have been made secondary to this movement. Just as BLM has set back race relations, requiring a third or fourth restroom at every public building to accommodate whatever stage of transitioning you may be at, could result in a sort of line in the sand. I don't know. 

Clearly, telling Bible Belt citizens they need to shove their Hebrew clap trap, isn't going to go well.


----------



## greg273

haypoint said:


> What is the result in this new found acceptance? Demanding to be treated by everyone, all the time, with full acceptance.


 Its a crazy concept, I know, that people want to be treated as equals. Or at least not spat upon, ostracized, or told they are going to burn in eternal fire in the lowest pits of hell because of something none of them chose. 
And seriously, I don't know where you are hanging out that you have men coming up to you leering and telling you they are gay. Perhaps you are hanging out in the wrong places?


----------



## Irish Pixie

greg273 said:


> Its a crazy concept, I know, that people want to be treated as equals. Or at least not spat upon, ostracized, or told they are going to burn in eternal fire in the lowest pits of hell because of something none of them chose.
> And seriously, I don't know where you are hanging out that you have men coming up to you leering and telling you they are gay. Perhaps you are hanging out in the wrong places?



I have gay friends that say it's wishful thinking on the part of the straight guys. 

Not to mention that it took adding women to the protected class of the Equal Rights Amendment to even _start_ having men of that generation treat them as equals.


----------



## Shine

greg273 said:


> And some folks turn to ancient Hebrew scriptures to justify their bigotry. Of course, they only use the scriptures they find convenient while ignoring the others.
> 
> You're probably a good person Shine, I can tell from your posts you care about people, but I do believe you are adhering to a backwards philosophy regarding gay people. If God created them, and they're not hurting anyone, let them be. Let them be proud of who they are, instead of ashamed. And be glad YOU don't have that burden. And they're not 'harming traditional marriage', either. Us straight folks did that a long time ago.


Indeed, they in fact are God's children, and in what they are doing, they are doing as God has foreseen. In some unknowable way, they too are walking out God's plan and bringing Glory to His Name.

Yes, I am glad that this burden was not placed upon my shoulders, as I am glad too that God did not give me daughters for children. I would have loved them dearly but with what I see going on in this day and age I would probably be doing time right now. To tell the truth, I have quite a few burdens that I am managing this day and into the future.

Your final two sentences fairly much say it all. We all fall far short of the goal.


----------



## Shine

painterswife said:


> Why are you engaging him in conversation when you don't want him to respond to you?


What's the point? Do you think that by me not responding to him he will stop trying to pick my scabs until they bleed? 

OK, let's see. I'd bet you that you would be wrong...


----------



## greg273

Shine said:


> Indeed, they in fact are God's children, and in what they are doing, they are doing as God has foreseen. .


 You talking about the Jewish people? If God is real, then we are ALL Gods children, every last one of us, no matter what the Hebrews said about themselves and wrote down in their books.


----------



## Shine

greg273 said:


> You talking about the Jewish people? If God is real, then we are ALL Gods children, every last one of us, no matter what the Hebrews said about themselves and wrote down in their books.


All of us. Some Christians proclaim that the Bible says that Jews are descendants of Seth. The Arabic people are said to be descendants of Ishmael which split with the Jewish line or better said, the Jews and the Israelites being descendants of Isaac. Abraham was not necessarily Jewish but from his sons it is said that both the Jewish line and the Arabic lines came into being. Herein lies the crux: Jesus was the one to unite the world with access to God through Him for all mankind. 

I haven't met a Christian person that is comfortable with saying that Arabs are Gentiles too. We certainly can tell how the Jews feel about the Arabic peoples. 

I have not been shown the truth here either.

With all that said, yes, I consider every person conceived to be one of God's Children.


----------



## Shine

Something interesting that just lit a light for me that had been dark. 

The Lord to Hagar in a vision:

"Behold, you are with child, and shall bear a son; you shall call his name Ishmael; because The Lord has given heed to your affliction. He shall be a wild ass of a man, his hand against every man and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell over against all his kinsmen." (Genesis 16:11-12 RSV).


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> They are called pedophiles, and the majority of them are heterosexual. Pedophilia has more to do age than sex.
> 
> Do you have a non biased link that supports your statement that only gay men molest boys?





Irish Pixie said:


> I missed the link supporting your statement, can you supply it? Please.





Irish Pixie said:


> That isn't what you originally said, "those gay priests" and "So a male pedophile who prefers boys wouldn't be considered gay? A female pedophile who prefers girls wouldn't be a lesbian? What about a man who molested girls, or a woman who prefers boys.....wouldn't they be considered heterosexual?" Which simply isn't true.





Irish Pixie said:


> If you prefer to remain ignorant on the fact that people who are sexually interested in children are correctly known as pedophiles, not gay, that's fine with me.



I know *I'm* confused, by your link and your replies to them.

There were studies on this that refute what you've asserted to be false and they were quite clear to me.
I'll post them with the quoted material, the language is adult, but not profane, so I don't think I'll get in trouble with the mods, but I'm wondering where you got the idea that psychologists didn't divide the groups into **** and heterosexual pedophiles?
First link on the right hand column of your original link.........

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...e-sexual-interest-in-children-straight-men-do

*"Blanchard explains: "The key comparisons produced results similar to those of Freund et al. They show that gay men (homosexual teleiophiles) and straight men (heterosexual teleiophiles) have similar penile responses to depictions of children in the laboratory," that is to say, relatively low. But more important than their being relatively low, they're not really any different for gay and straight men.

Furthermore, "The responses of heterosexual teleiophiles to prepubescent girls were similar to the responses of homosexual teleiophiles to prepubescent boys (gold bar in top left panel vs. green bar in top right panel). The difference between these means was not statistically significant. The responses of heterosexual teleiophiles to pubescent girls were actually slightly higher than the responses of homosexual teleiophiles to pubescent boys (orange bar in top left panel vs. blue bar in top right panel)."*


There was at least one more study and a few more articles within those links that said the exact same thing, if you think I was cherry picking the only one.......:shrug:


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> No religious whatever has been forced to perform a marriage. The GA law is preemptive.


And the problem with that is?


----------



## farmrbrown

Shine said:


> Something interesting that just lit a light for me that had been dark.
> 
> The Lord to Hagar in a vision:
> 
> "Behold, you are with child, and shall bear a son; you shall call his name Ishmael; because The Lord has given heed to your affliction. He shall be a wild ass of a man, his hand against every man and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell over against all his kinsmen." (Genesis 16:11-12 RSV).



???
Perhaps this?

Genesis 16:11 Ishmael means God hears


----------



## Heritagefarm

haypoint said:


> Generally, my generation, has continued this non-judgmental, acceptance of people, without placing stereotypes upon them. This is reflected in the fact that most GLTB have stepped out of the closet for the first time in 3,000 years. That is a huge change in societal evolution.


Closer to 2000 years ago. Rome was very into equal rights for just about everything.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> I have gay friends that say it's wishful thinking on the part of the straight guys.
> 
> Not to mention that it took adding women to the protected class of the Equal Rights Amendment to even _start_ having men of that generation treat them as equals.


Actually my friend and I...two straight guys...when two gay men started talking to us at a bar...we thought they acted like a couple whores. Because you do know the statistics of how promiscuous gay men are don't you?


----------



## FourDeuce

Working on that Gay Studies degree?


----------



## Shine

FourDeuce said:


> Working on that Gay Studies degree?


you have set yourself up to appear foolish once again. Someone has an experience and you glibly act as if they are interested in the mentioned behavior. Interesting in its own unmasking...


----------



## FourDeuce

People who spend a LOT of time talking about something and researching it must have a LOT of interest in it. When somebody asks if I have done research into the sex habits of other people, it's obvious they are interested in it. I don't know of anybody who does research into subjects they aren't interested in.


----------



## Shine

OK... have at it. I am not quite sure of your point... It was you that asked about others researching stuff as if you had some sort of background in its genesis.


----------



## haypoint

Heritagefarm said:


> Closer to 2000 years ago. Rome was very into equal rights for just about everything.


Well then. That changes everything. 

But I'm pretty sure the teachings that became parts of the Old Testament were written many years BC. It was a sin then, right along with adulterers and they stoned them. But, as it pertains to this discussion, not significant if it was 2,000, 3,000 or 10,000 years ago. It has been that way for most of recorded history.


----------



## Irish Pixie

haypoint said:


> Well then. That changes everything.
> 
> But I'm pretty sure the teachings that became parts of the Old Testament were written many years BC. It was a sin then, right along with adulterers and they stoned them.


Right along with cutting the sides of your hair, eating shellfish, wearing cloth of mixed fibers, and getting a tattoo. 

Are they sins today?


----------



## Elevenpoint

FourDeuce said:


> Working on that Gay Studies degree?


When you read a thread on here you will find that someone is usually pushing an agenda. Then as you read you notice it is misleading..half truths...and some even false. I like truth. Then you have to research and find truth. In reading for about a half hour what I find about the entire subject about a homosexual lifestyle....their molestation of children...domestic violence issues...STDs...the truth is shocking and staggering. Again...educate yourself.


----------



## Irish Pixie

elevenpoint said:


> When you read a thread on here you will find that someone is usually pushing an agenda. Then as you read you notice it is misleading..half truths...and some even false. I like truth. Then you have to research and find truth. In reading for about a half hour what I find about the entire subject about a homosexual lifestyle....their molestation of children...domestic violence issues...STDs...the truth is shocking and staggering. Again...educate yourself.


Rubbish.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> Rubbish.


Not a bit....if your agenda is LGBT community as you call it then you owe it to everyone to include all issues and truth about that community. You have developed sugar coating into an art form.


----------



## haypoint

Irish Pixie said:


> Right along with cutting the sides of your hair, eating shellfish, wearing cloth of mixed fibers, and getting a tattoo.
> 
> Are they sins today?


Geeesh! Just stating historical fact. Makes it seem that you want to judge 2000 years of history based on the tiny fraction of history you've lived.

Try to absorb the magnitude of the changes we've seen in the past 10 years, the past 50, the past 2000. Accept that this is a transition or a sorting out of fresh ideas. Not going to be accepted by all overnight just because think it should be. Look how slow people are to accepting GMO. It'll take time. The issue you've taken up is imbedded in people's religion. Your version of facts or logic aren't going to get everyone to tear up their Bible. Getting everyone up to your level might not be obtainable. Perhaps you could accept an attitude of ambivalence? 

Ten years ago, Brokeback Mountain was upsetting to lots of folks. Now, it doesn't raise an eyebrow.


----------



## painterswife

elevenpoint said:


> Not a bit....if your agenda is LGBT community as you call it then you owe it to everyone to include all issues and truth about that community. You have developed sugar coating into an art form.


Her agenda is no discrimination not the LGBT community. Bias makes it difficult for some to see that.


----------



## haypoint

painterswife said:


> Her agenda is no discrimination not the LGBT community. Bias makes it difficult for some to see that.


Does everyone deserve a life without any discrimination from anyone? Everyone?


----------



## painterswife

haypoint said:


> Does everyone deserve a life without any discrimination from anyone? Everyone?


it is a great thing to work towards. Does anyone deserve discrimination because they were born a certain way?


----------



## MDKatie

haypoint said:


> Does everyone deserve a life without any discrimination from anyone? Everyone?


Discrimination based on race, religion, ethnicity, gender, etc,- YES. Why is backsliding something people want to do? Why are there people who want to revert and go back instead of moving forward and evolving?


----------



## haypoint

painterswife said:


> it is a great thing to work towards. Does anyone deserve discrimination because they were born a certain way?


Many psychologists believe that pedophiles are born that way. You aren't in favor of treating them in the same welcoming way you treat your nanny, are you? You don't welcome them into every aspect of your life, do you? You don't invite them to your child's Birthday Party, do you?

Some believe sex with children is normal. Some believe robbery is an occupation. Some are gratified sexually by burning buildings. Some believe in open marriages involving others. To others, these are crimes.

Lots of folks don't believe the notion that GLTB is normal or natural or a birth abnormality. Some see it as a sin, right along with sodomy and incest.

I'm not equating homosexual behavior with pedophilia, just it is another behavior found unacceptable by most. To those that believe in the Holy Bible, open acceptance of a man that penetrates another man is as bad as the act itself.

Humans discriminate against people that step outside societal norms.


----------



## painterswife

haypoint said:


> Many psychologists believe that pedophiles are born that way. You aren't in favor of treating them in the same welcoming way you treat your nanny, are you? You don't welcome them into every aspect of your life, do you? You don't invite them to your child's Birthday Party, do you?
> 
> Some believe sex with children is normal. Some believe robbery is an occupation. Some are gratified sexually by burning buildings. Some believe in open marriages involving others. To others, these are crimes.
> 
> Lots of folks don't believe the notion that GLTB is normal or natural or a birth abnormality. Some see it as a sin, right along with sodomy and incest.
> 
> I'm not equating homosexual behavior with pedophilia, just it is another behavior found unacceptable by most. To those that believe in the Holy Bible, open acceptance of a man that penetrates another man is as bad as the act itself.
> 
> Humans discriminate against people that step outside societal norms.


Sorry but I don't find comparing an illegal act with a child and a consenting act between adults germaine to this discussion.


----------



## mmoetc

haypoint said:


> Many psychologists believe that pedophiles are born that way. You aren't in favor of treating them in the same welcoming way you treat your nanny, are you? You don't welcome them into every aspect of your life, do you? You don't invite them to your child's Birthday Party, do you?
> 
> Some believe sex with children is normal. Some believe robbery is an occupation. Some are gratified sexually by burning buildings. Some believe in open marriages involving others. To others, these are crimes.
> 
> Lots of folks don't believe the notion that GLTB is normal or natural or a birth abnormality. Some see it as a sin, right along with sodomy and incest.
> 
> I'm not equating homosexual behavior with pedophilia, just it is another behavior found unacceptable by most. To those that believe in the Holy Bible, open acceptance of a man that penetrates another man is as bad as the act itself.
> 
> Humans discriminate against people that step outside societal norms.


There's stepping outside society's norms and there is doing things that are harmful to others. Coloring my hair purple steps outside society's norms. Is it worthy of being discriminated against and punished? Holding you down and coloring your hair against your will? A different answer. You asked whether people should be discriminated against. The answer is no until they do something that has a negative impact on others. Then they deserve society's punishment. Being gay harms no one. Loving another and appropriately expressing that love, even in public, harms no one. There for being gay shouldn't invite discrimination. It would be a better, more peaceful world if such thoughts were set aside and all were treated equally and with respect.


It will never happen. Humans are humans and some will always concentrate on how different they are, rather than how much they really have in common. I don't care who you invite into your private life or home. I don't wish to change your religous views. You are free to feel about others as you wish. You are free to discriminate, even in business, as you wish. But you cannot change the definition of who are people or part of the public to suit your beliefs. People are people and the public is the public and all are guaranteed equal treatment under our laws.


----------



## arabian knight

I t sure is good to hear that churches are still dropping the boycotts from suing their church building for their meetings.


----------



## haypoint

mmoetc said:


> There's stepping outside society's norms and there is doing things that are harmful to others. Coloring my hair purple steps outside society's norms. Is it worthy of being discriminated against and punished? Holding you down and coloring your hair against your will? A different answer. You asked whether people should be discriminated against. The answer is no until they do something that has a negative impact on others. Then they deserve society's punishment. Being gay harms no one. Loving another and appropriately expressing that love, even in public, harms no one. There for being gay shouldn't invite discrimination. It would be a better, more peaceful world if such thoughts were set aside and all were treated equally and with respect.
> 
> 
> It will never happen. Humans are humans and some will always concentrate on how different they are, rather than how much they really have in common. I don't care who you invite into your private life or home. I don't wish to change your religous views. You are free to feel about others as you wish. You are free to discriminate, even in business, as you wish. But you cannot change the definition of who are people or part of the public to suit your beliefs. People are people and the public is the public and all are guaranteed equal treatment under our laws.


Everyone draws their line in the sand in different places and expects everyone to see things their way. For you, as long as no one is being hurt, that's fine.
If you interviewed for a job in a Law Practice, with purple hair or a bone through your nose, I wouldn't hire you. My line in the sand is different than yours.

But as you try to modify the laws to your definitions, you have no trouble squashing my beliefs. You can't just say I'm wrong and step forward. 

If I thought your lifestyle was a sin, being forced to accept you puts me at odds with my beliefs.


----------



## mmoetc

haypoint said:


> Everyone draws their line in the sand in different places and expects everyone to see things their way. For you, as long as no one is being hurt, that's fine.
> If you interviewed for a job in a Law Practice, with purple hair or a bone through your nose, I wouldn't hire you. My line in the sand is different than yours.
> 
> But as you try to modify the laws to your definitions, you have no trouble squashing my beliefs. You can't just say I'm wrong and step forward.
> 
> If I thought your lifestyle was a sin, being forced to accept you puts me at odds with my beliefs.


And you might be missing out on the best lawyer you've ever seen. Your loss. The interesting thing is that both of those things would be choices I made which would be legitimate reasons for you not to hire me, but the crucifix or Star of David necklace, both fashion statements of a religous nature, would be off limits for your judgement.

No one is squashing your beliefs. Youre free believe them and act on them however you wish. No law should ever be able to change them. But if your belief is that adulterers be stoned you should be punished for throwing rocks at your cheating spouse. You'll then be free to believe behind bars. Rather than advocate against laws that provide others protections you already have for your choice( yes, religion is a choice not a status of genetics) why not advocate for doing away with all protections against discrimination? Wouldn't that be fairer?


----------



## JoePa

The New Testament - Romans 1:26 - "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and the same way also men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 

And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper" - it can't be stated any clearer -


----------



## Irish Pixie

JoePa said:


> The New Testament - Romans 1:26 - "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and the same way also men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
> 
> And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper" - it can't be stated any clearer -


You have to believe that the bible isn't fiction in order for that to be clear. Not everyone does.


----------



## haypoint

mmoetc said:


> And you might be missing out on the best lawyer you've ever seen. Your loss. The interesting thing is that both of those things would be choices I made which would be legitimate reasons for you not to hire me, but the crucifix or Star of David necklace, both fashion statements of a religous nature, would be off limits for your judgement.
> 
> No one is squashing your beliefs. Youre free believe them and act on them however you wish. No law should ever be able to change them. But if your belief is that adulterers be stoned you should be punished for throwing rocks at your cheating spouse. You'll then be free to believe behind bars. Rather than advocate against laws that provide others protections you already have for your choice( yes, religion is a choice not a status of genetics) why not advocate for doing away with all protections against discrimination? Wouldn't that be fairer?


Perhaps, after 27 years working in a men's prison, I have a vastly different perspective than you. I doubt you've considered situational homosexuality? At times the line between two consenting adults and rape gets blurry.


----------



## painterswife

haypoint said:


> Perhaps, after 27 years working in a men's prison, I have a vastly different perspective than you. I doubt you've considered situational homosexuality? At times the line between two consenting adults and rape gets blurry.


Rape is forcing someone. There is no blurred line. If one does not consent it is rape.


----------



## Irish Pixie

haypoint said:


> Perhaps, after 27 years working in a men's prison, I have a vastly different perspective than you. I doubt you've considered situational homosexuality? At times the line between two consenting adults and rape gets blurry.


Apparently "situational homosexuality" is an outdated term, and does not represent born gay people. 

ituational homosexuality, sometimes referred to as pseudo-homosexuality, is sexual behavior that is different from that which the person normally exhibits. This is often due to a change in social environment that in some way permits, encourages, or compels the behavior. Situational homosexuality may also occur when expression of a personâs typical behavior may not be possible. Situational homosexuality is not a widely used term in contemporary sociological discussions of sexuality. For many, the term is outdated, as it originated in the 1950s. The term was originally used during the late 1940s and early 1950s to distinguish between homosexual behavior in social settings and institutions that were predominately same-sex (such as prisons, barracks, naval vessels and boarding school) and those who were actually considered to be homosexual. âSituational homosexualityâ in the 1940s and 1950s was assumed to be temporary and primarily due to physical isolation. Situational homosexuality is prevalent among both males and females, but unlike other forms of sexual preference, situational homosexuality does not represent a fluidity in a personâs sexuality. This term is not commonly used today, as it is more commonly believed that sexuality is measured on a continuum, with the term situational homosexuality classifying sexuality too rigidly.

From: http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/article/situational-homosexuality-0


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> Rape is forcing someone. There is no blurred line. If one does not consent it is rape.


I agree. No consent = rape. No matter the situation.


----------



## mmoetc

haypoint said:


> Perhaps, after 27 years working in a men's prison, I have a vastly different perspective than you. I doubt you've considered situational homosexuality? At times the line between two consenting adults and rape gets blurry.


Which has what to do with someone walking into a business and being treated equally? Aren't all sex acts between prisoners in a prison prohibited? Illegal acts should be punished. It doesn't seem such a difficult concept. Prisoners are subject to a variety of rules that those not inside don't have to follow. It's not really a matter of morality or beliefs to enforce such rules.


----------



## FourDeuce

"And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper" - it can't be stated any clearer -"

We don't live in a theocracy. It can't be stated any clearer.


----------



## FourDeuce

"In reading for about a half hour what I find about the entire subject about a homosexual lifestyle....their molestation of children...domestic violence issues...STDs...the truth is shocking and staggering. Again...educate yourself."

I wouldn't waste a half hour reading about something I wasn't interested in. Educate yourself about some psychology and try to figure out why you're so interested in gay subjects.
And what was your source? Was it an unbiased source or was it some anti-gay source? I see many people claim they are doing research when all they are doing is reading propaganda which already supports their own beliefs.


----------



## FourDeuce

"If I thought your lifestyle was a sin, being forced to accept you puts me at odds with my beliefs."

You live in a somewhat free country. That means you have to accept other people. If your beliefs don't include accepting other people, maybe you should move to a country which has different ideas about freedom.:goodjob:


----------



## arabian knight

Well it is not as free as the USA once was when the SC not only legislates from their bench but also redefines the Constitution. Nothing should have been passed like this without going to Congress and telling the SC how WRONG THEY WERE about this gay stuff.
That is why their IS or WAS Three Branches of Government. And the SC is NOT ONE OF THEM.


----------



## FourDeuce

It is the top of one of them. Legislative, executive and judicial. I still remember a few things from civics class 40 years ago. I do agree it's not as free as it was a while back(in some ways). That's why I said somewhat free country.


----------



## painterswife

arabian knight said:


> Well it is not as free as the USA once was when the SC not only legislates from their bench but also redefines the Constitution. Nothing should have been passed like this without going to Congress and telling the SC how WRONG THEY WERE about this gay stuff.
> That is why their IS or WAS Three Branches of Government. And the SC is NOT ONE OF THEM.


What do you think the three branches of the government are?


----------



## coolrunnin

arabian knight said:


> Well it is not as free as the USA once was when the SC not only legislates from their bench but also redefines the Constitution. Nothing should have been passed like this without going to Congress and telling the SC how WRONG THEY WERE about this gay stuff.
> That is why their IS or WAS Three Branches of Government. And the SC is NOT ONE OF THEM.


Theres something to be said for passing a civics test to vote...&#128532;


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> Well it is not as free as the USA once was when the SC not only legislates from their bench but also redefines the Constitution. Nothing should have been passed like this without going to Congress and telling the SC how WRONG THEY WERE about this gay stuff.
> That is why their IS or WAS Three Branches of Government. And *the SC is NOT ONE OF THEM.*


Yes, they *ARE* one of the three branches, but just for fun, please name the three you're thinking of


----------



## farmrbrown

Technically, AK is correct. The SCOTUS is no more THE judicial branch any more than my local county court.
The POTUS isn't the ONLY representative of the executive branch, it consists of many from governors to mayors, on down the line.
And every branch ultimately answers to the Constitution and the People.


A refresher course in civics isn't such a bad idea.............


----------



## arabian knight

True They are not when they Redefine the Constitution and legislate form their Bench, and rewrite things to their own fashion just to please the sitting POTUS. They are then classified are being Legislative instead of Judicial part off things.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

They are the pinnacle of the Judicial branch, and as such get to make the final decisions on all these matters. 

If you think they violated the Constitution, sue them


----------



## farmrbrown

As long as the Constitution can still be amended by the People, there IS no "final" decision, only present ones.
If it were so, then there would be no need for a balance of power, nor any reason to vote.

Sue the SCOTUS?
That's been done already, in fact there is one filed now by an Alabama attorney.
Unfortunately, that is a waste of time because they dismiss those cases against them or uphold lower court dismissals.
If you know the fox is guarding the hen house, why look for any eggs?


----------



## Shine

farmrbrown said:


> If you know the fox is guarding the hen house, why look for any eggs?


Or in that situation, Chickens...


----------



## coolrunnin

arabian knight said:


> True They are not when they Redefine the Constitution and legislate form their Bench, and rewrite things to their own fashion just to please the sitting POTUS. They are then classified are being Legislative instead of Judicial part off things.


Where do they redefine the constitution? Congress can pass a new law to meet the present guidelines, or try to get a new amendment to the constitution.


----------



## Farmerga

coolrunnin said:


> Where do they redefine the constitution? Congress can pass a new law to meet the present guidelines, or try to get a new amendment to the constitution.


 Or, the SCOTUS can call a fine (described as such by the people who wrote the law), a tax in order to make an unconstitutional law, constitutional. If that is not legislating from the bench, I don't know what is.


----------



## farmrbrown

coolrunnin said:


> Where do they redefine the constitution? Congress can pass a new law to meet the present guidelines, or try to get a new amendment to the constitution.


Article III, section 1.

udiciallearningcenter.org/article-3-and-the-courts/


----------



## coolrunnin

farmrbrown said:


> Article III, section 1.
> 
> udiciallearningcenter.org/article-3-and-the-courts/


Okay, that's exactly what I said.


----------



## coolrunnin

Farmerga said:


> Or, the SCOTUS can call a fine (described as such by the people who wrote the law), a tax in order to make an unconstitutional law, constitutional. If that is not legislating from the bench, I don't know what is.


And congress can refine or delete and write a new law, all they said was for it to be constitutional this had to occur.


----------



## Farmerga

coolrunnin said:


> And congress can refine or delete and write a new law, all they said was for it to be constitutional this had to occur.


Nothing had to occur, the SCOTUS called a fine a tax. They changed the intent and context of the law in order to make it acceptable. (at least that part of it)


----------



## Elevenpoint

FourDeuce said:


> "In reading for about a half hour what I find about the entire subject about a homosexual lifestyle....their molestation of children...domestic violence issues...STDs...the truth is shocking and staggering. Again...educate yourself."
> 
> I wouldn't waste a half hour reading about something I wasn't interested in. Educate yourself about some psychology and try to figure out why you're so interested in gay subjects.
> And what was your source? Was it an unbiased source or was it some anti-gay source? I see many people claim they are doing research when all they are doing is reading propaganda which already supports their own beliefs.


Because human behavior is fascinating...if I don't know I have to research that subject matter and find out. I have continued to educate myself in many areas ever since I skipped two grades and graduated from high school at 16. Psychology says that homosexuality was classified as a mental illness until 1973...learn something new everyday. The sources were varied but the most telling was a clinical study of incarcerated offenders...now that was an eye opener.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> Right along with cutting the sides of your hair, eating shellfish, wearing cloth of mixed fibers, and getting a tattoo.
> 
> Are they sins today?


Do you think the government should force an ultra orthodox Jewish Temple to allow tattooed people to be married in the Temple? Would you be upset if the government passed a law saying that it would legal for an ultra orthodox Jewish Rabbi to refuse to marry someone who violated the standards of his faith?

Switch it even more. Do you think the government should have the power to force a black minister to marry a couple of card carrying Klan members? Would you be upset if the government passed a law saying that it would legal for a minister to refuse to marry someone who violated the standards of his faith?


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> it is a great thing to work towards. Does anyone deserve discrimination because they were born a certain way?


You, as a private citizen, should have the right to like or dislike anyone you wish w/o any government interference. As long as you take no actions which violate the rights of another or are not representing the government that is.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> Sorry but I don't find comparing an illegal act with a child and a consenting act between adults germaine to this discussion.


The germaine part is the belief that they are born that way. How old/young do you think a person should be before the government allows them to have sex?


----------



## FourDeuce

elevenpoint said:


> Because human behavior is fascinating...if I don't know I have to research that subject matter and find out. I have continued to educate myself in many areas ever since I skipped two grades and graduated from high school at 16. Psychology says that homosexuality was classified as a mental illness until 1973...learn something new everyday. The sources were varied but the most telling was a clinical study of incarcerated offenders...now that was an eye opener.


Learning critical thinking skills is often an eye-opener too.
BTW, people often say they are "doing research" when they are just reading things which support what they already believe. Sources are often biased and people often pick their sources to support their biases.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Do you think the government should force an ultra orthodox Jewish Temple to allow tattooed people to be married in the Temple? Would you be upset if the government passed a law saying that it would legal for an ultra orthodox Jewish Rabbi to refuse to marry someone who violated the standards of his faith?
> 
> Switch it even more. Do you think the government should have the power to force a black minister to marry a couple of card carrying Klan members? Would you be upset if the government passed a law saying that it would legal for a minister to refuse to marry someone who violated the standards of his faith?


The answer to both of your questions has been given numerous times by numerous posters. No on wants clergy to be forced to act against their beliefs. Some of us have even said we'd stand on the church steps alongside any others protesting such actions. I'd only be upset with such laws because they are unneccesary and a waste of time designed not to solve an actual problem but to curry political favor.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> They are the pinnacle of the Judicial branch, and as such get to make the final decisions on all these matters.
> 
> If you think they violated the Constitution, sue them


Interesting question, where in the Constitution is the USSC given the power to be the one to make that final decision?


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> The answer to both of your questions has been given numerous times by numerous posters. No on wants clergy to be forced to act against their beliefs. Some of us have even said we'd stand on the church steps alongside any others protesting such actions. I'd only be upset with such laws because they are unneccesary and a waste of time designed not to solve an actual problem but to curry political favor.


Have you ever looked at any law making body and the stuff they do? Good gravy we a congressionally approved national day of the horse, day of the American cowboy, world plumbing day and many many more.

Again the point is to do something to prevent a problem.


----------



## farmrbrown

watcher said:


> Interesting question, where in the Constitution is the USSC given the power to be the one to make that final decision?


Article III, sections 1 & 2
Although as I noted all decisions aren'y necessarily "final'. 


Constitution of the United States, Article III 

Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. 

Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. 

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. 

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. 

Section. 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. 


The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> Interesting question, where in the Constitution is the USSC given the power to be the one to make that final decision?


That's how the system works 

They interpret the precise meanings and applications of laws and rule accordingly.

Congress could always change the laws, but it won't change the ruling on the previous case law


----------



## Elevenpoint

U


FourDeuce said:


> Learning critical thinking skills is often an eye-opener too.
> BTW, people often say they are "doing research" when they are just reading things which support what they already believe. Sources are often biased and people often pick their sources to support their biases.


No..I don't like bias either way. I search for truth. Regardless of where one stands you cannot allow the emotional part to choose...the duty is to be objective with an open mind. Really the truth is that regardless of classification...white black.minorities gay politicians.used car dealers preachers....plenty of dirt to dig up. Forgot lawyers too.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Have you ever looked at any law making body and the stuff they do? Good gravy we a congressionally approved national day of the horse, day of the American cowboy, world plumbing day and many many more.
> 
> Again the point is to do something to prevent a problem.


But what's the problem? The constitution offers the protection. No evidence of any lawsuit or even any effort by outside groups to force clergy to perform weddings against their will has been presented. You're more than welcome to try to prove otherwise. The problem is imaginary. Any laws regulating such imaginary problems are as useful as laws regulating unicorn hunting. If you're upset about such things as congressional proclamations honoring specific things on certain days you should be equally appalled at such a waste of time as the useless laws you proposed.


----------



## arabian knight

watcher said:


> Have you ever looked at any law making body and the stuff they do? Good gravy we a congressionally approved national day of the horse, day of the American cowboy, world plumbing day and many many more.
> 
> Again the point is to do something to prevent a problem.


And the problem is when a small group wants Extra protection. That is the hot topic. Everyone has equality. But now the IN thing is now some want Special equality and that is NOT RIGHT. That is what is bring this country down the drain and quickly.


----------



## mmoetc

arabian knight said:


> And the problem is when a small group wants Extra protection. That is the hot topic. Everyone has equality. But now the IN thing is now some want Special equality and that is NOT RIGHT. That is what is bring this country down the drain and quickly.


What "special" protection is this group
asking for? What "special" protections are you willing to
surrender. Can I deny you access to my business because of your religous choice? Or are laws protecting that valid?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> And *the problem is when a small group wants Extra protection*. That is the hot topic. Everyone has equality. But now the IN thing is now some want Special equality and that is NOT RIGHT. That is what is bring this country down the drain and quickly.


Aren't these proposed laws about a "small group wanting extra protection"?


----------



## Heritagefarm

haypoint said:


> Geeesh! Just stating historical fact. Makes it seem that you want to judge 2000 years of history based on the tiny fraction of history you've lived.
> 
> Try to absorb the magnitude of the changes we've seen in the past 10 years, the past 50, the past 2000. Accept that this is a transition or a sorting out of fresh ideas. Not going to be accepted by all overnight just because think it should be. Look how slow people are to accepting GMO. It'll take time. The issue you've taken up is imbedded in people's religion. Your version of facts or logic aren't going to get everyone to tear up their Bible. Getting everyone up to your level might not be obtainable. Perhaps you could accept an attitude of ambivalence?
> 
> Ten years ago, Brokeback Mountain was upsetting to lots of folks. Now, it doesn't raise an eyebrow.


That's because GM technology is controversial. Some people are opposed to it simply on moralistic grounds. Take CRISPR genome editing technology - incredibly accurate gene placement and recombination. This tech can create super humans, so now we need to be thinking about how to handle the issue of people trying to edit their children. 



painterswife said:


> Rape is forcing someone. There is no blurred line. If one does not consent it is rape.


There are plenty of court cases that have managed to blur the lines. Nothing is black and white.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> But what's the problem? The constitution offers the protection. No evidence of any lawsuit or even any effort by outside groups to force clergy to perform weddings against their will has been presented. You're more than welcome to try to prove otherwise. The problem is imaginary. Any laws regulating such imaginary problems are as useful as laws regulating unicorn hunting. If you're upset about such things as congressional proclamations honoring specific things on certain days you should be equally appalled at such a waste of time as the useless laws you proposed.


Should we wait until there are automatic/driverless cars on the roadways before we pass laws concerning them? Say your car is hit by a driverless car doing 100 mph in a 25 mph zone and you are injured and your family killed. Who gets ticketed, arrested and/or sued? The car owner? The manufacture? The software developer? What current laws would apply?


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> What "special" protection is this group
> asking for? What "special" protections are you willing to
> surrender. Can I deny you access to my business because of your religous choice? Or are laws protecting that valid?


Yes you can. Its YOUR business and you have the full right to do with it as you please. Only the government must treat each citizen equally, but of course it doesn't because there are many government programs which favor one group over others.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Should we wait until there are automatic/driverless cars on the roadways before we pass laws concerning them? Say your car is hit by a driverless car doing 100 mph in a 25 mph zone and you are injured and your family killed. Who gets ticketed, arrested and/or sued? The car owner? The manufacture? The software developer? What current laws would apply?


Twenty years ago the answer to that question would have been same as I've given to your question about laws regulating suing the clergy. Premature and unneccessary. Any law written about driverless cars then would likely have to be modified to encompass the realities of today. Since driverless cars seem imminent and companies are applying for permissions to put them on roadways it now seems an appropriate time to plan for their regulation. 

None of those conditions apply to churches being forced to act against their will. The only people I hear speaking of lawsuits are those like you telling us we must fear them. There's also that whole pesky constitutional protection thing which is much stronger than any law passed.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> Twenty years ago the answer to that question would have been same as I've given to your question about laws regulating suing the clergy. Premature and unneccessary. Any law written about driverless cars then would likely have to be modified to encompass the realities of today. Since driverless cars seem imminent and companies are applying for permissions to put them on roadways it now seems an appropriate time to plan for their regulation.
> 
> None of those conditions apply to churches being forced to act against their will. The only people I hear speaking of lawsuits are those like you telling us we must fear them. There's also that whole pesky constitutional protection thing which is much stronger than any law passed.


What makes you think it premature? What would make you think its time?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> What makes you think it premature? What would make you think its time?


Those questions were answered long ago.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> What makes you think it premature? What would make you think its time?


I've already answered both questions but maybe this will help elaborate why it's time to talk about laws regulating self driving cars. http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0W22DG

Google has accepted some responsibilty for an accident involving one of their self driving cars.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> I've already answered both questions but maybe this will help elaborate why it's time to talk about laws regulating self driving cars. http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0W22DG
> 
> Google has accepted some responsibilty for an accident involving one of their self driving cars.


But what if they hadn't? Can't you just imagine the years of court battles and millions of dollars spent trying to sort out who was responsible and who was going to pay if people had been injured on the bus? Would it have not made more sense to put laws in place BEFORE there was a problem? After all its not like google suddenly dropped the car on the public roadways, everyone knew it was coming and only a fool would think there would never be an accident involving one.

Now look at the recent history with gay rights and tell me if you don't think that at some time some gay rights activist will try to get a church to marry them and sue when they are refused.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> What "special" protection is this group
> asking for? What "special" protections are you willing to
> surrender. *Can I deny you access to my business because of your religous choice? Or are laws protecting that valid*?


I would say that you should, if you own the business, be able to deny service to anyone for any reason. I know that the "law" doesn't agree with me, but, that is my opinion. 

If you don't want to serve blondes over 6 feet tall, so be it.

If you don't want to serve Christians, so be it.

If you don't want to serve people from Georgia, so be it. 

If you don't want to serve males, so be it. 
Or farmers, or libertarians, or, people who have of African blood, or Irish, or, German, or, English, or, Norse, etc..


If I thought you didn't like me for any of the above reasons, why would I want government to force you to take my money?


----------



## greg273

Farmerga said:


> I would say that you should, if you own the business, be able to deny service to anyone for any reason. I know that the "law" doesn't agree with me, but, that is my opinion.
> 
> If you don't want to serve blondes over 6 feet tall, so be it.
> 
> If you don't want to serve Christians, so be it.
> 
> If you don't want to serve people from Georgia, so be it.
> 
> If you don't want to serve males, so be it.
> Or farmers, or libertarians, or, people who have of African blood, or Irish, or, German, or, English, or, Norse, etc..
> 
> 
> If I thought you didn't like me for any of the above reasons, why would I want government to force you to take my money?


 You're right, the 'law' doesn't allow it, because we the people decided it was wrong. Obviously you might like it if racism and bigotry could be codified, like it once was, but those days are gone. Sorry if it aggrieves you to treat all people as equal under the law, but thats the way it is.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> I would say that you should, if you own the business, be able to deny service to anyone for any reason. I know that the "law" doesn't agree with me, but, that is my opinion.
> 
> If you don't want to serve blondes over 6 feet tall, so be it.
> 
> If you don't want to serve Christians, so be it.
> 
> If you don't want to serve people from Georgia, so be it.
> 
> If you don't want to serve males, so be it.
> Or farmers, or libertarians, or, people who have of African blood, or Irish, or, German, or, English, or, Norse, etc..
> 
> 
> If I thought you didn't like me for any of the above reasons, why would I want government to force you to take my money?


And you can open a business and deny people entrance for any or all of your stated reasons or any other reason you wish to come up with. There are thousands of money making enterprises operating just that way in this country today. What you cannot do is invite the public in and then tell someone they are not part of the public for many of those reasons. No government agency forces you to open your business to the public. None force you sell to anyone. If your cake is the best or your flowers the prettiest I really don't care what you think of me. I just want a tasty cake and pretty flowers, have the same wherewithal to pay for it as the man in front of me or the woman behind me a walked into an establishment that had a sign on the door welcoming me in. Don't want to sell to me, don't invite me in.


----------



## mmoetc

greg273 said:


> You're right, the 'law' doesn't allow it, because we the people decided it was wrong. Obviously you might like it if racism and bigotry could be codified, like it once was, but those days are gone. Sorry if it aggrieves you to treat all people as equal under the law, but thats the way it is.


And you're also wrong. The law does allow it. But the law applies to all equally, or it should. Rather than advocating for others not to have such protections they should be advocating for a change in law to give up their own protections. That would be true equality under the law.


----------



## greg273

mmoetc said:


> And you're also wrong. The law does allow it. But the law applies to all equally, or it should..


 I was under the impression that anti-discimination laws applied to all businesses open to the public.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> But what if they hadn't? Can't you just imagine the years of court battles and millions of dollars spent trying to sort out who was responsible and who was going to pay if people had been injured on the bus? Would it have not made more sense to put laws in place BEFORE there was a problem? After all its not like google suddenly dropped the car on the public roadways, everyone knew it was coming and only a fool would think there would never be an accident involving one.
> 
> Now look at the recent history with gay rights and tell me if you don't think that at some time some gay rights activist will try to get a church to marry them and sue when they are refused.


The answer to your last question is no. And even if it were to happen the Constituion provides far more protection than any state law. As I've pointed out earlier, if the constitutional protection fails any law providing such protections would also be unconstitutional, thus offering no protection .

As to driverless cars? We now know what driverless cars will look like, how they will function and what their capabilities are. Twenty years ago or a hundred years ago laws could have been written but without knowing what you're regulating how do you write the proper regulations. We can speculate on a lot of things that might happen. It's much more useful to write laws about things that are likely to happen and we know just a bit about.


----------



## mmoetc

greg273 said:


> I was under the impression that anti-discimination laws applied to all businesses open to the public.


They do, but no law says you have to open your business to the public


----------



## Farmerga

greg273 said:


> You're right, the 'law' doesn't allow it, because we the people decided it was wrong. Obviously you might like it if racism and bigotry could be codified, like it once was, but those days are gone. Sorry if it aggrieves you to treat all people as equal under the law, but thats the way it is.


 There should never be any type of discrimination under the law. The law should treat everyone equally. But, forcing people to do business with other people is wrong. Be it the black caterer who wants to refuse the KKK, or, the Jewish baker who wants to refuse the skin heads, or, the Gay tailor who wants to refuse the Christian.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> And you can open a business and deny people entrance for any or all of your stated reasons or any other reason you wish to come up with. There are thousands of money making enterprises operating just that way in this country today. What you cannot do is invite the public in and then tell someone they are not part of the public for many of those reasons. No government agency forces you to open your business to the public. None force you sell to anyone. If your cake is the best or your flowers the prettiest I really don't care what you think of me. I just want a tasty cake and pretty flowers, have the same wherewithal to pay for it as the man in front of me or the woman behind me a walked into an establishment that had a sign on the door welcoming me in. Don't want to sell to me, don't invite me in.


 Somehow I doubt a sign on a bakers door that reads "Homosexuals not welcome" would find resistance from those who enforce the law.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> Somehow I doubt a sign on a bakers door that reads "Homosexuals not welcome" would find resistance from those who enforce the law.


But a sign that says members only would be fully compliant and allow the baker to define his membership.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> There should never be any type of discrimination under the law. The law should treat everyone equally. But, forcing people to do business with other people is wrong. Be it the black caterer who wants to refuse the KKK, or, the Jewish baker who wants to refuse the skin heads, or, the Gay tailor who wants to refuse the Christian.


I agree. But by arguing only against laws that extend the protections and not against existing laws guaranteeing those protections to others your concerns seem a bit misplaced.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> I agree. But by arguing only against laws that extend the protections and not against existing laws guaranteeing those protections to others your concerns seem a bit misplaced.


I have always argued against the laws in general. I would like to see them all repealed.


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> You're right, the 'law' doesn't allow it, because we the people decided it was wrong. Obviously you might like it if racism and bigotry could be codified, like it once was, but those days are gone. Sorry if it aggrieves you to treat all people as equal under the law, but thats the way it is.


A law which violates an individual's right is not constitutional and therefore not legal. You have personal property rights and unless you are selling government goods in your store you have the right to sell or not sell that property based on any reason. 

Look at my example. What if the people decided that homeless is wrong and to solve it they passed a law requiring any person with an unused bedroom to allow any homeless person who wished to come in and use it. Would you say that would be OK.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> And you can open a business and deny people entrance for any or all of your stated reasons or any other reason you wish to come up with. There are thousands of money making enterprises operating just that way in this country today. What you cannot do is invite the public in and then tell someone they are not part of the public for many of those reasons. No government agency forces you to open your business to the public. None force you sell to anyone. If your cake is the best or your flowers the prettiest I really don't care what you think of me. I just want a tasty cake and pretty flowers, have the same wherewithal to pay for it as the man in front of me or the woman behind me a walked into an establishment that had a sign on the door welcoming me in. Don't want to sell to me, don't invite me in.


At what point does an individual lose his personal property rights and how much power does the government have over them?


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> And you can open a business and deny people entrance for any or all of your stated reasons or any other reason you wish to come up with. There are thousands of money making enterprises operating just that way in this country today. What you cannot do is invite the public in and then tell someone they are not part of the public for many of those reasons. No government agency forces you to open your business to the public. None force you sell to anyone. If your cake is the best or your flowers the prettiest I really don't care what you think of me. I just want a tasty cake and pretty flowers, have the same wherewithal to pay for it as the man in front of me or the woman behind me a walked into an establishment that had a sign on the door welcoming me in. Don't want to sell to me, don't invite me in.


So I could open a golf club and forbid entry to blacks, Jews and Catholics just by saying its members only and not allowing blacks, Jews or Catholics to be members?


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> But a sign that says members only would be fully compliant and allow the baker to define his membership.


You still have not explained how opening your business to the public takes your private property rights.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> A law which violates an individual's right is not constitutional and therefore not legal. You have personal property rights and *unless you are selling government goods* in your store you have the right to sell or not sell that property based on any reason.
> 
> Look at my example. *What if* the people decided that homeless is wrong and to solve it they passed a law requiring any person with an unused bedroom to allow any homeless person who wished to come in and use it. Would you say that would be OK.


You've beat this dead horse many times before.
Your "what if's" are as comical as always though


----------



## greg273

watcher said:


> A law which violates an individual's right is not constitutional and therefore not legal. You have personal property rights and unless you are selling government goods in your store *you have the right to sell or not sell that property based on any reason. *
> .


 That is NOT what the law says. You'd best reacquaint yourself with the laws as they stand, upheld by the Supreme Court, and not what you THINK they should be based on YOUR interpretation.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> So I could open a golf club and forbid entry to blacks, Jews and Catholics just by saying its members only and not allowing blacks, Jews or Catholics to be members?


Why not? Until quite recently the home of one of the biggest professional golf tournaments had no black or women members. It wasnt a law suit or any goverent intervention that changed the policy. Up and down the east coast there are jewish country clubs open only to jewish members. You should really get our more.


----------



## farmrbrown

watcher said:


> So I could open a golf club and forbid entry to blacks, Jews and Catholics just by saying its members only and not allowing blacks, Jews or Catholics to be members?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusta_National_Golf_Club

*"Augusta National Golf Club, located in Augusta, Georgia, is one of the most famous golf clubs in the world. Founded by Bobby Jones and Clifford Roberts on the site of the former Fruitland (later Fruitlands) Nursery, the course was designed by Jones and Alister MacKenzie[1] and opened for play in January 1933. Since 1934, it has played host to the annual Masters Tournament, one of the four major championships in professional golf, and the only major played each year at the same course. It was the number one ranked course in Golf Digest's 2009 list of America's 100 greatest courses[3] and is currently the number ten ranked course on Golfweek Magazine's 2011 list of best classic courses in the United States, in terms of course architecture.[4]

The golf club's exclusive membership policies have drawn criticism, particularly because there were no African-American members admitted until 1990,[5] as well as a former policy requiring all caddies to be black, which was omitted from the club's bylaws in 1959.[6] The club began granting membership to women in August 2012. Prior to the acceptance of female members, Augusta National defended its position by citing that in 2011, more than 15% of the non-tournament rounds were played by female players who were member guests or spouses of active members.[7] In August 2012, it admitted its first two female members, Condoleezza Rice and Darla Moore.[8] The golf club has defended the membership policies, stressing that it is a private organization.[9]"*


----------



## farmrbrown

watcher said:


> You still have not explained how opening your business to the public takes your private property rights.


The answer you're seeking is, the business or occupational license, issued by the city, county, state or other gov't authority.
When you apply for and are granted that license, you are agreeing to the terms of conducting your business according to the government's standards, whether this is explicitly told to you or not.
Caveat emptor.






watcher said:


> A law which violates an individual's right is not constitutional and therefore not legal. You have personal property rights and unless you are selling government goods in your store you have the right to sell or not sell that property based on any reason.
> 
> Look at my example. What if the people decided that homeless is wrong and to solve it they passed a law requiring any person with an unused bedroom to allow any homeless person who wished to come in and use it. Would you say that would be OK.


Although some may ridicule your example, a wise person would think about the above conditions regarding business licenses.
Titles to your property (real estate and otherwise), zoning laws or any other laws passed could very well bring unexpected or union tended consequences.
Ever since Forerunner opened my eyes to sovereignty and subjugation of government issued titles, such thoughts have not seemed as far fetched as I once imagined........ eep:


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> You still have not explained how opening your business to the public takes your private property rights.


No one is taking your private property rights away. If you don't wish to sell things don't. If you wish to sell only to certain people, the law allows you to. If you voluntarily agree to open your business to the public you agree to abide by the laws governing such a business. Those laws include serving the public. I would argue that the laws don't go far enough. I think there should be no protected classes. Everyone should be protected.


----------



## greg273

farmrbrown said:


> Ever since Forerunner opened my eyes to sovereignty and subjugation of government issued titles, such thoughts have not seemed as far fetched as I once imagined........ eep:


 And for all his talk, I bet he still pays his property taxes.


----------



## Irish Pixie

greg273 said:


> And for all his talk, I bet he still pays his property taxes.


Bazinga!


----------



## farmrbrown

watcher said:


> At what point does an individual lose his personal property rights and how much power does the government have over them?


When you register and/or title that property with the government.


Do a study on your car title sometime. Look at your state's statutes that refer to it in situations regarding legal liens for debts such as delinquent taxes or fines, etc.
Investigate just what it takes for them to transfer ownership out of your name and into theirs, thereby making you in possession of stolen property (your own car) or a trespasser in your own house.
It's a good joke - until they get serious about it.


----------



## farmrbrown

greg273 said:


> And for all his talk, I bet he still pays his property taxes.



A wise man once told me, "Never bet on anything that eats."



Irish Pixie said:


> Bazinga!



I've realized for many years, the best ally a tyrannical government has, is the majority of its citizens.
Like a bucket of caught crabs, rather than help or cheer on a captive that attempts to escape, instead the other crabs will reach out and try to pull that one back down into the bucket with them, ensuring they all get cooked together.
Although I've never understood it as logical, I believe what I see.
:shrug:


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> You've beat this dead horse many times before.
> Your "what if's" are as comical as always though


And you never have answered the basic question, when does your private property become government property under its control.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> And you never have answered the basic question, when does your private property become government property under its control.


And the answer remains the same. It never does. You're free to sell or not sell whatever you wish. No government agency says you must sell anything to anyone. You're free to set up your business in a way that allows you to discriminate. You're also free to open your business to the public and serve the public. Your choice, not the governments.


----------



## watcher

farmrbrown said:


> The answer you're seeking is, the business or occupational license, issued by the city, county, state or other gov't authority.
> When you apply for and are granted that license, you are agreeing to the terms of conducting your business according to the government's standards, whether this is explicitly told to you or not.
> Caveat emptor.



But you run into a catch 22. You can not sell your goods w/o government approval via a business license and when you get the business license your goods are no longer yours because the government has control of them.

So you can either not sell your goods on the semi-free market and follow your non-government approved beliefs or you have to do something counter to your beliefs.

The problem is the government should have no power to force you to violate your beliefs as long as you were not violating the rights of another. And I'm sorry but there is nothing in the USC which gives you the right to buy anything. That means if you open a super market you should have the full right to put up a sign that said "No Irish" and refuse to serve anyone you thought was Irish.

No one can use the constitution to show me otherwise.




farmrbrown said:


> Although some may ridicule your example, a wise person would think about the above conditions regarding business licenses.
> Titles to your property (real estate and otherwise), zoning laws or any other laws passed could very well bring unexpected or union tended consequences.
> Ever since Forerunner opened my eyes to sovereignty and subjugation of government issued titles, such thoughts have not seemed as far fetched as I once imagined........ eep:


Again my point is how people have no problem with governmental overreach as long as they agree with it. But if the government starts to reach into their area you'll hear them scream.


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> That is NOT what the law says. You'd best reacquaint yourself with the laws as they stand, upheld by the Supreme Court, and not what you THINK they should be based on YOUR interpretation.


You are correct. The laws say that you MUST sell your goods to someone even if you do not wish to if your reason for not selling is not a government approved reason.

Here's the gist either you have control of your property or the government has control of it. According to many here as soon as you pay the government for a business license you have sold the control of your property to the government. And of course the government can and does forbid you from selling your property w/o a license.

My point is, again, the government does not have the power, via the USC, to make such laws. You can bring up all the laws you want and how the people want these laws but it doesn't change the fact you can not show me where in the USC the government is granted this power. And according the the 10th amendment if the feds are not given a power then that power belongs to the States or the people.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> No one is taking your private property rights away. If you don't wish to sell things don't. If you wish to sell only to certain people, the law allows you to. If you voluntarily agree to open your business to the public you agree to abide by the laws governing such a business. Those laws include serving the public. I would argue that the laws don't go far enough. I think there should be no protected classes. Everyone should be protected.


Again this is nice but is it constitutional? Where does the government get the power to make a law saying in order to do business you must give up your beliefs? 

Everyone should have their rights protected but it should not violate your rights just to allow me to do something I want to do. I don't have a right to buy anything therefore you can not violate my rights by refusing to sell something to me, no matter reason you have. If you don't want to sell me your dog because I plan on eating it then you should have that right. If you don't want to sell me your dog because I'm an old fat white guy then you should have that right as well. The government should not be able to tell you if you want to sell dogs you must be sell to anyone who comes in with the money just because it forces you to buy a business license in order to sell enough dogs to make a living.


----------



## watcher

farmrbrown said:


> When you register and/or title that property with the government.
> 
> 
> Do a study on your car title sometime. Look at your state's statutes that refer to it in situations regarding legal liens for debts such as delinquent taxes or fines, etc.
> Investigate just what it takes for them to transfer ownership out of your name and into theirs, thereby making you in possession of stolen property (your own car) or a trespasser in your own house.
> It's a good joke - until they get serious about it.


As I have said, almost everyone supports government overreach as long as its not hurting or better yet benefitting them.


----------



## Heritagefarm

watcher said:


> As I have said, almost everyone supports government overreach as long as its not hurting or better yet benefitting them.


When did you get to decide what everyone supports?


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Again this is nice but is it constitutional? Where does the government get the power to make a law saying in order to do business you must give up your beliefs?
> 
> Everyone should have their rights protected but it should not violate your rights just to allow me to do something I want to do. I don't have a right to buy anything therefore you can not violate my rights by refusing to sell something to me, no matter reason you have. If you don't want to sell me your dog because I plan on eating it then you should have that right. If you don't want to sell me your dog because I'm an old fat white guy then you should have that right as well. The government should not be able to tell you if you want to sell dogs you must be sell to anyone who comes in with the money just because it forces you to buy a business license in order to sell enough dogs to make a living.


The government doesn't ask you to give up your beliefs. It provides ways for you follow your beliefs and operate your business. It happens every day across this land. Government has a legitimate role in regulating business. Anti discrimination and public accomodation laws are nothing more than legitimate regulation. The government doesn't tell you what to sell or who to sell to. You get to choose those things yourself. If you don't wish to sell to the public you don't have to. The laws provide many ways for you to only do business with those you wish.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> And you never have answered the basic question, when does your private property become government property under its control.


It's been answered countless times but now, as then, you ignore it and keep repeating yourself.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> The government doesn't ask you to give up your beliefs. It provides ways for you follow your beliefs and operate your business. It happens every day across this land. Government has a legitimate role in regulating business. Anti discrimination and public accomodation laws are nothing more than legitimate regulation. The government doesn't tell you what to sell or who to sell to. You get to choose those things yourself. If you don't wish to sell to the public you don't have to. The laws provide many ways for you to only do business with those you wish.


That's all nice but you have yet to show me where the government gets the power to do all of this. You may like the idea someone is force to buy health insurance because it means your rate goes down but there is nothing in the USC which gives such a power to the government. Even though its accepted and thought of as a good thing doesn't make it constitutional.

The government's job isn't to make things fair, it job is to protect your rights. Its role in business is the role of referee to make sure that neither side is violating the rights of the other. IOW, it is the government's role to make sure that 10# of potatoes you are buying actually weights 10#. It does not have the role of making sure the owner of the store sells you potatoes if he does not want you to have them.

If you don't want to sell someone potatoes because they are <insert race/religion here> then it is outside the role of government to tell you in order to sell en masse that you must also sell to <insert race/religion here>.

Once you give the government power to tell businesses who they MUST sell to you have also given it the power to say why they must NOT sell to.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's been answered countless times but now, as then, you ignore it and keep repeating yourself.


I'm sorry I missed it. What article and section in the constitution is the government given the power to regulate business to the point of imposing on the personal beliefs of an individual? What right is being violated if you can not buy a bag of top soil?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> I'm sorry *I missed it*. What article and section in the constitution is the government given the power to regulate business to the point of imposing on the personal beliefs of an individual? What right is being violated if you can not buy a bag of top soil?


Then go back and find it instead of just repeating yourself, if you really want to know. I don't think you do.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> That's all nice but you have yet to show me where the government gets the power to do all of this. You may like the idea someone is force to buy health insurance because it means your rate goes down but there is nothing in the USC which gives such a power to the government. Even though its accepted and thought of as a good thing doesn't make it constitutional.
> 
> The government's job isn't to make things fair, it job is to protect your rights. Its role in business is the role of referee to make sure that neither side is violating the rights of the other. IOW, it is the government's role to make sure that 10# of potatoes you are buying actually weights 10#. It does not have the role of making sure the owner of the store sells you potatoes if he does not want you to have them.
> 
> If you don't want to sell someone potatoes because they are <insert race/religion here> then it is outside the role of government to tell you in order to sell en masse that you must also sell to <insert race/religion here>.
> 
> Once you give the government power to tell businesses who they MUST sell to you have also given it the power to say why they must NOT sell to.


I'll pass over health insurance because it's not really what were discussing here.

As to federal anti discrimination laws, the most cited amendments in their defense have been 5 and 14. I'd also say the general welfare clause applies. But the simplest answer is, despite what you or I may opine, they are constitutional because they haven't been ruled otherwise. I know you don't like but until a law has been ruled unconstitutional it must be constitutional or no law could ever be enforced. 

I'll also point out that most of the laws regulating businesses and discrimination aren't federal laws. They are state and local laws. Laws which those localities have every right to enact. None of the laws say you can't operate your business in a discriminatory manner. They all offer this option. What they don't allow is the fraud of a business claiming to be open to the public when it is not. If businesses couldn't operate in a discriminatory manner countless would have to close across the land. They haven't been. They won't be. Despite all your protestations to the contrary discrimination is alive and well and quite legal in these United States of America.

I'll close by stating that antidiscrimination and public accommodation laws won't be going anywhere not because of liberal or gays, but because the religous, who are written into federal statute, and who benefit greatly from them will never let go of their special status and protections.


----------



## farmrbrown

watcher said:


> I'm sorry I missed it. What article and section in the constitution is the government given the power to regulate business to the point of imposing on the personal beliefs of an individual? What right is being violated if you can not buy a bag of top soil?


Article I, section 8.
The commerce clause.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause

Watcher, please don't misinterpret my intentions when I reply to your questions.
Often I don't AGREE with the answer in the laws, but I find it more helpful to a healthy discussion to simply show the documentation instead of telling someone a politer version of


----------



## JoePa

If I owned a bakery shop and a couple gays came in and wanted me to make a cake for their wedding I would say that I don't feel comfortable in participating in a gay wedding in anyway - I would tell them that I don't care to do it - if they insisted or threatened me in anyway - then I would make the worse cake possible - throw in some saw dust and take a leak in the batter - then charge them a very high price - I bet they would think twice before coming in for another cake - it's called the old switch and bait trick -there is a couple ways to handle this situation - what can they do - complain that I made a lousy cake - I would sue them for slander - 

So if you are gay and want a wedding cake - go somewhere that doesn't mind participating in you so-called wedding - why be stupid


----------



## arabian knight

Yes go somewhere else why in the world make a federal suit over something so trivial.
Go Somewhere else if not wanted at one place or another.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JoePa said:


> If I owned a bakery shop and a couple gays came in and wanted me to make a cake for their wedding I would say that I don't feel comfortable in participating in a gay wedding in anyway - I would tell them that I don't care to do it - if they insisted or threatened me in anyway - then I would make the worse cake possible - throw in some saw dust and take a leak in the batter - then charge them a very high price - I bet they would think twice before coming in for another cake - it's called the old switch and bait trick -there is a couple ways to handle this situation - what can they do - complain that I made a lousy cake - I would sue them for slander -
> 
> So if you are gay and want a wedding cake - go somewhere that doesn't mind participating in you so-called wedding - why be stupid


That says a lot about you


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> That say a lot about you


Winner winner chicken dinner!


----------



## greg273

arabian knight said:


> Yes go somewhere else why in the world make a federal suit over something so trivial.
> Go Somewhere else if not wanted at one place or another.


 Yeah, I mean those black folks should have been happy to have their own drinking fountain, right?


----------



## Prismseed

elevenpoint said:


> One day I will learn how liberal's slant it out of proportion..


There is manure on both sides of the fence, friend.


----------



## arabian knight

greg273 said:


> Yeah, I mean those black folks should have been happy to have their own drinking fountain, right?


Oh YA lets just FALL BACK AND RACISM~! That is ALL you on the left do anyways. A backer not wanting to BACK A CAKE for a NOWN Gay folks has NOT ONE THING TO DO WITH RACISM. But by golly YOU BROUGHT UP didn't YOU????
says a lot about YOU also. LOL Want to get this down and dirty and personal? Thought we should NOT be doing this kind of carp anymore. HMMMMMMMMM


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> Oh YA lets just FALL BACK AND RACISM~! That is ALL you on the left do anyways. A backer not wanting to BACK A CAKE for a NOWN Gay folks has NOT ONE THING TO DO WITH RACISM. But by golly YOU BROUGHT UP didn't YOU????
> says a lot about YOU also. LOL * Want to get this down and dirty and personal?* Thought we should NOT be doing this kind of carp anymore. HMMMMMMMMM


What did he say that was "down and dirty and personal"?

You're correct about the "backer" not being racist. They are being homophobic bigots

That really has nothing do to with the analogy though, and neither does fish.


----------



## Irish Pixie

arabian knight said:


> Oh YA lets just FALL BACK AND RACISM~! That is ALL you on the left do anyways. A backer not wanting to BACK A CAKE for a NOWN Gay folks has NOT ONE THING TO DO WITH RACISM. But by golly YOU BROUGHT UP didn't YOU????
> says a lot about YOU also. LOL Want to get this down and dirty and personal? Thought we should NOT be doing this kind of carp anymore. HMMMMMMMMM


We as a country cannot pretend that slavery, segregation, Jim Crow laws, and racism didn't happen. Saying it was a phase the country went through, like hip huggers and bell bottoms and is done and over with, diminishes the death of millions of black Americans. It's also not true- racism is alive and thriving today. 

Pretending that gays weren't (still are actually) killed or injured simply for their sexual orientation shouldn't be done either. 

Both blacks and gays are American citizens with the same rights as every other citizen. They have the right to be treated equally, not better not worse, equally.


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> We as a country cannot pretend that slavery, segregation, Jim Crow laws, and racism didn't happen. Saying it was a phase the country went through, like hip huggers and bell bottoms and is done and over with, diminishes the death of millions of black Americans. It's also not true- racism is alive and thriving today.
> 
> Pretending that gays weren't (still are actually) killed or injured simply for their sexual orientation shouldn't be done either.
> 
> Both blacks and gays are American citizens with the same rights as every other citizen. They have the right to be treated equally, not better not worse, equally.


So if we do admit that and say it was wrong, say we aren't going to allow that now (beating, killing, etc.) can we be allowed to move on?
Or do we have to be beaten daily for the sins of our fathers?


----------



## JoePa

Hold on folks - there is no connection between racism and thinking that homosexual activity is wrong - but as stated the gays are trying to tie them together for what it's worth and even the black community is rejecting that notion - 

Slavery was wrong and so is homosexual activity - 

And if your concerned about blacks being killed you would stop the millions that are being killed in the abortion factories 

And now to show you that my heart is in the right place - if you want a cake for your gay wedding let me know - I'll bake one for you - I'll make it as big as you want - even provide the chain saw you'll need to cut it - just make sure I get the saw back - there will be a deposit required for the saw - oh - one other precaution - don't lite a match any where near the cake - I'm not responsible for any explosions


----------



## Irish Pixie

JoePa said:


> Hold on folks - there is no connection between racism and thinking that homosexual activity is wrong - but as stated the gays are trying to tie them together for what it's worth and even the black community is rejecting that notion -
> 
> Slavery was wrong and so is homosexual activity -
> 
> And if your concerned about blacks being killed you would stop the millions that are being killed in the abortion factories
> 
> And now to show you that my heart is in the right place - if you want a cake for your gay wedding let me know - I'll bake one for you - I'll make it as big as you want - even provide the chain saw you'll need to cut it - just make sure I get the saw back - there will be a deposit required for the saw - oh - one other precaution - don't lite a match any where near the cake - I'm not responsible for any explosions


Please see post #471


----------



## arabian knight

JoePa said:


> Hold on folks - there is no connection between racism and thinking that homosexual activity is wrong - but as stated the gays are trying to tie them together for what it's worth and even the black community is rejecting that notion -
> 
> Slavery was wrong and so is homosexual activity -
> 
> And if your concerned about blacks being killed you would stop the millions that are being killed in the abortion factories
> 
> And now to show you that my heart is in the right place - if you want a cake for your gay wedding let me know - I'll bake one for you - I'll make it as big as you want - even provide the chain saw you'll need to cut it - just make sure I get the saw back - there will be a deposit required for the saw - oh - one other precaution - don't lite a match any where near the cake - I'm not responsible for any explosions


 There is NO connection other then some want it to be so. Doesn't make it so just in their minds it does thats all means nothing at all in the REAL world only in their world does it. LOL


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> There is NO connection other then some want it to be so. Doesn't make it so just in their minds it does thats all means nothing at all in the REAL world only in their world does it. LOL


Could you translate that into English?


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> Could you translate that into English?


I understand perfectly!


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> I understand perfectly!


It comes as no surprise you would say that, and I didn't say I didn't understand.
There are no hidden meanings in my posts


----------



## farmrbrown

If something was understood, WHY would it need to be "translated into English"?

And yes, most meanings AREN'T hidden, they just aren't always ADMITTED.


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> It comes as no surprise you would say that, and I didn't say I didn't understand.
> There are no hidden meanings in my posts


If you understood, why would you need it in English, it was already?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> If something was understood, WHY would it need to be "translated into English"?
> 
> And yes, most meanings AREN'T hidden, they just aren't always ADMITTED.


Did I say it "needed" to be?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> If you understood, *why would you need it* in English, it was already?


Again you're looking for hidden meanings instead of reading what I said


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> Again you're looking for hidden meanings instead of reading what I said.





Bearfootfarm said:


> Did I say it "needed" to be?



Fair enough, I stand corrected.

Your words were, "*could you* translate that into English?"

Since it WAS in English, one of the languages I read and recognize, the "meaning" of your question is "hidden" from me. :shrug:

Perhaps, *you could* explain it?
(That means I *need* a further explanation in order to understand what you meant)


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> Fair enough, I stand corrected.
> 
> Your words were, "*could you* translate that into English?"
> 
> Since it WAS in English, one of the languages I read and recognize, the "meaning" of your question is "hidden" from me. :shrug:
> 
> Perhaps, *you could* explain it?
> (That means I *need* a further explanation in order to understand what you meant)


Perhaps, I could, but I don't think you need it.
It wasn't a confusing statement

http://dictionary.reference.com/


----------



## coolrunnin

Bearfootfarm said:


> Could you translate that into English?


Translation: I'm a racist homophobe.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

coolrunnin said:


> Translation: I'm a racist homophobe.


I think that's one of those "hidden meanings" but not too well hidden


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> Perhaps, I could, but I don't think you need it.


We'll see.........
I'm pretty good at these guessing games, but with you as the judge, I question whether this contest is rigged. 





Bearfootfarm said:


> It wasn't a confusing statement
> 
> http://dictionary.reference.com/




I don't know about that. Asking for an English translation of an English statement confuses ME. :shrug:

Did you mean, "Can you rephrase that with better grammar and punctuation?"
(First guess, how many do I get?)
:banana:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> We'll see.........
> I'm pretty good at these guessing games, but with you as the judge, I question whether this contest is rigged.
> 
> I don't know about that. Asking for an English translation of an English statement confuses ME. :shrug:
> 
> Did you mean, "Can you rephrase that with better grammar and punctuation?"
> (First guess, how many do I get?)
> :banana:


You get as many as you want to waste your time upon
You made up the game


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> You get as many as you want to waste your time upon
> You made up the game


OK, next guess.
You can ask questions for others to explain, but when the same is asked of you, even suggesting the most plausible answer, you simply refuse?
Did I get that one right?

OK, my turn now.
What's the answer to how to translate English into English?
Since it's not at all confusing to you, it should be an easy one.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> OK, next guess.
> *You can ask questions for others to explain*, but when the same is asked of you, even suggesting the most plausible answer, you simply refuse?
> Did I get that one right?
> 
> OK, my turn now.
> What's the answer to how to translate English into English?
> Since it's not at all confusing to you, it should be an easy one.


I didn't ask you to explain anything


----------



## mmoetc

JoePa said:


> If I owned a bakery shop and a couple gays came in and wanted me to make a cake for their wedding I would say that I don't feel comfortable in participating in a gay wedding in anyway - I would tell them that I don't care to do it - if they insisted or threatened me in anyway - then I would make the worse cake possible - throw in some saw dust and take a leak in the batter - then charge them a very high price - I bet they would think twice before coming in for another cake - it's called the old switch and bait trick -there is a couple ways to handle this situation - what can they do - complain that I made a lousy cake - I would sue them for slander -
> 
> So if you are gay and want a wedding cake - go somewhere that doesn't mind participating in you so-called wedding - why be stupid


The golden rule strikes again.

If you don't wish to sell wedding cakes, don't. And it's not slander if they can prove their claims.


----------



## Irish Pixie

"Atlanta is one of the finalists for the next two Super Bowls to be awarded, along with New Orleans, Miami and Tampa. The city has been considered a clear favorite because of its new retractable-roof stadium, set to open next year.

The religious exemptions bill could change that."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nfl-warns-state-of-georgia-over-religious-freedom-bill/?linkId=22482990


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Irish Pixie said:


> "Atlanta is one of the finalists for the next two Super Bowls to be awarded, along with New Orleans, Miami and Tampa. The city has been considered a clear favorite because of its new retractable-roof stadium, set to open next year.
> 
> The religious exemptions bill could change that."
> 
> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nfl-warns-state-of-georgia-over-religious-freedom-bill/?linkId=22482990


They won't mind losing all those millions of dollars as long as they are* morally* correct


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> They won't mind losing all those millions of dollars as long as they are* morally* correct


That's what I think too...


----------



## ||Downhome||

omg Lizzy look at the fire storm you got going...


----------



## ||Downhome||

after reading this I need a Fosters..,


----------



## Irish Pixie

Disney and Marvel won't film in GA if the LGBT discrimination law is passed. 

"Disney and Marvel are inclusive companies, and although we have had great experiences filming in Georgia, we will plan to take our business elsewhere should any legislation allowing discriminatory practices be signed into state law," Disney said in a statement.

"Marvel Studios, maker of the Avengers and X-Men films, is a subsidiary of Disney."

http://www.cnet.com/news/disney-marvel-threaten-georgia-filming-boycott-over-anti-gay-bill/


----------



## greg273

Bearfootfarm said:


> They won't mind losing all those millions of dollars as long as they are* morally* correct


 As long as they THINK they are being 'morally correct'. I spent the first fourteen years of my life going to a Christian church 6 days a week, plus daily 'religion class/bible study', and they never *once* mentioned 'not doing business with gay people'. They did however stress, many *MANY* times, the importance of 'doing unto others as you would have them do unto you'. Seems a pretty simple philosophy, and one I've tried my best to live up to, every moment of every day.


----------



## greg273

Irish Pixie said:


> Disney and Marvel won't film in GA if the LGBT discrimination law is passed.
> 
> "Disney and Marvel are inclusive companies, and although we have had great experiences filming in Georgia, we will plan to take our business elsewhere should any legislation allowing discriminatory practices be signed into state law," Disney said in a statement.
> 
> "Marvel Studios, maker of the Avengers and X-Men films, is a subsidiary of Disney."
> 
> http://www.cnet.com/news/disney-marvel-threaten-georgia-filming-boycott-over-anti-gay-bill/


 Good for Disney. Wouldn't want to sully the morals of the fine people of Georgia with all those loose Hollywood morals. I hope they lose the Superbowl too, we all know theres more than a few gays working in the NFL, and probably many more in the halftime show. They want to grandstand, let them.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

greg273 said:


> As long as they THINK they are being 'morally correct'. I spent the first fourteen years of my life going to a Christian church 6 days a week, plus daily 'religion class/bible study', and they never *once* mentioned 'not doing business with gay people'.
> 
> *They did however stress, many MANY times, the importance of 'doing unto others as you would have them do unto you'.*
> 
> Seems a pretty simple philosophy, and one I've tried my best to live up to, every moment of every day.


I remember that from when I used to go to church, but too many seem to overlook that idea now.

I suspect the GA Governor will veto the law if he's smart

Luckily they are a minority, although a loud one


----------



## Farmerga

Gov. Deal has vetoed the bill. As some have said, the Constitution already protects the religious views and actions, and it does, but, I can understand, in this day and age, those who feel the need to clarify and codify that in legislation. This bill will likely be allowed to die, as it should. 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ge...emptions-bill/ar-BBr1VDE?li=BBnbcA1&ocid=iehp


----------



## Heritagefarm

Here's another question: How do we reconcile the beliefs of the religious, which holds that homosexuality is immoral and punishable, and the beliefs of the new public and democracy, which holds homosexuality is now ok?
Further, how do we reconcile the current law, which suggests that with it having been vetoed, there remains the prosibility that some gay couples may force their weddings to be held by church services? From the sound of it, in GA, churches won't be able to say "no" to gay couples wanting to be married.


----------



## no really

Heritagefarm said:


> Here's another question: How do we reconcile the beliefs of the religious, which holds that homosexuality is immoral and punishable, and the beliefs of the new public and democracy, which holds homosexuality is now ok?
> Further, how do we reconcile the current law, which suggests that with it having been vetoed, there remains the prosibility that some gay couples may force their weddings to be held by church services? From the sound of it, in GA, churches won't be able to say "no" to gay couples wanting to be married.


I'm not Christian but feel that no one should be forced in their place of worship to forego their beliefs. I support the homosexual community. I only hope that this is not pushed by either side to the point of no return, Christianity is not the only religion that would refuse.


----------



## wr

Heritagefarm said:


> Here's another question: How do we reconcile the beliefs of the religious, which holds that homosexuality is immoral and punishable, and the beliefs of the new public and democracy, which holds homosexuality is now ok?
> Further, how do we reconcile the current law, which suggests that with it having been vetoed, there remains the prosibility that some gay couples may force their weddings to be held by church services? From the sound of it, in GA, churches won't be able to say "no" to gay couples wanting to be married.



I don't believe any church should be forced to do anything against their doctrine and if it were to occur, I'd strongly support the church.


----------



## Heritagefarm

I would tend to agree with the above sentiments. Requiring a religious group do to something so against their beliefs systems would be highly invasive, to say the least.


----------



## mmoetc

Heritagefarm said:


> Here's another question: How do we reconcile the beliefs of the religious, which holds that homosexuality is immoral and punishable, and the beliefs of the new public and democracy, which holds homosexuality is now ok?
> Further, how do we reconcile the current law, which suggests that with it having been vetoed, there remains the prosibility that some gay couples may force their weddings to be held by church services? From the sound of it, in GA, churches won't be able to say "no" to gay couples wanting to be married.


A gay couple can no more force a church or religous figure to marry them than could a Jewish couple force a Catholic Church or priest to marry them. The constitution and settled law are very clear on this. The governors remarks on this were quite clear and to the point. 

This won't be the end of this , though. The override effort is beginning. As long as there are votes to garner and campaign coffers being filled some politicians will continue to use this misguided cause. As long as funds can be raised and collection plates kept full some will use fear and bigotry to profit.


----------



## mmoetc

https://gma.yahoo.com/aclu-sues-ove...-bathroom-152040012--abc-news-topstories.html

I'll drift the thread a bit here and mention the challenge to the North Carolina law and point out a couple of ironies in the law. Republicans and conservatives often talk of the most effective government being that that is closest to the people. Yet they passed another law that seeks to take away the very local control they say they seek.

The second is even funnier. If transgenders can only use the bathroom of what's hanging, or not, between their legs men are going to find themselves standing at the urinal while someone who looks a lot like a woman in a dress walks past them and some very male looking butch women, maybe even with a hipster beard, will walk into the women's room they just sent their young daughter into and there's nothing they can legally do about it. Hilarious!


----------



## Irish Pixie

mmoetc said:


> https://gma.yahoo.com/aclu-sues-ove...-bathroom-152040012--abc-news-topstories.html
> 
> I'll drift the thread a bit here and mention the challenge to the North Carolina law and point out a couple of ironies in the law. Republicans and conservatives often talk of the most effective government being that that is closest to the people. Yet they passed another law that seeks to take away the very local control they say they seek.
> 
> The second is even funnier. If transgenders can only use the bathroom of what's hanging, or not, between their legs men are going to find themselves standing at the urinal while someone who looks a lot like a woman in a dress walks past them and some very male looking butch women, maybe even with a hipster beard, will walk into the women's room they just sent their young daughter into and there's nothing they can legally do about it. Hilarious!


Yup, this is Aydian Dowling a transgender female to male that is currently leading the Men's Health cover contest:










http://time.com/3827293/trans-man-mens-health-cover/


----------



## mmoetc

Irish Pixie said:


> Yup, this is Aydian Dowling a transgender female to male that is currently leading the Men's Health cover contest:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://time.com/3827293/trans-man-mens-health-cover/


To the little girl's with her. Him? Who cares?


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> Yup, this is Aydian Dowling a transgender female to male that is currently leading the Men's Health cover contest:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://time.com/3827293/trans-man-mens-health-cover/


And if he...she..drops her pants...on the cover of any mental health publication.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> And if he...she..drops *her pants*...on the cover of any *mental health* publication.


Mental health is determined by something about 3 feet higher


----------



## mmoetc

It's fun when your own state Attorney General calls the law an embarassment, unconstitutional and won't defend it. https://www.yahoo.com/politics/ny-gov-cuomo-bans-travel-to-north-carolina-in-184327168.html. Another state government practicing fiscal responsibilty because they'll have to pay for outside counsel to defend their mistake.


----------



## Heritagefarm

SO, I'm curious, does this law prevent churches from barring gay couples, or was it about something else?


----------



## mmoetc

Heritagefarm said:


> SO, I'm curious, does this law prevent churches from barring gay couples, or was it about something else?


Two different laws but neither banned churches from banning anyone. The gA law sought to expand religous exemptions to private businesses and the NC law sought to define what bathroom one must use and take way local controls. Churches can, and will continue to be able to, act as they see fit. The constitution protects that, not any state law.


----------



## Heritagefarm

mmoetc said:


> Two different laws but neither banned churches from banning anyone. The gA law sought to expand religous exemptions to private businesses and the NC law sought to define what bathroom one must use and take way local controls. Churches can, and will continue to be able to, act as they see fit. The constitution protects that, not any state law.


Thanks. Obviously I'm against the GA bill (people get away with too much based on religion as it is), and haven't read much about the NC bill.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> Mental health is determined by something about 3 feet higher


Right. Her personal statement is that she wants to help other little girls.
Remember what Ann Landers said?
Run...don't walk...to the nearest therapist.


----------



## Irish Pixie

elevenpoint said:


> Right. Her personal statement is that she wants to help other little girls.
> Remember what Ann Landers said?
> Run...don't walk...to the nearest therapist.


I seem to be having trouble finding the statement you have attributed to Aydian Dowling, "that she wants to help other little girls." Where did he say that in the article, can you point it out? Thanks.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> I seem to be having trouble finding the statement you have attributed to Aydian Dowling, "that she wants to help other little girls." Where did he say that in the article, can you point it out? Thanks.


Anybody can research it online like I did.
That is just but a part of the entire carnival act that she has going with her girlfriend.


----------



## Irish Pixie

elevenpoint said:


> Anybody can research it online like I did.
> That is just but a part of the entire carnival act that she has going with her girlfriend.


So he didn't say what you're attributing to him? You're making it up?


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> So he didn't say what you're attributing to him? You're making it up?


You will have to look it up.
I wish these two were made up because you almost can't believe it.
Long ago people didn't want to actually see the bearded lady at the carnival...but they had to look.


----------



## Irish Pixie

elevenpoint said:


> You will have to look it up.
> I wish these two were made up because you almost can't believe it.
> Long ago people didn't want to actually see the bearded lady at the carnival...but they had to look.


It's OK, not everyone posts credible information...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> *Anybody can research* it online like I did.
> That is just but a part of the entire carnival act that she has going with her girlfriend.


What "anyone can research" has nothing to do with you posting a link to something you claim to have seen.

I have no interest in searching for something that may not exist


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> It's OK, not everyone posts credible information...


Wouldn't matter what link I provided.
Then it will be...not credible link...they have an agenda..to far right etc.
Never have posted a link...never will. Don't need to.


----------



## Heritagefarm

elevenpoint said:


> Wouldn't matter what link I provided.
> Then it will be...not credible link...they have an agenda..to far right etc.
> Never have posted a link...never will. Don't need to.


If a fellow scientist attempted to use that line whilst trying to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, they would be kicked out of the community so hard all knowledge of their existence would be burnt and their memory erased from existence.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Heritagefarm said:


> If a fellow scientist attempted to use that line whilst trying to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, they would be kicked out of the community so hard all knowledge of their existence would be burnt and their memory erased from existence.


Oh...lets not compare scientist publishing in a peer reviewed journal to GC.

NOW had I reported something flattering...and said she was a role model for the trans gender movement...then you get likes from those that have that on their agenda.


----------



## Heritagefarm

elevenpoint said:


> Oh...lets not compare scientist publishing in a peer reviewed journal to GC.


 Good point. :bandwagon:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> Wouldn't matter what link I provided.
> Then it will be...not credible link...they have an agenda..to far right etc.
> Never have posted a link...never will. Don't need to.


It would if the link actually verified your claim.
If I had one that proved what I said, I'd just show it instead of wasting so much time making excuses


----------



## mreynolds

Irish Pixie said:


> Disney and Marvel won't film in GA if the LGBT discrimination law is passed.
> 
> "Disney and Marvel are inclusive companies, and although we have had great experiences filming in Georgia, we will plan to take our business elsewhere should any legislation allowing discriminatory practices be signed into state law," Disney said in a statement.
> 
> "Marvel Studios, maker of the Avengers and X-Men films, is a subsidiary of Disney."
> 
> http://www.cnet.com/news/disney-marvel-threaten-georgia-filming-boycott-over-anti-gay-bill/


That's why I like freedom. If someone wants to be exclusive everyone else can too.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> A gay couple can no more force a church or religous figure to marry them than could a Jewish couple force a Catholic Church or priest to marry them. The constitution and settled law are very clear on this. The governors remarks on this were quite clear and to the point.
> 
> This won't be the end of this , though. The override effort is beginning. As long as there are votes to garner and campaign coffers being filled some politicians will continue to use this misguided cause. As long as funds can be raised and collection plates kept full some will use fear and bigotry to profit.


Why not? If it is illegal for the owners of a businesses open to the public to be forced to violate their religious beliefs why could not a church which is open to the business be forced as well? 

Say your church was fairly large and had a large gathering space. It allows non members to use the church for weddings officiated by others and to use the hall for the reception. FYI, every church I have dealt with does this, some require payment others 'request a donation' and others only ask that you leave the place as clean as you found it.

Now lets say a gay couple wanted to use your church and hall for their wedding and were refused. What would prevent them from being able to sue for having their "right" violated?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> Why not? If it is illegal for the owners of a businesses open to the public to be forced to violate their religious beliefs why could not a church which is open to the business be forced as well?
> 
> *Say* your church was fairly large and had a large gathering space. It allows non members to use the church for weddings officiated by others and to use the hall for the reception. FYI, every church I have dealt with does this, some require payment others 'request a donation' and others only ask that you leave the place as clean as you found it.
> 
> *Now lets say* a gay couple wanted to use your church and hall for their wedding and were refused. What would prevent them from being able to sue for having their "right" violated?


Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
Playing "what if" doesn't change the Constitution or any current legislation

A church is not "a business" in legal terms
(I know you already know that, since this isn't a new topic)


----------



## coolrunnin

Bearfootfarm said:


> Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
> Playing "what if" doesn't change the Constitution or any current legislation
> 
> A church is not "a business" in legal terms
> (I know you already know that, since this isn't a new topic)


I don't know about that, in watchers example they are taking money for rent of the facility, doesn't that make them a business, and not limiting it to people of the church's faith could open them up to demands for use.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
> Playing "what if" doesn't change the Constitution or any current legislation
> 
> A church is not "a business" in legal terms
> (I know you already know that, since this isn't a new topic)


A church is a government approved public entity just as your local bakery is. There really isn't much difference between a church and any other NPO when it comes to being a business. 

The problem is in this 'progressive' time what is constitutional and what is not is based just as much on politics and populism as any other thing in society.

What specifically would protect a church from being sued if they violated someone's constitutional right?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

coolrunnin said:


> I don't know about that, in watchers example they are taking money for rent of the facility, *doesn't that make them a business*, and not limiting it to people of the church's faith could open them up to demands for use.


They aren't operating to make a profit, so they are not a "business" under the law


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> A church is a government approved public entity just as your local bakery is. There really isn't much difference between a church and any other NPO when it comes to being a business.
> 
> The problem is in this 'progressive' time what is constitutional and what is not is based just as much on politics and populism as any other thing in society.
> 
> What specifically would protect a church from being sued if they violated someone's constitutional right?


Repeating the fallacy isn't going to change the facts
A church isn't a "business."

I already said anyone "can" sue for anything
That doesn't mean they would have any chance of winning

Feel free to provide examples of such suits being won.
Otherwise it's just one more of your endless "what if's"


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> They aren't operating to make a profit, so they are not a "business" under the law


So no NPO can be sued for a violation of civil rights because they are not a business? IOW could an NPO bakery legally refuse to sell a gay couple a wedding cake?


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> Repeating the fallacy isn't going to change the facts
> A church isn't a "business."
> 
> I already said anyone "can" sue for anything
> That doesn't mean they would have any chance of winning
> 
> Feel free to provide examples of such suits being won.
> Otherwise it's just one more of your endless "what if's"



A possible, and even likely, conversion on January 27, 1986

Engineer: The O-rings could fail and cause an explosion that would destroy the shuttle.

Controller: Feel free to provide examples of such explosions. Otherwise it's just one more of your endless "what if's".


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> A possible, and even likely, conversion on January 27, 1986
> 
> Engineer: The O-rings could fail and cause an explosion that would destroy the shuttle.
> 
> Controller: Feel free to provide examples of such explosions. Otherwise it's just one more of your endless "what if's".


That has nothing to do with *this* subject, and is just another example of how you love to ramble.


----------



## coolrunnin

Bearfootfarm said:


> They aren't operating to make a profit, so they are not a "business" under the law


Aspects of a NPO can be held to civil rights laws if they operate a for profit portion, such as hall rental if they offer it to the public at large.

I can't seem to link with my phone but I found some case law supporting this.


----------



## Farmerga

coolrunnin said:


> Aspects of a NPO can be held to civil rights laws if they operate a for profit portion, such as hall rental if they offer it to the public at large.
> 
> I can't seem to link with my phone but I found some case law supporting this.


The truth is that the "law" can and often is, twisted to meet the political agenda of the judge ruling on the matter.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> That has nothing to do with *this* subject, and is just another example of how you love to ramble.


Sure it does. Because a church has not been sued in the past, just as an O-ring failure had not caused a shuttle to explode before 28 JAN 86, doesn't mean you can ignore history and say it will never happen.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> Sure it does. Because a church has not been sued in the past, just as an O-ring failure had not caused a shuttle to explode before 28 JAN 86, doesn't mean you can ignore history and say it will never happen.


Once again you're pretending I said they couldn't be sued.
You want to ignore the "history" of it *not* happening. :shrug:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

coolrunnin said:


> Aspects of a NPO can be held to civil rights laws if they operate *a for profit portion*, such as hall rental if they offer it to the public at large.
> 
> I can't seem to link with my phone but I found some case law supporting this.


Then that would be a "business" separate from "the church".

Most churches get enough to cover costs only, and I've never seen them advertise to the general public as a real "business" would do.


----------



## coolrunnin

Bearfootfarm said:


> Then that would be a "business" separate from "the church".
> 
> Most churches get enough to cover costs only, and I've never seen them advertise to the general public as a real "business" would do.


I own 3 businesses with no advertisement. I consider all 3 real businesses with real profit...

Yes it's a separate business but if renting your sanctuary to any faiths is in the business plan you can be required to rent to a gay marriage.

Church's rushing to incorporate is liable to bite them.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> Once again you're pretending I said they couldn't be sued.
> You want to ignore the "history" of it *not* happening. :shrug:


History shows more and more law suits brought and WON against anyone or anything which is seen as anti-gay. IOW, history is showing us that the O-rings are failing and therefore there is a high probability of catastrophic failure in the near future.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> Then that would be a "business" separate from "the church".
> 
> Most churches get enough to cover costs only, and I've never seen them advertise to the general public as a real "business" would do.


The point is the church has a policy, usually written, and in most cases today a written contract is signed by church officials and the people renting the use of the facilities the same way any other privately owned facility would. I don't see why a gay couple who was told they could not enter into a contract to use the church property would have any less of a case than if the bakery refused to provide them a cake.


----------



## watcher

coolrunnin said:


> I own 3 businesses with no advertisement. I consider all 3 real businesses with real profit...
> 
> Yes it's a separate business but if renting your sanctuary to any faiths is in the business plan you can be required to rent to a gay marriage.
> 
> Church's rushing to incorporate is liable to bite them.


I would think allowing anyone other than nonmembers to use it would open you up to lawsuits.


----------



## watcher

Another interesting question. A lot of churches offer "counseling" for many nonreligious issues (drug and alcohol abuse, marriage, etc.) to people other than its own members. Could a church face a lawsuit if it refused to accept a gay couple for marriage counseling or a drug using gay person?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

coolrunnin said:


> *I own 3 businesses *with no advertisement. I consider all *3 real businesses* with real profit...
> 
> Yes it's a separate business but if renting your sanctuary to any faiths is in the *business plan* you can be required to rent to a gay marriage.
> 
> Church's rushing to incorporate is liable to bite them.


If you're operating* as a business* you cannot discriminate, and you cannot claim you're "just a church".

We're going in circles here


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> The point is the church has a policy, usually written, and in most cases today a written contract is signed by church officials and the people renting the use of the facilities the same way any other privately owned facility would. * I don't see why *a gay couple who was told they could not enter into a contract to use the church property would have any less of a case than if the bakery refused to provide them a cake.


I don't see why the "church" should care, if it's "just business."
They aren't going to be invited to the event


----------



## Heritagefarm

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you're operating* as a business* you cannot discriminate, and you cannot claim you're "just a church".
> 
> We're going in circles here


Considering the amount of money some churches make, we may find some very interesting anomalies if some of them were made to pay taxes.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you're operating* as a business* you cannot discriminate, and you cannot claim you're "just a church".
> 
> We're going in circles here


The base question is what makes it so impossible to sue a church for doing something that would get any other group sued.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> I don't see why the "church" should care, if it's "just business."
> They aren't going to be invited to the event


Because it goes against their belief system. That's the point we are discussing here. Does the state have the power to force you to do something which you do not wish to do because you don't believe in it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> The base question is what makes it so impossible to sue a church for doing something that would get any other group sued.


That was answered long ago and you keep repeating yourself


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> Because it goes against their belief system. That's the point we are discussing here. Does the state have the power to force you to do something which you do not wish to do because you don't believe in it.


It's none of their business.

If they are renting a venue for an event, it's no concern of theirs what the event happens to be.


----------



## mreynolds

Heritagefarm said:


> Considering the amount of money some churches make, we may find some very interesting anomalies if some of them were made to pay taxes.


They do pay taxes. 

UBIT taxes
Employee taxes
sales taxes on goods bought. 

ALL 501c3's do. I have set two up. They were both incorporated. And they can be sued. These were both fire depts. and have slightly different rules regarding income taxes but not much. Although Fire Depts. have slightly favorable rules regarding sales taxes. Like gas and oil taxes are drastically reduced. 

That no tax thing is a hoax believed by too many people. If the money comes in a certain year it has to be spent otherwise it will be taxed. We (our FD) are allowed to "make" 20k not spent before we are taxed with income tax. Anything over that is taxed. And believe me, the IRS dogs us every other year with minor audits. 

So anyway, if a church rents out for payment it would be considered UBIT to the IRS. Therefore taxed. If it lets it out for free its not. So I would *guess* in the eyes of the law, it would be considered discrimination if money exchanges hands frequently in these types of transactions.


----------



## mmoetc

mreynolds said:


> They do pay taxes.
> 
> UBIT taxes
> Employee taxes
> sales taxes on goods bought.
> 
> ALL 501c3's do. I have set two up. They were both incorporated. And they can be sued. These were both fire depts. and have slightly different rules regarding income taxes but not much. Although Fire Depts. have slightly favorable rules regarding sales taxes. Like gas and oil taxes are drastically reduced.
> 
> That no tax thing is a hoax believed by too many people. If the money comes in a certain year it has to be spent otherwise it will be taxed. We (our FD) are allowed to "make" 20k not spent before we are taxed with income tax. Anything over that is taxed. And believe me, the IRS dogs us every other year with minor audits.
> 
> So anyway, if a church rents out for payment it would be considered UBIT to the IRS. Therefore taxed. If it lets it out for free its not. So I would *guess* in the eyes of the law, it would be considered discrimination if money exchanges hands frequently in these types of transactions.


Churches and other religous organizations have no filing requirement from the IRS. https://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Annual-Exempt-Organization-Return-Who-Must-File


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's none of their business.
> 
> If they are renting a venue for an event, it's no concern of theirs what the event happens to be.


Its THEIR venue they have the right to decide how its used and who uses it.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Its THEIR venue they have the right to decide how its used and who uses it.


And if they decide to operate it as a business and offer its use to the public all of the public can use them. Unless, of course, you live in one of those states that says certain people aren't part of the public.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> Its THEIR venue they have the right to decide how its used and who uses it.


That would all be in the contract.
It shouldn't ask about gender or sexual preference.

It should have the price and some terms about the hours and clean-up afterwards.

That's all


----------



## mreynolds

mmoetc said:


> Churches and other religous organizations have no filing requirement from the IRS. https://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Annual-Exempt-Organization-Return-Who-Must-File


You are wrong. That is the annual information return. 

This
_Every organization *exempt from federal income tax *under Internal Revenue Code section 501(a)_ 

Does not mean *all *churches are exempt from federal income taxes. Many are because they don't have UBIT or employees and the only things they buy are sales tax exempt. But not all things bought with a tax number are tax exempt. It goes state by state on that. 

And this:

_An exempt organization (other than a private foundation) that normally has annual gross receipts of $50,000 or less _

Do you know any churches that have more annual income than 50k? I do. 

This is the page you were looking for:

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

A little light reading for you this weekend.


----------



## wiscto

mreynolds said:


> You are wrong. That is the annual information return.
> 
> This
> _Every organization *exempt from federal income tax *under Internal Revenue Code section 501(a)_
> 
> Does not mean *all *churches are exempt from federal income taxes. Many are because they don't have UBIT or employees and the only things they buy are sales tax exempt. But not all things bought with a tax number are tax exempt. It goes state by state on that.
> 
> And this:
> 
> _An exempt organization (other than a private foundation) that normally has annual gross receipts of $50,000 or less _
> 
> Do you know any churches that have more annual income than 50k? I do.
> 
> This is the page you were looking for:
> 
> https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf
> 
> A little light reading for you this weekend.


Right, ya, I follow you. I wasn't planning on participating in this thread, but I do have a question. Any church that is filing taxes has failed to meet the following criteria. 


the organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational, scientific or other charitable purposes;
net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any private individual or shareholder;
no substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation;
the organization may not intervene in political campaigns; and
the organization&#8217;s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.

If they fail to meet just one of those criteria, who cares anymore? It's like saying George Soros should be exempt from taxes on religious grounds.


----------



## mreynolds

That's the defining criteria of non profit. Not just churches. So is your problem with non profits or just churches? They are one and the same after all. I'm not taking a side here at all just trying to shed some truth on 501c3's and taxes is all.

Soros does have a foundation that does good too. Should he be taxed on that as well as churches? How about my fire dept? We have two stations and an annual budget of less than 30k. With that we have managed to acquire newish trucks and saved many lives with *no* tax money at all. Two stations even but we are still paying on the new one. That we built with volunteer labor for 40k. 

If you tax churches like a for profit business then it would only be fair to tax my FD too. You cant do one without the other. 

Be that as it may, *ANY* 501c3's can make money in UBIT. I didn't set the rules. They were set many years ago. They must pay tax on earnings though. They must pay payroll tax. Some sales tax that doesn't fall under exempt status. 

I don't understand. We gripe because we believed that churches didn't pay taxes. Now we gripe because they *are* actually paying them? 

Just cant win here I guess.


----------



## mreynolds

Let me explain it like this. There is a FD in my county that is near ours. They have a fish fry every year that raises about 10k annual. So I go and buy a plate and pay for my fish with after tax dollars. I had my taxes taken out on Friday from my boss. This money goes straight for upkeep/OH whatever. Its _after tax _money. Not UBIT

They also have a large station they rent out for the a few companies. They get about a thousand a month. Now this thousand is before taxes because rent is a write off for that respective company. Therefore it is before tax money. It is earned income that needs to be taxed. This is UBIT and is entirely legal and legit. All this talk about fair taxes then this should make everyone smile. 

Do you really think the IRS will let a buck go that hasn't been taxed _at least _once even for a non profit?

You can answer that one surely.


----------



## mmoetc

mreynolds said:


> You are wrong. That is the annual information return.
> 
> This
> _Every organization *exempt from federal income tax *under Internal Revenue Code section 501(a)_
> 
> Does not mean *all *churches are exempt from federal income taxes. Many are because they don't have UBIT or employees and the only things they buy are sales tax exempt. But not all things bought with a tax number are tax exempt. It goes state by state on that.
> 
> And this:
> 
> _An exempt organization (other than a private foundation) that normally has annual gross receipts of $50,000 or less _
> 
> Do you know any churches that have more annual income than 50k? I do.
> 
> This is the page you were looking for:
> 
> https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf
> 
> A little light reading for you this weekend.


Churches aren't exempt from Federal income tax because they register as a tax exempt organization. They are because long standing federal law exempts them. The exemption happens regardless of whether they register or not and registration is largely done to make it easier solicit donations and avoid government scrutiny. I don't dispute taxation of outside businesses, payroll taxes of non clergy or certain sales taxes. But whether the donation recieved is one dollar or a million, as long as it goes to functioning of the church and furthering its mission, the church pays no federal income tax on it.


----------



## mreynolds

mmoetc said:


> Churches aren't exempt from Federal income tax because they register as a tax exempt organization. They are because long standing federal law exempts them. The exemption happens regardless of whether they register or not and registration is largely done to make it easier solicit donations and avoid government scrutiny. I don't dispute taxation of outside businesses, payroll taxes of non clergy or certain sales taxes. But whether the donation recieved is one dollar or a million, as long as it goes to functioning of the church and furthering its mission, the church pays no federal income tax on it.


Yes, I understand that too. Its that way with all non profits. The two FDs I made into 501c3's have existed since the 70's as non profit. It wasn't until after 9/11 that they wished to become 501c3. But the tax rules for non 501c3's is even slipperier than with it. It hasn't been just a blanket policy just for churches. It may have started out that way but any non profit can be unincorporated or non 501c3. Liability is much greater if you are not 501c3.


----------



## mmoetc

mreynolds said:


> Yes, I understand that too. Its that way with all non profits. The two FDs I made into 501c3's have existed since the 70's as non profit. It wasn't until after 9/11 that they wished to become 501c3. But the tax rules for non 501c3's is even slipperier than with it. It hasn't been just a blanket policy just for churches. It may have started out that way but any non profit can be unincorporated or non 501c3. Liability is much greater if you are not 501c3.


Which makes my initial statement that churches have no legal requirement to file tax documents with the government true. No church has to register as a not for profit. No church has to file even the informational return.


----------



## mreynolds

mmoetc said:


> Which makes my initial statement that churches have no legal requirement to file tax documents with the government true. No church has to register as a not for profit. No church has to file even the informational return.


Yes it makes it true for those churches that don't have to pay income tax but not for those churches that do owe income tax. nothing is ever absolute. To just say that churches don't pay taxes is only partly right or partly wrong. People tend to take whatever side they agree with and try and make it absolute. Or they just don't know any better. I was only trying to shed facts on the matter. I have have no side in the taxation of churches.


----------



## mmoetc

mreynolds said:


> Yes it makes it true for those churches that don't have to pay income tax but not for those churches that do owe income tax. nothing is ever absolute. To just say that churches don't pay taxes is only partly right or partly wrong. People tend to take whatever side they agree with and try and make it absolute. Or they just don't know any better. I was only trying to shed facts on the matter. I have have no side in the taxation of churches.


Whatever.


----------



## watcher

wiscto said:


> Right, ya, I follow you. I wasn't planning on participating in this thread, but I do have a question. Any church that is filing taxes has failed to meet the following criteria.
> 
> 
> the organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational, scientific or other charitable purposes;
> net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any private individual or shareholder;
> no substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation;
> the organization may not intervene in political campaigns; and
> the organizationâs purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.
> 
> If they fail to meet just one of those criteria, who cares anymore? It's like saying George Soros should be exempt from taxes on religious grounds.


The last part of your last bullet point is what puts a hair in the biscuit. "violate fundamental public policy". Could you not say the current "fundamental public policy" is to allow gay marriage? If this true if a church refused to allow gay marriage it cold lose its government recognition as a church. At that point it would no longer have any protection under the 1st amendment because everyone here seems to says that a business has no right to follow its religious beliefs.


----------



## wiscto

mreynolds said:


> That's the defining criteria of non profit. Not just churches. So is your problem with non profits or just churches? They are one and the same after all. I'm not taking a side here at all just trying to shed some truth on 501c3's and taxes is all.
> 
> Soros does have a foundation that does good too. Should he be taxed on that as well as churches? How about my fire dept? We have two stations and an annual budget of less than 30k. With that we have managed to acquire newish trucks and saved many lives with *no* tax money at all. Two stations even but we are still paying on the new one. That we built with volunteer labor for 40k.
> 
> If you tax churches like a for profit business then it would only be fair to tax my FD too. You cant do one without the other.
> 
> Be that as it may, *ANY* 501c3's can make money in UBIT. I didn't set the rules. They were set many years ago. They must pay tax on earnings though. They must pay payroll tax. Some sales tax that doesn't fall under exempt status.
> 
> I don't understand. We gripe because we believed that churches didn't pay taxes. Now we gripe because they *are* actually paying them?
> 
> Just cant win here I guess.


 No dangit, I don't have a problem with any of those if they're actually following the rules. But if they're following the rules, they're tax free. 

I do get what you're saying now in terms of payroll tax. If they have actual employees, like if they run a daycare and the attendants make hourly wages or something. Are you saying you think that should be tax exempt too? Or did someone else say that? Or...

You and I are on the same page again, aren't we. ound:


----------



## wiscto

watcher said:


> The last part of your last bullet point is what puts a hair in the biscuit. "violate fundamental public policy". Could you not say the current "fundamental public policy" is to allow gay marriage? If this true if a church refused to allow gay marriage it cold lose its government recognition as a church. At that point it would no longer have any protection under the 1st amendment because everyone here seems to says that a business has no right to follow its religious beliefs.


Public policy is also that the government cannot make a law telling a church to marry to gay people. However, if a church interferes with the public policy that government must treat people equally, let's say by showing up at the court house and barring any gay couple from entering to apply for their marriage license.......now they don't get to be tax exempt anymore......now they're going to be taxed out their $%$%.


----------



## watcher

wiscto said:


> Public policy is also that the government cannot make a law telling a church to marry to gay people. However, if a church interferes with the public policy that government must treat people equally, let's say by showing up at the court house and barring any gay couple from entering to apply for their marriage license.......now they don't get to be tax exempt anymore......now they're going to be taxed out their $%$%.


 If this is "public policy" then what's the big deal about states putting said "public policy" into writing as a law?


----------



## wiscto

watcher said:


> If this is "public policy" then what's the big deal about states putting said "public policy" into writing as a law?


Maybe if it stopped at that...


----------



## mreynolds

wiscto said:


> No dangit, I don't have a problem with any of those if they're actually following the rules. But if they're following the rules, they're tax free.
> 
> I do get what you're saying now in terms of payroll tax. If they have actual employees, like if they run a daycare and the attendants make hourly wages or something. Are you saying you think that should be tax exempt too? Or did someone else say that? Or...
> 
> You and I are on the same page again, aren't we. ound:


Yes, I guess we are lmao. Sorry.


----------



## wiscto

mreynolds said:


> Yes, I guess we are lmao. Sorry.


I jumped in without catching up, so I think it was my fault. Wait no. What am I saying? It's your fault. :bash:


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

The beginning and the end of this discussion remind me a lot of the argument in Federalist #84. 

In spirit, I agree with Hamilton regarding the redundancy, and even potential danger, of including the first 10 amendments, but, given the attacks they've faced over the last 80 years, can you imagine the state of the freedom or speech and arms would be in, if they hadn't been redundantly stated?


----------



## Heritagefarm

wiscto said:


> I jumped in without catching up, so I think it was my fault. Wait no. What am I saying? It's your fault. :bash:


Whatever it is, I didn't do it and it's all your fault.:cowboy:


----------



## bjba

Bearfootfarm said:


> This has nothing to do with &quot;protection&quot;
> 
> The clergy can't be forced to perform weddings now unless they run &quot;marriage chapels&quot; as a business.
> 
> Businesses cannot treat customers nor employees differently based on religion and that is what these laws would do.
> 
> Anti-discrimination laws don't protect special groups
> They make all groups the same


 The above being correct a Kosher or Muslim caterer could be forced to serve ham at a wedding reception, right?


----------



## Elffriend

bjba said:


> The above being correct a Kosher or Muslim caterer could be forced to serve ham at a wedding reception, right?


No, because a kosher or Muslim caterer would not serve ham to ANYONE. Can you hire a vegan caterer and insist that they serve steak at your wedding if they only serve vegan food?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm sure you want to think that legalized discrimination is fine and dandy, but it's not. LGBT are human beings and deserve respect.
> 
> If you believe the fairy tale of religion that's fine, I don't.


I'd like to see your explanation of "harrasment" b/c we pray for you...this is DIRECT mocking, it is offensive to most & is tolerated on this forum constantly. 
I'm sick of it.

There is NO separation of church & state. None. There IS however, a clause that says NO laws shall be enacted to PREVENT free exercise of religion, NO LAW! Geesh. What's so hard? I might add, NO ONE has freedom FROM religion. That applies to you too.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Elffriend said:


> No, because a kosher or Muslim caterer would not serve ham to ANYONE. Can you hire a vegan caterer and insist that they serve steak at your wedding if they only serve vegan food?


Exactly this. It boggles my mind that many people don't understand this, it's not rocket science.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> I'd like to see your explanation of "harrasment" b/c we pray for you...this is DIRECT mocking, it is offensive to most & is tolerated on this forum constantly.
> I'm sick of it.


What harassment would that be? Can you explain?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> I'd like to see your explanation of "harrasment" b/c we pray for you...this is DIRECT mocking, it is offensive to most & is tolerated on this forum constantly.
> I'm sick of it.
> 
> There is NO separation of church & state. None. There IS however, a clause that says NO laws shall be enacted to PREVENT free exercise of religion, NO LAW! Geesh. What's so hard? I might add, NO ONE has freedom FROM religion. That applies to you too.


Your right to religion ends when it infringes on my right to a lack of religion. No matter how many words you capitalize I'm still not going to be believe the fairy tale. 

I've asked publicly for you (collective believers) not to pray for me, and even explained why. But just for you I will again: if your faith is so shaky that you need to harass me for my lack of it the problem is with you, not me. 

Did I explain in a way that you can understand? 

ETA: "The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that everyone in the United States has the right to practice his or her own religion, or no religion at all."

From: https://www.aclu.org/your-right-religious-freedom


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> Sure, a business owner can discriminate against anyone he or she wants but they run the risk of someone filing a discrimination suit against them.
> 
> Think about it this way, would it be fine and dandy to refuse to bake a cake for a black couple? No? That would be discrimination, right? It is with an LGBT couple too. Or do you feel any sort of discrimination is OK?
> 
> The violent and anti law and order rhetoric is simply ridiculous.


You still don't see it but why am I not surprised. 

You're trying to make an analogy about Black people & gays? I'm sure both groups are offended. There is NO analogy here. But you knew that. Nothing in anyone's religion excludes African Americans. Now, if you're going to cite some obscure 'religion' nevermind. But try to find me a passage in the bible that says we must discriminate against Black people.

I guess non-conserves has no idea where this country got its laws. I'll tell ya. from the 10 commandments & Judeo-Christian values. So, your analogy about sharia law is just ignorant. There will be no sharia law in this country if we are vigilant. and the law GA passed will insure the freedom of muslims, also. How many Imams do you think have or will marry gays?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> You still don't see it but why am I not surprises.
> 
> You're trying to make an analogy about Black people & gays? I'm sure both groups are offended. There is NO analogy here. But you knew that. Nothing in anyone's religion excludes African Americans. Now, if you're going to cite some obscure 'religion' nevermind. But try to find me a passage in the bible that says we must discriminate against Black people.
> 
> I guess non-conserves has no idea where this country got its laws. I'll tell ya. from the 10 commandments & Judeo-Christian values. So, your analogy about sharia law is just ignorant. There will be no sharia law in this country if we are vigilant. and the law GA passed will insure the freedom of muslims, also. How many Imams do you think have or will marry gays?


The US is not run by (and never has) by judo christian values. I don't believe in god so I do not subscribe to the tenets of either the jewish or christian faiths. Therefore, I feel the bible (and torah) are total works of fiction. Why would I "find" anything to use as fact in a fictional book?


----------



## Tricky Grama

TraderBob said:


> To be expected from you.
> If it doesn't agree with you, it must be hate.
> How typical.


Post of the year award.


----------



## farmrbrown

Tricky Grama said:


> I'd like to see your explanation of "harrasment" b/c we pray for you...this is DIRECT mocking, it is offensive to most & is tolerated on this forum constantly.
> I'm sick of it.


Thank you.
It's about time members started calling out this stuff.
Usually all I see is "post deleted".
Then they LEAVE the insults (like the ones on this page from Irish Pixie, mocking, condescending, insulting or whatever name you put on it in the rules).




Irish Pixie said:


> No matter how many words you capitalize I'm still not going to be believe the fairy tale.
> 
> I've asked publicly for you (collective believers) not to pray for me, and even explained why. But just for you I will again: if your faith is so shaky that you need to harass me for my lack of it the problem is with you, not me.
> 
> Did I explain in a way that you can understand?





Irish Pixie said:


> The US is not run by (and never has) by judo christian values. I don't believe in god so I do not subscribe to the tenets of either the jewish or christian faiths. Therefore, I feel the bible (and torah) are total works of fiction. Why would I "find" anything to use as fact in a fictional book?



Are you mods reading this????

And NO, I'm not going to hit the report button, wr. I've said before I'm not a snitch.
But I WILL say it in public, right out there on the front row!


----------



## Tricky Grama

poppy said:


> Nonsense again. Why should a smelly person be treated differently than a clean person? They're both people. Liberals push to deny people of faith the same rights they give other people. It is a clear hatred of religion and the Christian and Jewish religions in particular. You can make allowance for Muslims and other religions. Jews are always blamed for everything wrong in the ME by the left and Christians blamed for every conceivable problem in society in this country. Hitler would be proud of you folks for carrying on his ideology. Like Muslims who hate the "people of the Book" and the "Saturday people and the Sunday people", you promote those same beliefs. It's totally irrational. As a Christian, I do not want to force you to do anything to accommodate me or my faith. Please allow me the same courtesy. Leave me and others alone. I may or may not agree with others, including other Christians on some issues but I respect their right to worship as they please and have no desire to force them to believe as I do. It's called freedom of religion and I value it highly.


Post of the millenneum award.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> What harassment would that be? Can you explain?


In post #46, you said, "My "favored groups" are human beings. I don't even mind the religious if they don't harass with me their woo."


----------



## Bearfootfarm

bjba said:


> The above being correct a Kosher or Muslim caterer could be forced to serve ham at a wedding reception, right?


Not at all.
It's not a service they offer to *anyone*.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> Your right to religion ends when it infringes on my right to a lack of religion. No matter how many words you capitalize I'm still not going to be believe the fairy tale.
> 
> I've asked publicly for you (collective believers) not to pray for me, and even explained why. But just for you I will again: if your faith is so shaky that you need to harass me for my lack of it the problem is with you, not me.
> 
> Did I explain in a way that you can understand?
> 
> ETA: "The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that everyone in the United States has the right to practice his or her own religion, or no religion at all."
> 
> From: https://www.aclu.org/your-right-religious-freedom


Like many of us said, you do not have the 'frght' of "freedom from religion" there is not a right spelled out as such.


----------



## Irish Pixie

I am allowed an opinion. My opinion can be different than yours, you may find it insulting but that doesn't mean I can't have it. You cannot force me to believe in god, the "holy" books, judeo christian values, or anything else.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Tricky Grama said:


> I'd like to see your explanation of "harrasment" b/c we pray for you...this is DIRECT mocking, it is offensive to most & is tolerated on this forum constantly.
> I'm sick of it.
> 
> There is NO separation of church & state. None. There IS however, a clause that says NO laws shall be enacted to PREVENT *free exercise of religion*, NO LAW! Geesh. What's so hard? I might add, NO ONE has freedom FROM religion. That applies to you too.


You're free to "exercise" your religion.
You're not free to discriminate in your* business*

Freedom *from* religion is the reason the Pilgrims came here to begin with, due to the Church of England forcing their beliefs on them.

http://www.socialstudiesforkids.com/articles/ushistory/pilgrims1.htm



> Why the Pilgrims traveled to the New World:
> 
> The Pilgrims came to America from England in search of religious freedom. ... So the Pilgrims left England, in search of a safe place to practice their religion.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> In post #46, you said, "My "favored groups" are human beings. I don't even mind the religious if they don't harass with me their woo."


What is wrong with that? Live and let be until they start harassing me with their particular brand of religion. My favored group is human beings.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> That post is why we have a separation of church and state. All I have to do is change the word Christian to Islam and you can see how you can't make laws based on religion.


Why don't you see that this law protects EVERYONE? Muslims included.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Tricky Grama said:


> *Like many of us said*, you do not have the 'frght' of "freedom from religion" there is not a right spelled out as such.


Repeating a fallacy won't make it so.


----------



## Tricky Grama

City Bound said:


> mmoetc said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gays are afraid of religions and gov taking their freedom to be gay away. Religious people are afraid of gays and gov trying to take their freedom to be religious away. Both sides try to protect themselves or attack the others by influencing law.
> 
> Both side will never agree. Both side can not live in peace together.
> 
> The bill gives space and lubricant to the conflict allowing the two groups of people to coexist together without rubbing elbows together too much. Elbows rubbing together without lubricant leads to friction, heat, and painful burns.
> 
> 
> 
> I think we CAN coexist. We certainly do in our neighborhood & many others across the nation.
> My wish is that the next POTUS can influence some laws-if there are any-about the gov't being in the biz of 'marriage'. My wish is to have a license for a 'union' that ANYONE can obtain. Then they can go get 'united'. Or married. Wherever it applies.
Click to expand...


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> Actually, Federal law specifically protects the religous from discrimination. It does nothing for gays. To level the playing field laws would have to be changed to protect gays. These laws seek to tilt that field away from them.
> 
> How does two men getting married affect yours. Is your vow before your god somehow lessened or diminished because others can now join together and be granted the same legal protections? What was taken away from you? Love isn't a zero sum game.


Really? Tell that to the Little Sisters of the Poor.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> City Bound said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think we CAN coexist. WE certainly do in our neighborhood & mahy others across the nation.
> My wish is that the next POTUS can influence some laws-if there are any-about the gov't being in the biz of 'marriage'. My wish is to have a license for a 'union' that ANYONE can obtain. Then they can go get 'united'. Or married. Wherever it applies.
> 
> 
> 
> So the heterosexuals would only have the option of "license for a union" as well? Or will they still have special privilege?
Click to expand...


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> An open question to those who advocate for religious freedom. What of those religions who recognize and perform same sex marriages. Are they not free to define and conduct their own sacraments? What right do you or a legislature have to define those practices for them? Are your rights to religous freedom greater than theirs?


Huh? have you seen anyone here say anything about that? No one is protesting or denying them! Where did you get that idea?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> Really? Tell that to the Little Sisters of the Poor.


Do you have a link that explains what you're talking about?


----------



## Heritagefarm

Tricky Grama said:


> I'd like to see your explanation of "harrasment" b/c we pray for you...this is DIRECT mocking, it is offensive to most & is tolerated on this forum constantly.
> I'm sick of it.
> 
> There is NO separation of church & state. None. There IS however, a clause that says NO laws shall be enacted to PREVENT free exercise of religion, NO LAW! Geesh. What's so hard? I might add, NO ONE has freedom FROM religion. That applies to you too.


Some of us do not believe religion to be necessary. I understand this can be hard for people to understand. You've been trained, for years, and the religious in general have been trained for centuries to believe their religion is essential to others' salvation. This leads to the mistaken belief that religion must be forced down every pagan's throat. No, America was not founded on Christianity, although it was an influence. Yes, there is separation of Church and State. The Founders were enlightened, or secular, but they certainly saw the importance of religion. "Separation of Church and State" is a recently coined phrase to describe what has always been in the Consitution.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> Why don't you see that this law protects EVERYONE? Muslims included.


I am curious why you have a habit of quoting my posts that are days old? This one was March 22nd. What is your agenda?


----------



## Truckinguy

Tricky Grama said:


> I'd like to see your explanation of "harrasment" b/c we pray for you...this is DIRECT mocking, it is offensive to most & is tolerated on this forum constantly.
> I'm sick of it.
> 
> There is NO separation of church & state. None. There IS however, a clause that says NO laws shall be enacted to PREVENT free exercise of religion, NO LAW! Geesh. What's so hard? I might add, NO ONE has freedom FROM religion. That applies to you too.


Haven't read the entire thread, new job, new animals, no time...

I think Christians fail to see that praying for me is as insulting to me as Christianity being called a fairy tale is to you. When you say you'll pray for me you are insinuating that I'm lost, dirty, filthy, unclean, sinful (insert other religious put down here) and that you're praying that my soul is "saved" so that I don't burn in Hell for eternity. I'm certainly not perfect but telling me that I'm so bad that it cost someone their life so that I could live is insulting to say the least.

I also think that Christianity is fantasy and the Bible is a work of fiction but I think we have the right to express that opinion. I feel the same way about Judaism, Islam and Greek mythology. Nobody is telling Christians that they can't believe or follow that path. If it makes you happy, I'm happy for you. If you are eating at my house and you want to thank God for the food, I'll respectfully bow my head for a minute while you do so. People from cultures all over the world thank deities of all kinds for lots of things. If someone I care about is in a bad way and you want to pray for them to get better, that would be great, thank you very much. However, praying for my soul as if I'm some sort of evil worthless being is very demeaning.

Believe me, I wish Christians nothing but happiness as they follow their chosen path, as I wish anyone who follows whatever path gives them comfort. However, I choose not to start my spiritual journey by telling myself that I'm anything less than a decent person so please refrain from insinuating anything else.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Truckinguy said:


> Haven't read the entire thread, new job, new animals, no time...
> 
> I think Christians fail to see that praying for me is as insulting to me as Christianity being called a fairy tale is to you. When you say you'll pray for me you are insinuating that I'm lost, dirty, filthy, unclean, sinful (insert other religious put down here) and that you're praying that my soul is "saved" so that I don't burn in Hell for eternity. I'm certainly not perfect but telling me that I'm so bad that it cost someone their life so that I could live is insulting to say the least.
> 
> I also think that Christianity is fantasy and the Bible is a work of fiction but I think we have the right to express that opinion. I feel the same way about Judaism, Islam and Greek mythology. Nobody is telling Christians that they can't believe or follow that path. If it makes you happy, I'm happy for you. If you are eating at my house and you want to thank God for the food, I'll respectfully bow my head for a minute while you do so. People from cultures all over the world thank deities of all kinds for lots of things. If someone I care about is in a bad way and you want to pray for them to get better, that would be great, thank you very much. However, praying for my soul as if I'm some sort of evil worthless being is very demeaning.
> 
> Believe me, I wish Christians nothing but happiness as they follow their chosen path, as I wish anyone who follows whatever path gives them comfort. However, I choose not to start my spiritual journey by telling myself that I'm anything less than a decent person so please refrain from insinuating anything else.


Post of the month award!


----------



## painterswife

Truckinguy said:


> Haven't read the entire thread, new job, new animals, no time...
> 
> I think Christians fail to see that praying for me is as insulting to me as Christianity being called a fairy tale is to you. When you say you'll pray for me you are insinuating that I'm lost, dirty, filthy, unclean, sinful (insert other religious put down here) and that you're praying that my soul is "saved" so that I don't burn in Hell for eternity. I'm certainly not perfect but telling me that I'm so bad that it cost someone their life so that I could live is insulting to say the least.
> 
> I also think that Christianity is fantasy and the Bible is a work of fiction but I think we have the right to express that opinion. I feel the same way about Judaism, Islam and Greek mythology. Nobody is telling Christians that they can't believe or follow that path. If it makes you happy, I'm happy for you. If you are eating at my house and you want to thank God for the food, I'll respectfully bow my head for a minute while you do so. People from cultures all over the world thank deities of all kinds for lots of things. If someone I care about is in a bad way and you want to pray for them to get better, that would be great, thank you very much. However, praying for my soul as if I'm some sort of evil worthless being is very demeaning.
> 
> Believe me, I wish Christians nothing but happiness as they follow their chosen path, as I wish anyone who follows whatever path gives them comfort. However, I choose not to start my spiritual journey by telling myself that I'm anything less than a decent person so please refrain from insinuating anything else.


Post most worth repeating this month award


----------



## Irish Pixie

Truckinguy said:


> Haven't read the entire thread, new job, new animals, no time...
> 
> I think Christians fail to see that praying for me is as insulting to me as Christianity being called a fairy tale is to you. When you say you'll pray for me you are insinuating that I'm lost, dirty, filthy, unclean, sinful (insert other religious put down here) and that you're praying that my soul is "saved" so that I don't burn in Hell for eternity. I'm certainly not perfect but telling me that I'm so bad that it cost someone their life so that I could live is insulting to say the least.
> 
> I also think that Christianity is fantasy and the Bible is a work of fiction but I think we have the right to express that opinion. I feel the same way about Judaism, Islam and Greek mythology. Nobody is telling Christians that they can't believe or follow that path. If it makes you happy, I'm happy for you. If you are eating at my house and you want to thank God for the food, I'll respectfully bow my head for a minute while you do so. People from cultures all over the world thank deities of all kinds for lots of things. If someone I care about is in a bad way and you want to pray for them to get better, that would be great, thank you very much. However, praying for my soul as if I'm some sort of evil worthless being is very demeaning.
> 
> Believe me, I wish Christians nothing but happiness as they follow their chosen path, as I wish anyone who follows whatever path gives them comfort. However, I choose not to start my spiritual journey by telling myself that I'm anything less than a decent person so please refrain from insinuating anything else.


:bow:


----------



## no really

IMHO both sides of this discussion seem to dang sensitive. But continue the "discussion" eep: :knitting:


----------



## farmrbrown

Truckinguy said:


> Haven't read the entire thread, new job, new animals, no time...
> 
> I think Christians fail to see that praying for me is as insulting to me as Christianity being called a fairy tale is to you. When you say you'll pray for me you are insinuating that I'm lost, dirty, filthy, unclean, sinful (insert other religious put down here) and that you're praying that my soul is "saved" so that I don't burn in Hell for eternity. I'm certainly not perfect but telling me that I'm so bad that it cost someone their life so that I could live is insulting to say the least.
> 
> I also think that Christianity is fantasy and the Bible is a work of fiction but I think we have the right to express that opinion. I feel the same way about Judaism, Islam and Greek mythology. Nobody is telling Christians that they can't believe or follow that path. If it makes you happy, I'm happy for you. If you are eating at my house and you want to thank God for the food, I'll respectfully bow my head for a minute while you do so. People from cultures all over the world thank deities of all kinds for lots of things. If someone I care about is in a bad way and you want to pray for them to get better, that would be great, thank you very much. However, praying for my soul as if I'm some sort of evil worthless being is very demeaning.
> 
> Believe me, I wish Christians nothing but happiness as they follow their chosen path, as I wish anyone who follows whatever path gives them comfort. However, I choose not to start my spiritual journey by telling myself that I'm anything less than a decent person so please refrain from insinuating anything else.




You may not have been around when this little subject first appeared, so I'll recap.
I don't have a problem with you and others calling my sincere faith a "fairy tale". Christ said we would be mocked for His name's sake, until the end, it is written.

The catch is, when I once said I would pray for someone here, my post was deleted and I received an infraction, if I recall, for "insulting a member".
(And no, I can't "prove" any of that. The mods are the only ones that have access to that now, deleted posts and past infractions that have expired.)

My prayer?
That they would one day find happiness, similar to the end of your post above.

Fair and balanced, huh?


BTW, we ask others to pray for ourselves all the time. Reckon we are all exchanging "insults" in church?


----------



## Tricky Grama

greg273 said:


> Would you rather 'indoctrinate' them to hating, fearing, or ostracizing people that are different?


What on earth makes you think that is the alternative? 
Sometimes I wonder where some come up w/this stuff.


----------



## painterswife

farmrbrown said:


> You may not have been around when this little subject first appeared, so I'll recap.
> I don't have a problem with you and others calling my sincere faith a "fairy tale". Christ said we would be mocked for His name's sake, until the end, it is written.
> 
> The catch is, when I once said I would pray for someone here, my post was deleted and I received an infraction, if I recall, for "insulting a member".
> 
> Fair and balanced, huh?


If you publicly stated here that calling your faith a fairy tale was insulting to you and then a member took the opportunity to say your faith is a fairy tale in response to your posts, the mods would deem it insulting and delete it.

The same goes when members have asked not to be prayed for. The person is insulting them by continuing to announce they will pray for them. Both are against the rules. Fair and balanced.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Texaspredatorhu said:


> They have been put in place so the gay community doesn't sue for not doing their "marriage". I don't understand why they care no religion I know of is ok with homosexuality anyway. The gay community is just trying to make a quick buck by crying that they have had rights infringed upon. You liberals cry that having the 10 commandments up is offensive and against your 1st amendment but it's infringing mine by taking it down! Understand? Probably not but that's ok, liberals have a hard time seeing through their fecal cloud!


There really are some that are OK, there's several churches here that have performed gay marriages for a long time. 
And the 10 commandments have been up all over D.C. since the mall & many monuments have been built. Ya know why? B/c our laws are based on them!


----------



## farmrbrown

painterswife said:


> If you publicly stated here that calling your faith a fairy tale was insulting to you and then a member took the opportunity to say your faith is a fairy tale in response to your posts, the mods would deem it insulting and delete it.
> 
> The same goes when members have not asked to be prayed for. The person is insulting them by continuing to announce they will pray for them. Both are against the rules. Fair and balanced.


Sorry, but that ain't the way it works here.
I think they did come down on "Sky Daddy" and some other terms.
I anticipate a lot of mine will be deleted and the "fairy tale" ones will remain, they can always use the "not relevant to topic" excuse.
BTDT and have the T-shirt.


----------



## Irish Pixie

What are those slogans that are always being bandied about? "Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right." Or "Playing the victim card?"


----------



## painterswife

farmrbrown said:


> Sorry, but that ain't the way it works here.
> I anticipate a lot of mine will be deleted and the "fairy tale" ones will remain.
> BTDT and have the T-shirt.


Have you tested that theory? Have you reported a post that is insulting to you?

I find that all the posts that I find are insulting are not deleted. I find the " I will burn in hell" and gay people are disgusting posts insulting.


----------



## Truckinguy

no really said:


> IMHO both sides of this discussion seem to dang sensitive. But continue the "discussion" eep: :knitting:


I don't necessarily disagree with you but religion can have a major, fundamental impact on people's lives and there are people here who have been deeply hurt by religion so it's not too much of a surprise that reaction can be strong from either side.


----------



## no really

painterswife said:


> If you publicly stated here that calling your faith a fairy tale was insulting to you and then a member took the opportunity to say your faith is a fairy tale in response to your posts, the mods would deem it insulting and delete it.
> 
> The same goes when members have not asked to be prayed for. The person is insulting them by continuing to announce they will pray for them. Both are against the rules. Fair and balanced.


Post 589.


----------



## mreynolds

painterswife said:


> If you publicly stated here that calling your faith a fairy tale was insulting to you and then a member took the opportunity to say your faith is a fairy tale in response to your posts, the mods would deem it insulting and delete it.
> 
> The same goes when members have not asked to be prayed for. The person is insulting them by continuing to announce they will pray for them. Both are against the rules. Fair and balanced.


Did you mean to say "have asked *NOT* to be prayed for"? Because if they haven't how would someone know the first time they did that? After the first time being told then I could see an infraction. If not I don't see an infraction for saying you would pray for someone. 

IE, I once told a guy Merry Christmas. He looked at me angry and said (rather loudly I might add) I'm #*&% Jewish. What do I care about Christmas? I looked at him and just started laughing. I couldn't help it. When I stopped laughing I told him happy Hanukah. We became best friends after that. 

We can perceive that someone is trying to offend us. (they might really be trying to also) or we can come to realize we are all different and go on with our lives.


----------



## farmrbrown

LOL.
I was just about to edit my post.

Some one will be along soon saying "Playing the victim again?"

Yeah, if that makes you feel better, just pile on.


----------



## Tricky Grama

keenataz said:


> I am just curious-what liberal judge has ever ruled you can't have your religious beliefs. Has anyone told you you must attend a gay wedding or dispaly a rainbow sticker?Because if they have I would stand beside you in protest.
> 
> I actually accept your right to your beliefs as long as you accept my right to think they don't apply to me.


Uh, Little Sisters of the Poor...


----------



## painterswife

no really said:


> Post 589.


What is your point?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> Uh, Little Sisters of the Poor...


Uh, again, can you link something that explains what you're talking about?


----------



## painterswife

mreynolds said:


> Did you mean to say "have asked *NOT* to be prayed for"? Because if they haven't how would someone know the first time they did that? After the first time being told then I could see an infraction. If not I don't see an infraction for saying you would pray for someone.
> 
> IE, I once told a guy Merry Christmas. He looked at me angry and said (rather loudly I might add) I'm #*&% Jewish. What do I care about Christmas? I looked at him and just started laughing. I couldn't help it. When I stopped laughing I told him happy Hanukah. We became best friends after that.
> 
> We can perceive that someone is trying to offend us. (they might really be trying to also) or we can come to realize we are all different and go on with our lives.


Yes, word in the wrong place.


----------



## Tricky Grama

dixiegal62 said:


> Yes as far as I'm concerned all those gay priest should be in prison for what they did to those boys amd the ones who harmed girls also.


Anyone know the % of priests that abused were gay?


----------



## farmrbrown

painterswife said:


> Have you tested that theory? Have you reported a post that is insulting to you?
> 
> I find that all the posts that I find are insulting are not deleted. I find the " I will burn in hell" and gay people are disgusting posts insulting.


Nope, I did report an insulting post once, from a mod.
Got an infraction for doing that, too.

No point in taking any more tests.
I'll publicly state my opinion, but I leave the anonymous snitching to someone else.

Of course, by my replying to your question, I'm "playing the victim" again.
Truth is also a fond subject for mockery here.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Honestly, I could care less. I honestly don't care if someone is gay or not. I don't agree with their outrageous celebrations where they run through the streets half naked. I also don't like watching a straight couple making out and feeling each other up in public either. I have yet to see a parade of 10000 straight couples half naked and trashing the streets.


Oh, really? BLM comes to mind...


----------



## painterswife

farmrbrown said:


> Nope, I did report an insulting post once, from a mod.
> Got an infraction for doing that, too.
> 
> No point in taking any more tests.
> I'll publicly state my opinion, but I leave the anonymous snitching to someone else.


So, you expect that the mods read every posts and also know what you find insulting and what you don't find insulting.

Did I call you a victim here in this thread?


----------



## farmrbrown

painterswife said:


> So, you expect that the mods read every posts and also know what you find insulting and what you don't find insulting.


No, don't expect them to read every post.
Nor do I expect them to delete only one bias and not another. I don't expect a well intended comment to be called an insult, nor an intentional insult to be rewarded.
But life is full of unfulfilled expectations, ins't it?



> Did I call you a victim here in this thread?


No.
That's usually Pixie or Bearfoot's job.


----------



## painterswife

farmrbrown said:


> No, don't expect them to read every post.
> Nor do I expect them to delete only one bias and not another. I don't expect a well intended comment to be called an insult, nor an intentional insult to be rewarded.
> But life is full of unfulfilled expectations, ins't it?
> 
> 
> No.
> That's usually Pixie or Bearfoot's job.


So, I get this from your post. You want to complain that you are treated unfairly but you don't want to let the mods know when that happens. You want someone to not take your well intended post as an insult even if they don't believe that to be so. You don't want insults to be rewarded but you won't bother to tell the mods when they are posted.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Nope, nope, nope


----------



## Truckinguy

farmrbrown said:


> You may not have been around when this little subject first appeared, so I'll recap.
> I don't have a problem with you and others calling my sincere faith a "fairy tale". Christ said we would be mocked for His name's sake, until the end, it is written.
> 
> The catch is, when I once said I would pray for someone here, my post was deleted and I received an infraction, if I recall, for "insulting a member".
> (And no, I can't "prove" any of that. The mods are the only ones that have access to that now, deleted posts and past infractions that have expired.)
> 
> My prayer?
> That they would one day find happiness, similar to the end of your post above.
> 
> Fair and balanced, huh?
> 
> 
> BTW, we ask others to pray for ourselves all the time. Reckon we are all exchanging "insults" in church?


Yeah, I've participated in a few of these threads. I"m not able to be on here all the time and I don't know what the deleted posts say but I'm not going to challenge you on it. I respect you saying that you'll pray for me as long as I have the right to say that I don't believe in your spiritual path.

Yes, I think you're all insulting each other in church if you follow the teaching that you're sinful and need a saviour. It bothers me that Christianity has chosen to start their message off on such a negative note. However, you have all chosen to be there and participate in that discussion and I respect your decision to do so. I have chosen not to be a part of that discussion so when I am told I need to be saved it is insulting to me and I will say so.

I believe there is some sort of higher conscience that we can tap into. Christians and others use prayer, Wiccans use spell casting, others use meditation, I think that is a valid and effective way to affect the outcomes of some circumstances. I believe people gathered around a hospital bed praying deeply can harness the power of the mind and possibly have an effect on the situation. They feel they're praying to God, fair enough, I believe they are using whatever thought process they need to in order to concentrate their thoughts on the situation. It can be seen in the mob mentality where a crowd of people can rise up and do things that the individuals wouldn't think of doing on their own. I don't discount the power of prayer for a second, my problem is when someone tells me that they are praying for my soul or salvation they are implying something that I'm not and I will tell them so.


----------



## no really

Truckinguy said:


> I don't necessarily disagree with you but religion can have a major, fundamental impact on people's lives and there are people here who have been deeply hurt by religion so it's not too much of a surprise that reaction can be strong from either side.


If we didn't discuss even in passing all the things that have impacted negatively someone in this forum, it would thin the conversation drastically. There have been things discussed that were very difficult to read for me personally but I am not going to get all bent out of shape. 

What I am saying is adult conversation can touch on topics of discomfort. Should this forum outlaw discussion of religion? Or maybe politics? Or the daily news cycle? Or even harvesting our own meat animals?


----------



## Truckinguy

no really said:


> If we didn't discuss even in passing all the things that have impacted negatively someone in this forum, it would thin the conversation drastically. There have been things discussed that were very difficult to read for me personally but I am not going to get all bent out of shape.
> 
> What I am saying is adult conversation can touch on topics of discomfort. Should this forum outlaw discussion of religion? Or maybe politics? Or the daily news cycle? Or even harvesting our own meat animals?


No, of course not. I didn't say things shouldn't be discussed. You're comment seemed to imply some people were being a tad touchy about the subject and I simply said we shouldn't be surprised if some conversations touch a nerve in some people and we get a strong reaction from one side or another. Adult conversations can include some degree of emotion but I never implied that they shouldn't be discussed.


----------



## farmrbrown

Truckinguy said:


> Yeah, I've participated in a few of these threads. I"m not able to be on here all the time and I don't know what the deleted posts say but I'm not going to challenge you on it. I respect you saying that you'll pray for me as long as I have the right to say that I don't believe in your spiritual path.
> 
> Yes, I think you're all insulting each other in church if you follow the teaching that you're sinful and need a saviour. It bothers me that Christianity has chosen to start their message off on such a negative note. However, you have all chosen to be there and participate in that discussion and I respect your decision to do so. I have chosen not to be a part of that discussion so when I am told I need to be saved it is insulting to me and I will say so.
> 
> I believe there is some sort of higher conscience that we can tap into. Christians and others use prayer, Wiccans use spell casting, others use meditation, I think that is a valid and effective way to affect the outcomes of some circumstances. I believe people gathered around a hospital bed praying deeply can harness the power of the mind and possibly have an effect on the situation. They feel they're praying to God, fair enough, I believe they are using whatever thought process they need to in order to concentrate their thoughts on the situation. It can be seen in the mob mentality where a crowd of people can rise up and do things that the individuals wouldn't think of doing on their own. I don't discount the power of prayer for a second, my problem is when someone tells me that they are praying for my soul or salvation they are implying something that I'm not and I will tell them so.


And that's fair to say, I'm not insulted. Even if I was, I wouldn't voice a complaint unless I was hogtied for replying to it


I'm going to put a spotlight on someone now, hopefully she won't take it the wrong way.........

No Really, posted this on another thread, and did so, in a way of outward exposing of vulnerability to be "attacked" metaphorically.


> I guess I've had a different experience with talking about my religious path, I have had no problem with admitting I am Heathen/Asatru.
> 
> Now I will see who has a problem.


As far as I can tell, no one started in with comments on mythology, fairy tales, etc.
She's a kind and helpful member who still voices her opinions, and I admire that.
There's just no point in being mean and hurtful by ridiculing her beliefs.
They are hers and her right to believe in them as she wishes.

When I read that post, my unspoken thoughts were, "I hope some clod doesn't come along and make an insulting comment to her, I'd hate to have to break my own rule and report that insult to the mods", lol.

But that didn't happen and I'm glad she was treated with the respect she deserves.


----------



## farmrbrown

painterswife said:


> So, I get this from your post. You want to complain that you are treated unfairly but you don't want to let the mods know when that happens. You want someone to not take your well intended post as an insult even if they don't believe that to be so. You don't want insults to be rewarded but you won't bother to tell the mods when they are posted.


Yes, but don't leave out the most important part.............




> Even if I was, I wouldn't voice a complaint unless I was hogtied for replying to it


----------



## no really

Thank you farmrbrown.


----------



## farmrbrown

You're welcome.

I intended to leave your post alone, "Let sleeping dogs lie", but it was too relevant to the discussion to resist.

Thank YOU.


* I'm going to get back to watching this neat PBS show right now.............on Vikings and Native Americans of North America.


----------



## no really

Sounds like some good viewing!! Need to set those up to record.:sing:


----------



## Heritagefarm

I believe all religion to be a construct of human society. I believe there is no true path, only the path of self investigation and growth. I believe many things have been done in the name of religion that are evil, and I believe evil will use whatever means it can to accomplish evil. 

That said, a recent, very interesting study suggests that Big God religions evolved as a way to deal with large populations and moralize them:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/08/feature-why-big-societies-need-big-gods



> Today's most successful religions have one thing in common: moralizing gods that care about how people treat one another and will punish those who are selfish and cruel. But for most of human history, these "big gods" were the exception. If today's hunter-gatherers are any guide, for thousands of years our ancestors conceived of deities as utterly indifferent to the human realm, and to whether we behaved well or badly. Now, to crack the mystery of why and how people around the world came to believe in moralizing gods, researchers are using a novel tool in religious studies: the scientific method. By combining laboratory experiments, cross-cultural fieldwork, and analysis of the historical record, an interdisciplinary team has proposed that belief in judgmental deities was key to the cooperation needed to build and sustain large, complex societies. And once big gods and big societies existed, their moralizing deities helped religions as dissimilar as Islam and Mormonism to spread by making groups of the faithful more cooperative and therefore more successful. Critics say the big gods team is projecting modern values onto ancient cultures, and that belief in moralizing deities is a byproduct of other social changes. To settle the debate, researchers are looking for quantitative data in novel places, including the historical record.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> As far as I can tell, no one started in with comments on mythology, fairy tales, etc.
> She's a kind and helpful member who still voices her opinions, and I admire that.
> There's just no point in being mean and hurtful by ridiculing her beliefs.
> They are hers and her right to believe in them as she wishes.


I don't recall any of the "heathens" telling others they had to abide by their rules or be punished. I've never seen them call others "sinners", "perverts" or "sick"

There are many examples of some of the self-proclaimed "christians" doing all those things on a near daily basis, and then acting indignant when called on it.

It's not like we haven't had this identical conversation.
I don't understand why so many want to pretend they don't do it.


----------



## mreynolds

Bearfootfarm said:


> I don't recall any of the "heathens" telling others they had to abide by their rules or be punished. I've never seen them call others "sinners", "perverts" or "sick"
> 
> There are many examples of some of the self-proclaimed "christians" doing all those things on a near daily basis, and then acting indignant when called on it.
> 
> It's not like we haven't had this identical conversation.
> I don't understand why so many want to pretend they don't do it.


Not disagreeing but I would bet there are more examples of "Christians" that say absolutely nothing about anyone else's morality. How about we discuss them for a change?

Well we cant because we don't know who they are do we? 

How about we just agree or disagree and go on? Why make it a cat fight every time? It changes no ones mind after all. Not speaking to you in particular just wondering out loud is all.


----------



## painterswife

mreynolds said:


> Not disagreeing but I would bet there are more examples of "Christians" that say absolutely nothing about anyone else's morality. How about we discuss them for a change?
> 
> Well we cant because we don't know who they are do we?
> 
> How about we just agree or disagree and go on? Why make it a cat fight every time? It changes no ones mind after all. Not speaking to you in particular just wondering out loud is all.


We do know who they are or at least I do. Their belief in living their Christian values shines bright in their words.


----------



## Tricky Grama

watcher said:


> A possible, and even likely, conversion on January 27, 1986
> 
> Engineer: The O-rings could fail and cause an explosion that would destroy the shuttle.
> 
> Controller: Feel free to provide examples of such explosions. Otherwise it's just one more of your endless "what if's".


Post of the day award.


----------



## Tricky Grama

watcher said:


> I would think allowing anyone other than nonmembers to use it would open you up to lawsuits.


But its done all the time. Folks rent church basements & party rooms but are not members.


----------



## Tricky Grama

watcher said:


> Another interesting question. A lot of churches offer "counseling" for many nonreligious issues (drug and alcohol abuse, marriage, etc.) to people other than its own members. Could a church face a lawsuit if it refused to accept a gay couple for marriage counseling or a drug using gay person?


Perhaps they'd refuse the marriage counselling but cannot see how they'd refuse drug counselling.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> I am allowed an opinion. My opinion can be different than yours, you may find it insulting but that doesn't mean I can't have it. You cannot force me to believe in god, the "holy" books, judeo christian values, or anything else.


Contrary to what you may believe, no one has forced you to be a believer. You might think that but no, what folks have tried -not very successfully-is to try to get some basic respect, as in "fairly tale" being offensive as well as ignorant. 
Practically every historian in the world knows there WAS a Jesus Christ. Nearly every historian knows much of the bible is a historical book. 
But, carry on w/your indignation & falsities.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> Contrary to what you may believe, no one has forced you to be a believer. You night think that but no, what folks have tried -not very successfully-is to try to get some basic respect, as in "fairly tale" being offensive as well as ignorant.
> Practically every historian in the world knows there WAS a Jesus Christ. Nearly every historian knows much of the bible is a historical book.
> But, carry on w/your indignation & falsities.


Basic respect would include not calling gay people perverts and other assorted things. Basic respect goes both ways. The fairy tale comment has always been in direct response to those treating non believers with no respect.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> I am curious why you have a habit of quoting my posts that are days old? This one was March 22nd. What is your agenda?


Really? how 'bout busy? How 'bout having 20 ladies over for tea & cleaning my house?
Since when is there a time limit on posting? Since when do HT'ers have to have such answers form other posters? WHAT is YOUR agenda??


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> Really? how 'bout busy? How 'bout having 20 ladies over for tea & cleaning my house?
> Since when is there a time limit on posting? Since when do HT'ers have to have such answers form other posters? WHAT is YOUR agenda??


It was a question. No one required your answer.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Truckinguy said:


> Haven't read the entire thread, new job, new animals, no time...
> 
> I think Christians fail to see that praying for me is as insulting to me as Christianity being called a fairy tale is to you. When you say you'll pray for me you are insinuating that I'm lost, dirty, filthy, unclean, sinful (insert other religious put down here) and that you're praying that my soul is "saved" so that I don't burn in Hell for eternity. I'm certainly not perfect but telling me that I'm so bad that it cost someone their life so that I could live is insulting to say the least.
> 
> I also think that Christianity is fantasy and the Bible is a work of fiction but I think we have the right to express that opinion. I feel the same way about Judaism, Islam and Greek mythology. Nobody is telling Christians that they can't believe or follow that path. If it makes you happy, I'm happy for you. If you are eating at my house and you want to thank God for the food, I'll respectfully bow my head for a minute while you do so. People from cultures all over the world thank deities of all kinds for lots of things. If someone I care about is in a bad way and you want to pray for them to get better, that would be great, thank you very much. However, praying for my soul as if I'm some sort of evil worthless being is very demeaning.
> 
> Believe me, I wish Christians nothing but happiness as they follow their chosen path, as I wish anyone who follows whatever path gives them comfort. However, I choose not to start my spiritual journey by telling myself that I'm anything less than a decent person so please refrain from insinuating anything else.


Anyone who believes that about folks praying for them is woefully ignorant, so sorry. Not sure how you got to that point but its not accurate.
And be aware that most folks here are praying for most folks here.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> Anyone who believes that about folks praying for them is woefully ignorant, so sorry. Not sure how you got to that point but its not accurate.
> *And be aware that most folks here are praying for most folks here.*


That right there is disrespect to those that don't want to be prayed for. That was a great job showing exactly what Truckinguy said was true.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Truckinguy said:


> Haven't read the entire thread, new job, new animals, no time...
> 
> I think Christians fail to see that praying for me is as insulting to me as Christianity being called a fairy tale is to you. When you say you'll pray for me you are insinuating that I'm lost, dirty, filthy, unclean, sinful (insert other religious put down here) and that you're praying that my soul is "saved" so that I don't burn in Hell for eternity. I'm certainly not perfect but telling me that I'm so bad that it cost someone their life so that I could live is insulting to say the least.
> 
> I also think that Christianity is fantasy and the Bible is a work of fiction but I think we have the right to express that opinion. I feel the same way about Judaism, Islam and Greek mythology. Nobody is telling Christians that they can't believe or follow that path. If it makes you happy, I'm happy for you. If you are eating at my house and you want to thank God for the food, I'll respectfully bow my head for a minute while you do so. People from cultures all over the world thank deities of all kinds for lots of things. If someone I care about is in a bad way and you want to pray for them to get better, that would be great, thank you very much. However, praying for my soul as if I'm some sort of evil worthless being is very demeaning.
> 
> Believe me, I wish Christians nothing but happiness as they follow their chosen path, as I wish anyone who follows whatever path gives them comfort. However, I choose not to start my spiritual journey by telling myself that I'm anything less than a decent person so please refrain from insinuating anything else.


Smart of you to add the reason you're posting now. There's folks here who will think you have an "agenda" & want an explanation.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> Uh, again, can you link something that explains what you're talking about?


So sorry, don't have the time or computer that will comply. But I DO find it strange that you don't know about the suit that's b/4 the SCOTUS now. We had a couple threads on it as well. Obviously this is a catholic group & this admin is trying to force to provide free b/c to employees, against their religious beliefs.


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> We do know who they are or at least I do. Their belief in living their Christian values shines bright in their words.


Absolutely. I know many good, kind christians and I respect them. I know others that are unkind, hateful, and spiteful and I do not respect them. There are also both types of non christians, atheists, and agnostics. 

Some of both can be found on this forum- I tend to ignore (or at least try to ignore) the unkind, hateful, and spiteful. It works for me.


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> That right there is disrespect to those that don't want to be prayed for. That was a great job showing exactly what Truckinguy said was true.


Absolutely. It is a shining example of an intolerant, unkind, hateful person. The religion of such a person doesn't matter because by their words they aren't following it (at least by what I was taught so many years ago) anyway. Ugly, ugly, ugly.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Basic respect would include not calling gay people perverts and other assorted things. Basic respect goes both ways. The fairy tale comment has always been in direct response to those treating non believers with no respect.



I've never done that. 
So, if someone doesn't like someone else's brand of belief they get to call it a 'fairy tale'? 
Sweet. In retaliation, of course.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> That right there is disrespect to those that don't want to be prayed for. That was a great job showing exactly what Truckinguy said was true.


Really? I'm wondering just how you & your group thinks that way? No one named names. Just could be we've given up on some insulters. 
But like I said, MOST HT'ers are praying for MOST HT'ers.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

mreynolds said:


> Not disagreeing but I would bet there are more examples of "Christians" that say absolutely nothing about anyone else's morality. How about we discuss them for a change?
> 
> Well we cant because we don't know who they are do we?
> 
> How about we just agree or disagree and go on? Why make it a cat fight every time? It changes no ones mind after all. Not speaking to you in particular just wondering out loud is all.


I've always said there are *many* REAL Christians who live their lives as they should, and *don't* throw their piety into anyone's faces, or use Bible quotes to chastise and belittle those who don't follow their religion.

On the other hand are the obvious bigots, homophobes and racists who are continuously quoting the bible, calling names, and telling others how they are going to burn in Hell if they don't change their ways.

*They* are the ones who want to bring religion into every discussion.
Everyone else would rather talk about most anything BUT religion.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Tricky Grama said:


> I've never done that.
> So, if someone doesn't like someone else's brand of belief they get to call it a 'fairy tale'?
> Sweet. In retaliation, of course.


"Fairy Tale" isn't much of a retaliation. It's only an insult because you hold it so dear. There are some pretty good fairy tales out there, with great moral lessons to be found within.


----------



## no really

Heritagefarm said:


> "Fairy Tale" isn't much of a retaliation. It's only an insult because you hold it so dear. There are some pretty good fairy tales out there, with great moral lessons to be found within.


I tend to see the insults that both sides are so upset about to be in the most part shrug worthy.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

I fail to see how a Christian praying for you can be construed as an insult.

I mean, I read the posts in explanation of that view, but I think these explanations miss a critical point- to a Christian, everyone is a sinner, including themselves. It seems that some are taking a Christian saying that they'll pray for them as an expression of moral superiority, but, if they're Christian, it isn't. It can't be. In Chrisitanity, there is only one perfect person, the rest are all sinners, and, when a Christian prays for another (Christian or not), they are essentially saying that they're going to use a moment of their own time to pray for another sinner. 

Now, I'm not a Christian, though I am Faithful. It's not that I don't believe in Jesus, it's that I don't believe in original sin or that God needed a sacrifice to be able to hear me or call me His own. God is my God, John and Jesus are just heroes. They finally told the world that God didn't just belong to the Jew, but God always new that, and it was always true, since before there even was a Jew. (Sorry for the tangent, but important to illustrate where I'm coming from)

Christians in my life pray for me all the time. It's not an insult. Their prayer is just their expression that they care for me more as a brother than any disagreement could squash. I think they want me to come to the same realization they did. And, if it turns out to be the way, then I hope their prayers work, and I appreciate the sentiment. 

If anyone prays for me to come to a different understanding or outlook on a particular point, it's no different than the person I disagree with trying to convince me of their point using their own words. In the case of prayer, they're just asking God to do the talking where they feel like they've failed. 

If you get offended by someone praying for you because they think you're wrong, do you get offended by anyone who argues with you? Is bestowed-prayer just another micro-aggression?


----------



## painterswife

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I fail to see how a Christian praying for you can be construed as an insult.
> 
> I mean, I read the posts in explanation of that view, but I think these explanations miss a critical point- to a Christian, everyone is a sinner, including themselves. It seems that some are taking a Christian saying that they'll pray for them as an expression of moral superiority, but, if they're Christian, it isn't. It can't be. In Chrisitanity, there is only one perfect person, the rest are all sinners, and, when a Christian prays for another (Christian or not), they are essentially saying that they're going to use a moment of their own time to pray for another sinner.
> 
> Now, I'm not a Christian, though I am Faithful. It's not that I don't believe in Jesus, it's that I don't believe in original sin or that God needed a sacrifice to be able to hear me or call me His own. God is my God, John and Jesus are just heroes. They finally told the world that God didn't just belong to the Jew, but God always new that, and it was always true, since before there even was a Jew. (Sorry for the tangent, but important to illustrate where I'm coming from)
> 
> Christians in my life pray for me all the time. It's not an insult. Their prayer is just their expression that they care for me more as a brother than any disagreement could squash. I think they want me to come to the same realization they did. And, if it turns out to be the way, then I hope their prayers work, and I appreciate the sentiment.
> 
> If anyone prays for me to come to a different understanding or outlook on a particular point, it's no different than the person I disagree with trying to convince me of their point using their own words. In the case of prayer, they're just asking God to do the talking where they feel like they've failed.
> 
> If you get offended by someone praying for you because they think you're wrong, do you get offended by anyone who argues with you? Is bestowed-prayer just another micro-aggression?


Why is the person telling you they are praying for you when you have said you don't believe? What purpose does it serve? Does telling you make them a better person? Or does it either make them feel better about themselves or are they purposely doing it to needle someone that does not believe?

Does the god they believe in look at them better when they say it out loud? Or tell someone they are praying for them?

It can't be to make the person they say they are praying for feel better because that person has already said they don't believe.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

That can be exactly the point. Belief does make you feel better, and, when you have Faith, He is real. Just because the subject doesn't believe doesn't mean that, to the believer, He exists for themselves but NOT the non-believer. He just exists. 

The prayer just says that they hope 'you' find what 'they' found. 

If you don't have that same desire, for others to understand things the way that you do, why do you bother chatting on contentious issues, or even bother talking at all?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Sure, I should add, some people do say it as an expression of moral superiority, just like folks who say "bless your heart", or, a perennial favorite of one particular person around here "have the kind of day you deserve". You know them when you see them. 

But don't sweat those people "praying" for you. They're actually just preying, and probably dont even realize they're the ones that should be hoping for prayers.


----------



## mreynolds

painterswife said:


> Why is the person telling you they are praying for you when you have said you don't believe? What purpose does it serve? Does telling you make them a better person? Or does it either make them feel better about themselves or are they purposely doing it to needle someone that does not believe?
> 
> Does the god they believe in look at them better when they say it out loud? Or tell someone they are praying for them?
> 
> It can't be to make the person they say they are praying for feel better because that person has already said they don't believe.


I think mostly it's said out of habit. But even if it was said as an insult why take offense on something you don't believe in?


----------



## painterswife

So you understand that people are purposely doing this to either feel superior or to insult people. These same people then often are the ones complaining when the response they get is " It is all fairytales in your mind".

You wanted to, and did take the opportunity to comment about this. I think the rest of us are doing the same thing.


----------



## painterswife

mreynolds said:


> I think mostly it's said out of habit. But even if it was said as an insult why take offense on something you don't believe in?


I can easily tell the difference between who is doing it on purpose and who is not. Who takes offense and who does not is really up to them. Should I decided for you what you will take offence to? Should I decide what a Christian should not take offence to the fairytale comments?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Right right. So if calling Faith a fairytale, or whatever, is the same thing as offering a non-genuine prayer, then shouldn't those posts be deleted too? Or, can we just stop getting offended by shadows?

Too, if the "fairy tale" dig is as bad as a prayer of the non-genuine variety, and there is no way to be 100% about the nature of the prayer, but the "fairy tale" dig's intention is overt, why do we see posts offering prayers deleted, but plenty telling the Faithful that they believe in fairy tales still standing?


----------



## painterswife

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Right right. So if calling Faith a fairytale, or whatever, is the same thing as offering a non-genuine prayer, then shouldn't those posts be deleted too? Or, can we just stop getting offended by shadows?
> 
> Too, if the "fairy tale" dig is as bad as a prayer of the non-genuine variety, and there is no way to be 100% about the nature of the prayer, but the "fairy tale" dig's intention is overt, why do we see posts offering prayers deleted, but plenty telling the Faithful that they believe in fairy tales still standing?


I could have a conversation with someone on here about what I believe. Maybe I believe god is a fairytale and they don't. We could have a very enlightened open discussion and not insult each other. Or we could go out of our way to use the words fairytale and praying to try to hurt each other. The hurting each other may get the mods involved when posts are deemed insulting. Maybe they don't get involved because the posts don't get reported.

If someone were to say they are praying for me when I talk about a hardship in my life I would never report it. If they were doing it after I asked them not, I might. I would have to believe they were doing on purpose even though they know how I feel about the situation.

Context is everything. That and whether someone has involved the mods.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mreynolds said:


> I think mostly it's said out of habit. But even if it was said as an insult why take offense on something you don't believe in?


I don't take offense after an explanation of why they do it from a wise forum member. It's not my lack of faith they question, it's the strength of _their_ faith. 

I don't dislike christianity, in theory it's a wonderful way to live. Most of the people I love are christian and they don't use it to hurt other people. It's those that try to push their faith on me or act like they are morally superior simply because of their faith, that I have an issue with. With them I can get pithy.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I fail to see how a Christian praying for you can be construed as an insult.


It's all about *context*.

When someone says, "You're a pervert and will burn in Hell if you don't change your ways, so I will pray for you to see the light", it's hard to believe they are being friendly


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Agreed, but you probably know everything you need to know about their view of you once they called you a pervert. 

Switch off their freq and move on. Why LET them offend you?


----------



## mreynolds

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't take offense after an explanation of why they do it from a wise forum member. It's not my lack of faith they question, it's the strength of _their_ faith.
> 
> I don't dislike christianity, in theory it's a wonderful way to live. Most of the people I love are christian and they don't use it to hurt other people. It's those that try to push their faith on me or act like they are morally superior simply because of their faith, that I have an issue with. With them I can get pithy.


And there you have it. A person can be hetero sexual and not agree with homosexual lifestyle but still respect that person's right to live his own life. Same with theocracy or lack thereof.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's all about *context*.
> 
> When someone says, "You're a pervert and will burn in Hell if you don't change your ways, so I will pray for you to see the light", it's hard to believe they are being friendly


Can you cite a post where this happened or are you making up a brand new strawman to beat around?


----------



## Shine

mreynolds said:


> And there you have it. A person can be hetero sexual and not agree with homosexual lifestyle but still respect that person's right to live his own life. Same with theocracy or lack thereof.


Spot on. And they wonder why we argue. It should be the same but there are to many people that work hard to find things to be offended by.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mreynolds said:


> And there you have it. A person can be hetero sexual and not agree with homosexual lifestyle but still respect that person's right to live his own life. Same with theocracy or lack thereof.


Sure, theoretically.


----------



## mreynolds

Irish Pixie said:


> Sure, theoretically.


TouchÃ©.


----------



## watcher

Truckinguy said:


> I don't necessarily disagree with you but religion can have a major, fundamental impact on people's lives and there are people here who have been deeply hurt by religion so it's not too much of a surprise that reaction can be strong from either side.


I don't see how Christianity could ever hurt anyone. Seeing as how Christ taught us to do unto others and if someone doesn't want to hear the Gospel Christians should just walk away.

Other religions on the other hand teach to do as we do or else and if someone doesn't want to hear about it then too bad.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> I don't recall any of the "heathens" telling others they had to abide by their rules or be punished. I've never seen them call others "sinners", "perverts" or "sick"
> 
> There are many examples of some of the self-proclaimed "christians" doing all those things on a near daily basis, and then acting indignant when called on it.
> 
> It's not like we haven't had this identical conversation.
> I don't understand why so many want to pretend they don't do it.


How about being fined and put out of business because your belief system doesn't line up with the "heathens" system?

If you saw someone about to dive off a 12 foot cliff into water you knew to be 3 feet deep with rocks on the bottom would you stand by and watch him jump or would you point out the danger?


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> I don't see how Christianity could ever hurt anyone. Seeing as how Christ taught us to do unto others and if someone doesn't want to hear the Gospel Christians should just walk away.
> 
> Other religions on the other hand teach to do as we do or else and if someone doesn't want to hear about it then too bad.


You had me going there for a minute. I really believed you meant that all Christians just walk away. Good joke.


----------



## watcher

Tricky Grama said:


> But its done all the time. Folks rent church basements & party rooms but are not members.


And that is the hair in the biscuit that none of the liberals will talk about. They say that the law isn't needed because churches can not, or at least have yet to, be sued for telling a gay couple it will not allow them to use any of its services. Yet when asked why not they just say "because".

If a bakery can be sued for refusing for refusing to serve a gay couple why can't a church be sued for refusing to serve a gay couple?


----------



## watcher

Tricky Grama said:


> Perhaps they'd refuse the marriage counselling but cannot see how they'd refuse drug counselling.


There are only so many slots available. If you have 10 slots and 50 people wanting them you have to have some way to pick who gets in and who doesn't.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> Basic respect would include not calling gay people perverts and other assorted things. Basic respect goes both ways. The fairy tale comment has always been in direct response to those treating non believers with no respect.


Doesn't that depend on the definition of "perverted"? Seeing as how one definition is "abnormal sexual preference" and gays sex is not the norm calling them perverts is a proper use of the word.

I'd call them the same thing I call adulterers, murders, liars, gossipers, and the rest; sinners.

But to kick the manure pile I'll say this.

I think homosexuality and all other abnormal sexual preferences are mental disorders. What would you say to someone who was only sexually aroused by feces?


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> Doesn't that depend on the definition of "perverted"? Seeing as how one definition is "abnormal sexual preference" and gays sex is not the norm calling them perverts is a proper use of the word.
> 
> I'd call them the same thing I call adulterers, murders, liars, gossipers, and the rest; sinners.
> 
> But to kick the manure pile I'll say this.
> 
> I think homosexuality and all other abnormal sexual preferences are mental disorders. What would you say to someone who was only sexually aroused by feces?


I would say thay sex and love are not the same thing. I would also point out that you seem to enjoy calling people perverts. Some might assume that gets you aroused.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> I've always said there are *many* REAL Christians who live their lives as they should, and *don't* throw their piety into anyone's faces, or use Bible quotes to chastise and belittle those who don't follow their religion.
> 
> On the other hand are the obvious bigots, homophobes and racists who are continuously quoting the bible, calling names, and telling others how they are going to burn in Hell if they don't change their ways.
> 
> *They* are the ones who want to bring religion into every discussion.
> Everyone else would rather talk about most anything BUT religion.


So someone who takes the Bible seriously and tells people who are sinning that there is a price to be paid is automatically a bigot, homophobe or racist in your book?


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's all about *context*.
> 
> When someone says, "You're a pervert and will burn in Hell if you don't change your ways, so I will pray for you to see the light", it's hard to believe they are being friendly


Lets use my cliff diver example again (12' dive into 3' of water). If someone told him if he jumps he's an idiot and they are hoping if they keep telling him the danger he will not jump. Would that person not be trying to prevent him from harm?


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> You had me going there for a minute. I really believed you meant that all Christians just walk away. Good joke.


Anyone who doesn't walk away from someone who says they do not want to hear the Gospel is in DIRECT violation of Christ's teachings. You can not directly violate the teachings of Christ and be a true Christian. You can sleep in the barn and call yourself a cow all you want but it doesn't make you a cow. You can spout the Bible and call yourself a Christian all you wish but doing so doesn't make you a Christian. Following the teachings of Christ makes you a Christian.

If you have problems with people who say that are Christians and keep 'nagging' you ask them if they think that a "true" Christian would follow the teachings of Christ. If they say yes tell them they should read Matthew 10:14 and Luke 9:5. In both cases Christ tells His followers if someone doesn't not wish to listen the followers are to leave.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> Anyone who doesn't walk away from someone who says they do not want to hear the Gospel is in DIRECT violation of Christ's teachings. You can not directly violate the teachings of Christ and be a true Christian. You can sleep in the barn and call yourself a cow all you want but it doesn't make you a cow. You can spout the Bible and call yourself a Christian all you wish but doing so doesn't make you a Christian. Following the teachings of Christ makes you a Christian.
> 
> If you have problems with people who say that are Christians and keep 'nagging' you ask them if they think that a "true" Christian would follow the teachings of Christ. If they say yes tell them they should read Matthew 10:14 and Luke 9:5. In both cases Christ tells His followers if someone doesn't not wish to listen the followers are to leave.


So those people here who feel the need to tell those here that they are prsying for them even when they have asked them not to are not true Christians?


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> I would say thay sex and love are not the same thing. I would also point out that you seem to enjoy calling people perverts. Some might assume that gets you aroused.


Seeing as how I don't call them that you must have a problem with reading comprehension. I will call them sinners and I will say they have mental problems. If you take religion out of it you have to admit homosexuality is in directly violation of the natural order. The natural order is for all members of a species to survive and to make sure the species as a hole survives. If homosexuality is genetic then it is like albinism, a weakness which if was allowed to propagate would weaken the species as a whole because both reduce the rate of reproduction.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Agreed, but you probably know everything you need to know about their view of you once they called you a pervert.
> 
> Switch off their freq and move on. Why LET them offend you?


I never said I was offended.

I said they were hypocrites for the behavior, and that they should accept they are as bad or worse than those about whom they complain.

Reality is all religions can logically be called "fairy tales" since there is no empirical evidence they are authentic.

The subtle difference is one is a statement about "religions" in general, but the "prayers" are directed at individuals.

Ancient Greeks would probably get insulted when their religion and gods are referred to as "Greek *MYTHOLOGY*"



> Simple Definition of mythology
> : the myths of a particular group or culture
> : ideas that are believed by many people but that are not true


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> *Lets use my cliff diver example again* (12' dive into 3' of water). If someone told him if he jumps he's an idiot and they are hoping if they keep telling him the danger he will not jump. Would that person not be trying to prevent him from harm?


Let's not, since it's ridiculous when it ignores the first thing I said



> Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm View Post
> It's all about *context.*


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> So those people here who feel the need to tell those here that they are prsying for them even when they have asked them not to are not true Christians?


As with a lot of things, it depends. It depends on what they are praying for and how they say it to you. Praying for someone is not the same are telling them they are sinners and are going to have to face God about their sins. 

If you tell them you don't want them praying for you accept Christ because you don't believe it would be wrong for them to stop because Christians are told to pray for the lost. Them telling you they are praying isn't repeatedly telling you the Gospel, only letting them know they care for you. But I would suggest you point out the passages I gave you and tell them they should pray on THAT before they tell you how they are continuing to pray for you.

If you tell them you don't want to pray for you to accept Christ and they keep telling you they are praying that you repent because repenting is the only to come to Christ and Christ is the only way to Heaven. That would be a direct violation of Christ's teachings.

Personally if someone tells me they don't believe and don't want to hear about Christ AGAIN I would keep praying for them but I would not keep telling the person I am praying for them. I don't think you can win someone by beating them over the head with the Bible. AAMOF, there's nothing I can do to cause you to accept nor reject Christ, both are between you and God. Which is well above my pay grade.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> Let's not, since it's ridiculous when it ignores the first thing I said


Its only ridiculous because you don't think you are in danger. The same as the guy about to jump who is sure you are wrong and the water is plenty deep for him to dive into. He thinks you are just some do gooder nut case who only wants to stop him from having the fun of diving.

By the time he realizes he was wrong and you were right its too late.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> So someone who takes the Bible seriously and tells people who are sinning that there is a price to be paid is automatically a bigot, homophobe or racist in your book?


When they exhibit all those behaviors and *then* claim to be "christian" is when I begin to doubt their sincerity.

They would have a conniption fit if I started telling them they need to face Mecca and pray 5 times a day, but they have no qualms about doing essentially the same to others

Someone who *truly* takes it seriously wouldn't be ranting on the internet in such a manner.

Most of your post makes all the same false assumptions as theirs, in that their way is correct and all others are wrong.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> As with a lot of things, it depends. It depends on what they are praying for and how they say it to you. Praying for someone is not the same are telling them they are sinners and are going to have to face God about their sins.
> 
> If you tell them you don't want them praying for you accept Christ because you don't believe it would be wrong for them to stop because Christians are told to pray for the lost. Them telling you they are praying isn't repeatedly telling you the Gospel, only letting them know they care for you. But I would suggest you point out the passages I gave you and tell them they should pray on THAT before they tell you how they are continuing to pray for you.
> 
> If you tell them you don't want to pray for you to accept Christ and they keep telling you they are praying that you repent because repenting is the only to come to Christ and Christ is the only way to Heaven. That would be a direct violation of Christ's teachings.
> 
> Personally if someone tells me they don't believe and don't want to hear about Christ AGAIN I would keep praying for them but I would not keep telling the person I am praying for them. I don't think you can win someone by beating them over the head with the Bible. AAMOF, there's nothing I can do to cause you to accept nor reject Christ, both are between you and God. Which is well above my pay grade.


Just what I expected. Say one thing and then deny it when put to the test.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> Its only ridiculous because you don't think you are in danger. The same as the guy about to jump who is sure you are wrong and the water is plenty deep for him to dive into. He thinks you are just some do gooder nut case who only wants to stop him from having the fun of diving.
> 
> By the time he realizes he was wrong and you were right its too late.


It's ridiculous because it can be *proven* the water isn't deep enough.

You still want to take things out of context and use pointless fantasy scenarios.
It gets old fast


----------



## Bearfootfarm

painterswife said:


> Just what I expected. Say one thing and then deny it when put to the test.


Watcher runs in circles more than Shine


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> Watcher runs in circles more than Shine


You should know better than anyone else about spinning!


----------



## Tricky Grama

mreynolds said:


> I think mostly it's said out of habit. But even if it was said as an insult why take offense on something you don't believe in?


B/c its a form of control. Some here like to control others, control their posts, control/stop their Christian beliefs. No matter, what we do in private is none of anyone/s biz.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's all about *context*.
> 
> When someone says, "You're a pervert and will burn in Hell if you don't change your ways, so I will pray for you to see the light", it's hard to believe they are being friendly


I've never seen that. Not here, not anywhere.


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> B/c its a form of control. Some here like to control others, control their posts, control/stop their Christian beliefs. No matter, what we do in private is none of anyone/s biz.


Thanks for finally agreeing with what some of us have been saying. What you do in private is no one else's business. But what some people do in private seems to be the basis of laws that allow discrimination against the LGBT community. I don't care if you pray in the privacy of your home or temple. When you announce on a public forum that you are praying for specific others it is no longer a private act. But the law wouldn't allow me to deny you service in my business because of that. But it would allow you to deny others based on what you think they do in private. 

Aren't you special.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> I would say thay sex and love are not the same thing. I would also point out that you seem to enjoy calling people perverts. Some might assume that gets you aroused.


Some might, but they'd be the ones here who do everything possible to insult others. I cannot believe you posted that. 
Well, yes I can. Showing your true colors again.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> Some might, but they'd be the ones here who do everything possible to insult others. I cannot believe you posted that.
> Well, yes I can. Showing your true colors again.


I made an observation that some could draw a conclusion based on the evidence. I did not say that it was true. I know, a subtle difference that you did not pick up on but tried to use to insult me.


----------



## Tricky Grama

watcher said:


> As with a lot of things, it depends. It depends on what they are praying for and how they say it to you. Praying for someone is not the same are telling them they are sinners and are going to have to face God about their sins.
> 
> If you tell them you don't want them praying for you accept Christ because you don't believe it would be wrong for them to stop because Christians are told to pray for the lost. Them telling you they are praying isn't repeatedly telling you the Gospel, only letting them know they care for you. But I would suggest you point out the passages I gave you and tell them they should pray on THAT before they tell you how they are continuing to pray for you.
> 
> If you tell them you don't want to pray for you to accept Christ and they keep telling you they are praying that you repent because repenting is the only to come to Christ and Christ is the only way to Heaven. That would be a direct violation of Christ's teachings.
> 
> Personally if someone tells me they don't believe and don't want to hear about Christ AGAIN I would keep praying for them but I would not keep telling the person I am praying for them. I don't think you can win someone by beating them over the head with the Bible. AAMOF, there's nothing I can do to cause you to accept nor reject Christ, both are between you and God. Which is well above my pay grade.


Right! I think what gets some here is they KNOW they cannot control other's prayers. They TRY but cannot.
I'd like to know what some say in their every day life when an innocent person says to them: "i'll say a prayer for you"? I guess they jump down their throat & say don't do that, its all fairly tales.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> Right! I think what gets some here is they KNOW they cannot control other's prayers. They TRY but cannot.
> I'd like to know what some say in their every day life when an innocent person says to them: "i'll say a prayer for you"? I guess they jump down their throat & say don't do that, its all fairly tales.


An incorrect observation. Again.


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> Thanks for finally agreeing with what some of us have been saying. What you do in private is no one else's business. But what some people do in private seems to be the basis of laws that allow discrimination against the LGBT community. I don't care if you pray in the privacy of your home or temple. When you announce on a public forum that you are praying for specific others it is no longer a private act. But the law wouldn't allow me to deny you service in my business because of that. But it would allow you to deny others based on what you think they do in private.
> 
> Aren't you special.


I beg to differ w/your 'special' self. Gads. 
Please show all posts that have been posted since ONE stated we were NOT to pray for her. Please. I'd venture to say NONE! Talking about it is NOT saying we're praying for anyone. But you knew that, you're just too special for words.

OK, b/4 you find ONE post, here's a disclaimer...it has to be from someone who was told b/4 not to pray. not from someone who did not see the post requesting NO prayers..


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> I made an observation that some could draw a conclusion based on the evidence. I did not say that it was true. I know, a subtle difference that you did not pick up on but tried to use to insult me.


You said insulting things about Watcher & you know it.
What a gal.


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> Right! I think what gets some here is they KNOW they cannot control other's prayers. They TRY but cannot.
> I'd like to know what some say in their every day life when an innocent person says to them: "i'll say a prayer for you"? I guess they jump down their throat & say don't do that, its all fairly tales.


I can tell you what I do. I had many of those innocent people offer prayers for me when my granddaughter was dying. I thanked every one of them for their prayers and kind thoughts for her and for all of those involved. 

I've had other innocents look at me in other situations and tell that they'd be praying for my soul. I told them in no uncertain terms that my soul and I wou&#322;d do just fine without their help. What they did when I walked away I cannot say.

As with much in life, my response to what's offered depends on who is offering, what they're offering, and why they're making the offer.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> You said insulting things about Watcher & you know it.
> What a gal.


According to you.


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> An incorrect observation. Again.


I don't know about anyone else but if the offer is sincere I say, "Thank you, that's very kind." 

If I'm being mocked, which has so far always been online and from christians, I say something to the effect of: If your faith were stronger you wouldn't have to harass me for my lack of it. 

I do feel sorry for people that have so much doubt.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> You should know better than anyone else about spinning!


Feel free to prove me wrong anytime, but keep in mind it will require you to actually read the posts


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> I beg to differ w/your 'special' self. Gads.
> Please show all posts that have been posted since ONE stated we were NOT to pray for her. Please. I'd venture to say NONE! Talking about it is NOT saying we're praying for anyone. But you knew that, you're just too special for words.
> 
> OK, b/4 you find ONE post, here's a disclaimer...it has to be from someone who was told b/4 not to pray. not from someone who did not see the post requesting NO prayers..


My post had little to do with who posted what about prayers. It did address the fact that despite your protestation that what people do in private is no one else's business the fact is that the laws in question are all about what some people do in private. They are all about making it legal for you to deny them goods and services based on what you think they do in private. A privilege I don't have in denying you even if you bring those private prayers public. That's what makes you so special. You're protected in ways others aren't and in ways you'd specifically deny them. Why is what you do in private deserving of protection ?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Tricky Grama said:


> *I've never seen that*. Not here, not anywhere.


I've seen it quite often, and this isn't the first time it's been discussed.
That should be obvious by the talk of posts being deleted because of it.


----------



## mmoetc

It will be an interesting day when the NC law is enforced equally and as written. I believe it says one must use the bathroom of the sex listed on one's birth certificate. It would be fun to stand in front of public restrooms and challenge every person trying to enter requiring them to produce that birth certificate before entering. The constitution does require equal protection for all, right?

EtA- you must show me your papers before you get to use our papers.


----------



## greg273

watcher said:


> Personally if someone tells me they don't believe and don't want to hear about Christ AGAIN I would keep praying for them but I would not keep telling the person I am praying for them..


 I am going to pray that many so-called Christians start acting more like Christ and stop being so hateful towards people that are different.


----------



## Truckinguy

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I fail to see how a Christian praying for you can be construed as an insult.
> 
> I mean, I read the posts in explanation of that view, but I think these explanations miss a critical point-* to a Christian, everyone is a sinner*, including themselves. It seems that some are taking a Christian saying that they'll pray for them as an expression of moral superiority, but, if they're Christian, it isn't. It can't be. *In Chrisitanity, there is only one perfect person, the rest are all sinners*, and, when a Christian prays for another (Christian or not), they are essentially saying that they're going to use a moment of their own time to pray for another sinner.
> 
> Now, I'm not a Christian, though I am Faithful. It's not that I don't believe in Jesus, it's that I don't believe in original sin or that God needed a sacrifice to be able to hear me or call me His own. God is my God, John and Jesus are just heroes. They finally told the world that God didn't just belong to the Jew, but God always new that, and it was always true, since before there even was a Jew. (Sorry for the tangent, but important to illustrate where I'm coming from)
> 
> Christians in my life pray for me all the time. It's not an insult. Their prayer is just their expression that they care for me more as a brother than any disagreement could squash. I think they want me to come to the same realization they did. And, if it turns out to be the way, then I hope their prayers work, and I appreciate the sentiment.
> 
> If anyone prays for me to come to a different understanding or outlook on a particular point, it's no different than the person I disagree with trying to convince me of their point using their own words. In the case of prayer, they're just asking God to do the talking where they feel like they've failed.
> 
> If you get offended by someone praying for you because they think you're wrong, do you get offended by anyone who argues with you? Is bestowed-prayer just another micro-aggression?


Whew, way too many posts to reply to but I'll try to clarify my thoughts here.

I think the bolded words illustrate what I'm trying to say and answer your first sentence. It is annoying that those of us who don't follow that path are thought of so poorly right off the bat. It is also a matter of context. Prayer is only given for a reason, if someone is saved, happy, healthy, financially secure, etc. there is no need to pray for them. Prayer is meant to turn around or correct a negative. If someone is sick, pray for them to get better. If someone is looking for a job, pray that they find work. If someone is going through a depressing time in their life, pray that they come through it and find comfort and happiness. I have been through all of those situations, have been prayed for and been thankful that people have been there to support me in whatever way they saw fit. I have been sent prayers, well wishes and good thoughts and have been grateful for every one. There was a need there and it was comforting knowing that people cared and supported me.

On the other hand, if someone prays for my soul or that I'll find Christ they are assuming something that isn't true and isn't needed. I'm far from perfect but have done nothing in my life that would necessitate someone to die or that would sentence me to an eternity of torment and that assumption is what is insulting. Actually, the entire concept of original sin, being born in sin and Hell is belittling to all of us.

However, it has been mentioned that we could just let people pray for whatever they like and the rest of us just go about our business and that's a fair enough statement. I'm not saying that I fly into a burning rage and freak out at anyone who wants to pray for my soul...lol. Usually I just say thank you or say nothing but it bothers me inside. I have broken a few commandments in my day but I'm not a "sinner" in the eternal torment context of the word and to imply that I am is demeaning to me. Should I just grow a thicker skin and go about my business? Perhaps but there has been a lot of damage to my life and my family's lives due to Christianity that we will always have to deal with and we are extremely sensitive to the subject.

I don't think God is real but I'm not sure how I can express that without it being insulting to Christians. For me to say that Christianity isn't real is implying that I think Christians are deluded for believing in it and I accept that Christians would be insulted by that. I'm not sure how we can have a discussion about this subject without strong feelings on either side.

Not picking on you personally, GMI, just thought your post was most relevant to me to reply to.

Gotta work the next four days so likely won't be back here until Sunday. Enjoy your week!


----------



## mreynolds

I guess I should be ashamed. I don't even know what LGBT stand for. The acronym that is. I know who is supposed to represent though. I am ashamed that we are now resorting to acronyms now to classify and divide people further.


----------



## flewism

mreynolds said:


> I guess I should be ashamed. I don't even know what LGBT stand for. The acronym that is. I know who is supposed to represent though. I am ashamed that we are now resorting to acronyms now to classify and divide people further.


 Don't be ashamed, I didn't know what it stood for either until I started reading about it on this forum and googled it. I met my first gay couple a few years ago as they moved on my road and bought a small 10 acre place near me, they are a comical pair.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> When they exhibit all those behaviors and *then* claim to be "christian" is when I begin to doubt their sincerity.
> 
> They would have a conniption fit if I started telling them they need to face Mecca and pray 5 times a day, but they have no qualms about doing essentially the same to others
> 
> Someone who *truly* takes it seriously wouldn't be ranting on the internet in such a manner.
> 
> Most of your post makes all the same false assumptions as theirs, in that their way is correct and all others are wrong.


The thing is I believe my way is correct and all others are wrong. I am only told I must follow the teachings of Christ myself and to tell others about the Gospel. After I have told you, you are free to choose to accept or reject Christ and its none of my concern nor business. That's where Christianity differs from most others. I know I have no ability to "make" you follow my religion and I am, in effect, forbidden to even try. 

So if you want to pray to Mecca 5 times a day or if you want to rub dung over yourself and dance around an oak tree at midnight or anything else which doesn't infringe on any one else's rights go right ahead. And if you want to talk to me about how your religion is the correct one I'm willing to listen. If and only if you are willing to do reciprocate.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> Just what I expected. Say one thing and then deny it when put to the test.


How so? Telling you I'm praying for you is not trying to 'shove Christianity down your throat' which is against the teachings of Christ. It may remind you that you are a sinner but that's not my fault.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> How so? Telling you I'm praying for you is not trying to 'shove Christianity down your throat' which is against the teachings of Christ. It may remind you that you are a sinner but that's not my fault.


I don't believe the act of praying stops what you believe to be sin. I don't believe praying does anything but make the person praying feel better about something.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> Thanks for finally agreeing with what some of us have been saying. What you do in private is no one else's business. But what some people do in private seems to be the basis of laws that allow discrimination against the LGBT community. I don't care if you pray in the privacy of your home or temple. When you announce on a public forum that you are praying for specific others it is no longer a private act. But the law wouldn't allow me to deny you service in my business because of that. But it would allow you to deny others based on what you think they do in private.
> 
> Aren't you special.


We are supposed to live in a nation where you are free to do what you wish up to the point it infringes on the rights of another. None of your rights are violated if someone comes up and says "Those are the ugliest shoes I've ever seen a human wearing." 

We are also supposed to live in a nation where your property is YOURS to do as you wish. You have no right to ANYTHING which must be provided to you by another. That means you have no right to buy anything. Therefore it is completely impossible for your rights to be violated if someone refuses to sell you a good or service. Some here because the law says you must do it, it is a violation of a right but rights are not based on laws but the constitution. No one has ever shown me where in the USC you are given the right to something because someone has offered to sell it.

To me that means if you offer a chicken for sell and I show up driving a Ford pickup you have the right to refuse to sell it to me just because you hate Fords. It also means you are free to refuse to sell to me because I'm white or male or Christian or heterosexual or under 6' tall or any other reason you wish.

To do otherwise is giving the government permission to force you act counter to your beliefs.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> My post had little to do with who posted what about prayers. It did address the fact that despite your protestation that what people do in private is no one else's business the fact is that the laws in question are all about what some people do in private. They are all about making it legal for you to deny them goods and services based on what you think they do in private. A privilege I don't have in denying you even if you bring those private prayers public. That's what makes you so special. You're protected in ways others aren't and in ways you'd specifically deny them. Why is what you do in private deserving of protection ?


Hey if you are gay and don't want to bake a cake for a straight wedding the government shouldn't have the power to force you.

If you are gay and don't want to sell your car to a straight person you should be free to refuse to sell it to them.

If you are gay and think its disgusting that a straight couple are kissing in public you should have the right to tell them you think its disgusting.

A gay person should have the same rights as a straight person. No more and no less. But the catch to that is if you are gay and someone refuses to bake you a cake or sell you a car or tells you that your PDA is disgusting you don't have the right to use force to make them act the way you wish.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> It will be an interesting day when the NC law is enforced equally and as written. I believe it says one must use the bathroom of the sex listed on one's birth certificate. It would be fun to stand in front of public restrooms and challenge every person trying to enter requiring them to produce that birth certificate before entering. The coThjnstitution does require equal protection for all, right?
> 
> EtA- you must show me your papers before you get to use our papers.


The law says you must have a valid DL to operate a vehicle on a public road, do you see cops standing outside parking lots checking before they allow access to the roadway?

An even bigger problem comes in trying to set standards on the other side. What standards would you set for someone with a penis to be allowed to go into the woman's shower room? AFAIK, its not illegal for a woman in a locker room to walk from a locker to a shower nude, would it be illegal for a man to be nude in the woman's locker room? I've been in many men's locker rooms and most guys have no problem with being in various states of undress in them. Would it be legal for a woman to sit in the men's locker room and "take her time" changing? Would all the men have to put on blindfolds if a 15 y.o. female started changing in the men's room? After all she's underage you know.

I can just see a huge volume of law suits based on the fact that someone was refused access to the "correct" bathroom/locker room because of the standards.

Of course there's always the problem one school has already ran into with mixed gender bathroom. Young men tend to be. . .well let's say a bit more adventurous and a lot more fixated on the visual when it comes to sex than young women. This lead to a rash of young women discovering cell phones hanging over the shower stall doors.


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> I am going to pray that many so-called Christians start acting more like Christ and stop being so hateful towards people that are different.


Just point them out to another Christian. We are told when we see a brother in Christ not following the teachings of Christ we are to go to him and point it out and lead him back. AAMOF, we are told if they continue to refuse we are to, metaphorically, throw them out of the church and treat him as we would a lost person.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> *Just point them out* to another Christian. We are told when we see a brother in Christ not following the teachings of Christ we are to go to him and point it out and lead him back. AAMOF, we are told if they continue to refuse we are to, metaphorically, throw them out of the church and treat him as we would a lost person.


That's what we have been doing, but nothing changes



> The thing is I believe *my way is correct and all others are wrong*.


We've heard it already, and aren't buying it, any more than you buy what Muslims tell you.

Repeating that your religion tells you to do it makes no difference to anyone who still doesn't care to hear it yet again.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> I don't believe the act of praying stops what you believe to be sin. I don't believe praying does anything but make the person praying feel better about something.


Not the greatest analogy but think of God as your father. Your father is the one who makes the final decision if you get a new bike or not because its his money and he can spend it, or not, as he wishes. There's no way you can force him to buy a bike. You can ask him, beg him and try to threaten him but its all for naught if he doesn't wish you to have it.

Or if he wishes he can buy you a new bike and surprise you with it. You might not have even thought about getting a new one.

Then again he may know you want a new bike but wants you to ask him for it before he gives it to you.

Or he might realize that if you had a new bike you'd kill yourself and refuse to buy you one.

Now if someone believes you are a sinner he can pray that God works in your live to call you to him. God can do so or not depending on what he sees as being best. The one thing God says He will not force you to accept Him. He gives you free will to or not.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> Not the greatest analogy but think of God as your father. Your father is the one who makes the final decision if you get a new bike or not because its his money and he can spend it, or not, as he wishes. There's no way you can force him to buy a bike. You can ask him, beg him and try to threaten him but its all for naught if he doesn't wish you to have it.
> 
> Or if he wishes he can buy you a new bike and surprise you with it. You might not have even thought about getting a new one.
> 
> Then again he may know you want a new bike but wants you to ask him for it before he gives it to you.
> 
> Or he might realize that if you had a new bike you'd kill yourself and refuse to buy you one.
> 
> Now if someone believes you are a sinner he can pray that God works in your live to call you to him. God can do so or not depending on what he sees as being best. The one thing God says He will not force you to accept Him. He gives you free will to or not.


God makes the final descions on whether you sin or not? If he gives you free will why are you praying for anything?


----------



## Heritagefarm

painterswife said:


> God makes the final descions on whether you sin or not? If he gives you free will why are you praying for anything?


That's complicated. We have free will according to the Bible, and free agency according to others. You're then expected to put forth this agency. If you choose God, you'll go to Heaven. Otherwise, He'll, Outer Darkness, Purgatory, Outer Pergo Hades or some other prison awaits you. Gosh, don't you feel free now?


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's what we have been doing, but nothing changes
> 
> 
> We've heard it already, and aren't buying it, any more than you buy what Muslims tell you.
> 
> Repeating that your religion tells you to do it makes no difference to anyone who still doesn't care to hear it yet again.


The problem is these are not private messages, this is a public forum. That means you are not the only one reading them so when I tell you what things are sins the msg may be directed at you but it is not limited to you. We are not 'in your house' therefore I'm not required to 'knock the dust from my feet and leave'. 

Its like we were in an auditorium having a discussion in front of a audience. If you told me you didn't want to hear any more about Christ and salvation I'd tell you fine, stop listening and keep right on going because there's more people than you involved.


----------



## painterswife

Heritagefarm said:


> That's complicated. We have free will according to the Bible, and free agency according to others. You're then expected to put forth this agency. If you choose God, you'll go to Heaven. Otherwise, He'll, Outer Darkness, Purgatory, Outer Pergo Hades or some other prison awaits you. Gosh, don't you feel free now?


I feel free because none of that is part of my life. My grandmother use to send me letters saying I would burn in hell for bei g a bartender. Did not believe that either.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> The problem is these are not private messages, this is a public forum. That means you are not the only one reading them so when I tell you what things are sins the msg may be directed at you but it is not limited to you. We are not 'in your house' therefore I'm not required to 'knock the dust from my feet and leave'.
> 
> Its like we were in an auditorium having a discussion in front of a audience. If you told me you didn't want to hear any more about Christ and salvation I'd tell you fine, stop listening and keep right on going because there's more people than you involved.


Why does someone continue to tell a person that has asked for them not to pray for them, that they are praying for them? What purpose does that serve?


----------



## Heritagefarm

painterswife said:


> I feel free because none of that is part of my life. My grandmother use to send me letters saying I would burn in hell for bei g a bartender. Did not believe that either.


Don't worry - Catholics are heavy drinkers. Wait, was that politically correct?
Oh, as far as being a bartender, I'd say the only thing to worry about would be if the bar burnt down. That liquor is highly flammable.:buds:


----------



## painterswife

Heritagefarm said:


> Don't worry - Catholics are heavy drinkers. Wait, was that politically correct?
> Oh, as far as being a bartender, I'd say the only thing to worry about would be if the bar burnt down. That liquor is highly flammable.:buds:


My grandmother was mennonite. There was not much I could do with out going to hell.


----------



## Heritagefarm

painterswife said:


> My grandmother was mennonite. There was not much I could do with out going to hell.


Sorry to hear that. I know what that's like. A lot of religious people are like that though.


----------



## painterswife

Heritagefarm said:


> Sorry to hear that. I know what that's like. A lot of religious people are like that though.


It is all right, my little Japanese Buddhist grandmother balanced her out. Loved them both.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mreynolds said:


> I guess I should be ashamed. I don't even know what LGBT stand for. The acronym that is. I know who is supposed to represent though. I am ashamed that we are now resorting to acronyms now to classify and divide people further.


It's actually LGBTQ, and it is _self_ designation. It is to emphasize the diversity of sexuality and gender identity. 

It's not derogatory and it's not used to divide people.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> Why does someone continue to tell a person that has asked for them not to pray for them, that they are praying for them? What purpose does that serve?


Just because you feel now you don't want God in your life doesn't mean that there could be something to cause you to change. I knew an alcoholic who had heard about Christ, know all about salvation and didn't want anyone praying for him. His family kept him in their prayers for years. One day he hit bottom and hit hard. It was only then he realized he needed God in his life. His son told me he thinks what finally happened to his dad was an answer to all their prayers.


----------



## watcher

Heritagefarm said:


> Don't worry - Catholics are heavy drinkers. Wait, was that politically correct?
> Oh, as far as being a bartender, I'd say the only thing to worry about would be if the bar burnt down. That liquor is highly flammable.:buds:


If you read the Bible you will see drinking is not 'listed' as a sin. Being a drunkard is. As with a lot of things the action itself is not the sinful thing, its allowing it to 'be an idol' and over doing it.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> Just because you feel now you don't want God in your life doesn't mean that there could be something to cause you to change. I knew an alcoholic who had heard about Christ, know all about salvation and didn't want anyone praying for him. His family kept him in their prayers for years. One day he hit bottom and hit hard. It was only then he realized he needed God in his life. His son told me he thinks what finally happened to his dad was an answer to all their prayers.


So it is all right to do it because you want to even if the other person does not. Yes, justification again. Don't bother preaching that they are not real Christians when they can do whatever they want. PS I am not a hypocrite. There is no God so I won't go praying when things are not going my way.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> It's actually LGBTQ, and it is _self_ designation. It is to emphasize the diversity of sexuality and gender identity.
> 
> It's not derogatory and it's not used to divide people.


Sure it is. Its another label to put people into groups and make rules which apply to those groups or to show how downtrodden they are.

Its another chance for politicians to buy votes by showing how concerned they are about the plight of this group and that group and that one over there.

Personally I don't care what color you are, which way you 'swing', what god you pray to right up to the point you start infringing on someone else's rights. And I have to say not having someone with the 'wrong' genitalia in the bathroom, locker room or shower room you are using would be considered a right by most people.

How would you feel if you were in a locker room changing and a group of teenage guys walked in? What if you saw a group like that go into the locker room where you 13 y.o. daughter was changing?


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> So it is all right to do it because you want to even if the other person does not. Yes, justification again. Don't bother preaching that they are not real Christians when they can do whatever they want. PS I am not a hypocrite. There is no God so I won't go praying when things are not going my way.


Not justification just facts. If I were talking to you or PMing you and you said you didn't want to hear it I'd stop. But if we were at a party talking about it and others were listening and involved in the discussion and you said you didn't want to hear any more I'd tell you that you are free to leave because there are people here who are.

Same thing here. If you don't want to hear about stop posting about it and stop reading post about it. 

And you never know what may happen.


----------



## Heritagefarm

watcher said:


> Just because you feel now you don't want God in your life doesn't mean that there could be something to cause you to change. I knew an alcoholic who had heard about Christ, know all about salvation and didn't want anyone praying for him. His family kept him in their prayers for years. One day he hit bottom and hit hard. It was only then he realized he needed God in his life. His son told me he thinks what finally happened to his dad was an answer to all their prayers.


It's also logical to believe he should fix himself because no one else was. For my part, I prefer to proactively improve my life instead of wishing for some outside force to magically improve it. We all need something to believe it, and I do believe in things, just not a rigid Biblical interpretation.



watcher said:


> If you read the Bible you will see drinking is not 'listed' as a sin. Being a drunkard is. As with a lot of things the action itself is not the sinful thing, its allowing it to 'be an idol' and over doing it.


Anyone can allow anything to become their all encompassing goal. Most of the common-sense wisdom that religion teaches is exactly that; common sense wisdom. Don't get drunk constantly, don't bankrupt yourself, etc. all common, helpful, and useful advice regardless of religion.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Heritagefarm said:


> It's also logical to believe he should fix himself because no one else was. For my part, I prefer to proactively improve my life instead of wishing for some outside force to magically improve it. We all need something to believe it, and I do believe in things, just not a rigid Biblical interpretation.
> 
> Anyone can allow anything to become their all encompassing goal. Most of the common-sense wisdom that religion teaches is exactly that; common sense wisdom. Don't get drunk constantly, don't bankrupt yourself, etc. all common, helpful, and useful advice regardless of religion.


Yup. Plus it's all covered by the golden rule: Treat others how you'd want to be treated. 

I don't need to be threatened to do the right thing.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Heritagefarm said:


> Sorry to hear that. I know what that's like. A lot of religious people are like that though.




Not sure why they'd do that..."judge not" ya know...


----------



## Heritagefarm

Tricky Grama said:


> Not sure why they'd do that..."judge not" ya know...


I'm not sure why either.


----------



## dixiegal62

Yeah like changing your signature to say there's a special place in hell for someone who doesn't agree with your view. Hint...it wasn't a Christian who did that recently lol


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> Not justification just facts. If I were talking to you or PMing you and you said you didn't want to hear it I'd stop. But if we were at a party talking about it and others were listening and involved in the discussion and you said you didn't want to hear any more I'd tell you that you are free to leave because there are people here who are.
> 
> Same thing here. If you don't want to hear about stop posting about it and stop reading post about it.
> 
> And you never know what may happen.


So praying for me when I ask you not to has nothing to do with me but has everything to do with you preaching and prostelizing the word of your god.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Tricky Grama said:


> Not sure why they'd do that..."*judge not*" ya know...


That's one of the things often quoted and rarely adhered to


----------



## Bearfootfarm

painterswife said:


> So praying for me when I ask you not to has *nothing to do with me but has everything to do with you* preaching and prostelizing the word of your god.


It appears it's all about self-gratification and rationalization


----------



## Irish Pixie

Far beneath me.


----------



## dixiegal62

Too funny!!


----------



## Elffriend

Irish Pixie said:


> It's actually LGBTQ, and it is _self_ designation. It is to emphasize the diversity of sexuality and gender identity.
> 
> It's not derogatory and it's not used to divide people.


 LGBTQQIP2SAA

and for those wanting to know it's:
Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Queer Questioning Intersex Pansexual 2 Spirit Asexual Allies

My DD is "Ace" (asexual). She is not sexually attracted to anyone. If you suggest at 22 that she's just a "late bloomer" she"ll get kind of annoyed. We have had many talks on the topic of labeling and at first I did think the whole acronym was a bit divisive. But people want to be recognized and acknowledged. They don't all want to be lumped together under one term that may not accurately describe them. I get that now.


----------



## mreynolds

Irish Pixie said:


> It's actually LGBTQ, and it is _self_ designation. It is to emphasize the diversity of sexuality and gender identity.
> 
> It's not derogatory and it's not used to divide people.


Never said it was derogatory. It is divisive though. The sooner most people realize that the better off we all will be. Let me ask then. By your reasoning is it ok to call black people what Chris Rock called others in _Rush Hour II_? It didn't seem ok for Jackie to say the same thing. The purpose of that scene was to highlight the absurdity of such names. Its time to let them go. 

Why cant people just be people? Why cant we all be similar but still unique? 

What do you want to be called? What should I be called? What about our neighbors? It gets confusing after a while. I have gay friends that don't associate with the movement. They prefer to be considered normal they just like men instead of women. What should we classify them as since they don't want to be labeled as LGBT? They want to be recognized as regular people. 

if people feel they need a voice as a minority, why cant *we be* that voice and not lump them into something that appears different to other people? My goodness, we have 2 million similarities and maybe 10 or 20 irregulars. 

_WHY FOCUS ON THE IRREGULARS_?

10 parts per million is not contagious after all.


----------



## mreynolds

Oh and _self _designation is a sign that they need our help to clear the air. Not a cue to perpetuate the division.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mreynolds said:


> Never said it was derogatory. It is divisive though. The sooner most people realize that the better off we all will be. Let me ask then. By your reasoning is it ok to call black people what Chris Rock called others in _Rush Hour II_? It didn't seem ok for Jackie to say the same thing. The purpose of that scene was to highlight the absurdity of such names. Its time to let them go.
> 
> Why cant people just be people? Why cant we all be similar but still unique?
> 
> What do you want to be called? What should I be called? What about our neighbors? It gets confusing after a while. I have gay friends that don't associate with the movement. They prefer to be considered normal they just like men instead of women. What should we classify them as since they don't want to be labeled as LGBT? They want to be recognized as regular people.
> 
> if people feel they need a voice as a minority, why cant *we be* that voice and not lump them into something that appears different to other people? My goodness, we have 2 million similarities and maybe 10 or 20 irregulars.
> 
> _WHY FOCUS ON THE IRREGULARS_?
> 
> 10 parts per million is not contagious after all.


It's what the LGBTQQIP2SAA chose to be called and there are more letters being added all the time, and they are people. 

My youngest daughter is one of the letters. She is proud of who she is (as are her father and I) and uses the acronym as an identifier. Her choice.

I know you never said it was derogatory.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Hey if you are gay and don't want to bake a cake for a straight wedding the government shouldn't have the power to force you.
> 
> If you are gay and don't want to sell your car to a straight person you should be free to refuse to sell it to them.
> 
> If you are gay and think its disgusting that a straight couple are kissing in public you should have the right to tell them you think its disgusting.
> 
> A gay person should have the same rights as a straight person. No more and no less. But the catch to that is if you are gay and someone refuses to bake you a cake or sell you a car or tells you that your PDA is disgusting you don't have the right to use force to make them act the way you wish.


I won't get into another long discussion about how no law forces anyone to sell anything to anyone. You'll continue to falsely contend laws do what they don't and I'll offer all the examples of how they don't which you will ignore. Been there done that. 


I'm glad you think gays should have the same rights as anyone. Now advocate for laws to make it so. Write your congresscritters and pressure them to repeal all anti discrimination laws not just fight to keep those laws covering everyone else. If gays don't have the right neither do whites. Neither do men. Neither do the Irish. Neither do Christians. Give up all of your protections. Truly level the playing field. Given the annual outcry ever december about businesses not saying merry christmas I can only imagine the outrage when a Christian isn't allowed to buy a tasty treat because of the cross around their neck.

The laws should either protect everyone, or no one. The current crop of new laws only seek to protect those who choose religion at the expense of others. Why should only the religous be offered such protections? I'm sure if you truly believe as you say you are against such laws that provide the privilege to discriminate to one group and not all.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> The law says you must have a valid DL to operate a vehicle on a public road, do you see cops standing outside parking lots checking before they allow access to the roadway?
> 
> An even bigger problem comes in trying to set standards on the other side. What standards would you set for someone with a penis to be allowed to go into the woman's shower room? AFAIK, its not illegal for a woman in a locker room to walk from a locker to a shower nude, would it be illegal for a man to be nude in the woman's locker room? I've been in many men's locker rooms and most guys have no problem with being in various states of undress in them. Would it be legal for a woman to sit in the men's locker room and "take her time" changing? Would all the men have to put on blindfolds if a 15 y.o. female started changing in the men's room? After all she's underage you know.
> 
> I can just see a huge volume of law suits based on the fact that someone was refused access to the "correct" bathroom/locker room because of the standards.
> 
> Of course there's always the problem one school has already ran into with mixed gender bathroom. Young men tend to be. . .well let's say a bit more adventurous and a lot more fixated on the visual when it comes to sex than young women. This lead to a rash of young women discovering cell phones hanging over the shower stall doors.


I've been stopped at a sobriety checkpoint and had my liscense and registration checked. I've had that information run through the system to check for wants and warrants. If such tools can be used to test my driving privileges why can't they be used to check your privilege to use a public restroom? Are you ready to carry your birth certificate everywhere to prove you are what you say you are?

You do have an active imagination. The requirements for being recognized as transgender are complex and rigorous. It's been discussed before. It's not a whim that allows an adolescent boy to one day declare himself a girl and march into a locker room. But complexity and reality aren't the point, are they?


----------



## mreynolds

Irish Pixie said:


> It's what the LGBTQQIP2SAA chose to be called and there are more letters being added all the time, and they are people.
> 
> My youngest daughter is one of the letters. She is proud of who she is (as are her father and I) and uses the acronym as an identifier. Her choice.
> 
> I know you never said it was derogatory.


I understand they think its helping them. The fact that more letters are being added says they need more voices than what they have. It also says there is more divisiveness in the actual group. Each letter I guess represents another group within the group. I read Wiki on the term. It appears queer had been changed to questioning according to the writer of that. So the term is not all inclusive to everyone within the group. 

They are *all* people though. I just wont be satisfied until they are considered that I guess. This is just my nickel and it don't buy much these days.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mreynolds said:


> I understand they think its helping them. The fact that more letters are being added says they need more voices than what they have. It also says there is more divisiveness in the actual group. Each letter I guess represents another group within the group. I read Wiki on the term. It appears queer had been changed to questioning according to the writer of that. So the term is not all inclusive to everyone within the group.
> 
> They are *all* people though. I just wont be satisfied until they are considered that I guess. This is just my nickel and it don't buy much these days.


The newest term as Elffriend provided is: "LGBTQQIP2SAA and for those wanting to know it's: Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Queer Questioning Intersex Pansexual 2 Spirit Asexual Allies"

Of course they are people, people that want to be open about who they are. The acronym may become even longer as I've found most people in the gay community to be more accepting of differences and adding more letters seems to support that. Much more inclusive than divisive, at least to me.


----------



## mmoetc

mreynolds said:


> I understand they think its helping them. The fact that more letters are being added says they need more voices than what they have. It also says there is more divisiveness in the actual group. Each letter I guess represents another group within the group. I read Wiki on the term. It appears queer had been changed to questioning according to the writer of that. So the term is not all inclusive to everyone within the group.
> 
> They are *all* people though. I just wont be satisfied until they are considered that I guess. This is just my nickel and it don't buy much these days.


Seems to me they're being more inclusive and less divisive by inviting more and more people into their tent and asking thst all just be treated as people with the same rights and privileges as anyone else. They aren't the ones asking for special privilege to deny others goods and services because of who they are. They aren't asking to be treated differently than you and me because of who they are, they are asking to be treated the same despite of who they are. Do you think handicapped people are divisive because they want ramps, wider doors and access to the same buildings you and I can walk into without a second thought? 

Or is it those who wish to deny others the protections under the law they already enjoy who are driving the divisiveness? Is it those who see an open sign in the window and see it as an invitation to come in and buy a treat who are divisive or those behind the counter who would judge them by their dress or who they hold hands with and use that to decide if they are worthy of a treat who are really dividing us? Many people hide behind different labels. Some use them to include others, some to exclude. You can judge for yourself which is more divisive.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Irish Pixie said:


> The newest term as Elffriend provided is: "LGBTQQIP2SAA and for those wanting to know it's: Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Queer Questioning Intersex Pansexual 2 Spirit Asexual Allies"
> 
> Of course they are people, people that want to be open about who they are. The acronym may become even longer as I've found most people in the gay community to be more accepting of differences and adding more letters seems to support that. Much more inclusive than divisive, at least to me.


What is the "2 spirit" part?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Heritagefarm said:


> What is the "2 spirit" part?


I didn't know either so I looked it up: Two-Spirit (also two spirit or twospirit) is a modern umbrella term used by some indigenous North Americans to describe gender-variant individuals in their communities.

From Wiki (don't freak out, OK?  ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit


----------



## Heritagefarm

Irish Pixie said:


> I didn't know either so I looked it up: Two-Spirit (also two spirit or twospirit) is a modern umbrella term used by some indigenous North Americans to describe gender-variant individuals in their communities.
> 
> From Wiki (don't freak out, OK?  ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit


OH MY GOSH Wikipedia someone prolly edited it I can't read that.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> So praying for me when I ask you not to has nothing to do with me but has everything to do with you preaching and prostelizing the word of your god.


No it has to do with my love for you. What kind of hate would you need to have in your heart to stand by and do nothing as someone wasn't danger. Back to our diver example how much would you need to hate someone to stand by and let them dive off the 12' cliff into 3' water?


----------



## Elffriend

I mentioned to my DD that I made that post last night and she said that 2 Spirit is more commonly added in Canada than in the U.S., which I didn't know.

It IS about being inclusive.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> No it has to do with my love for you. What kind of hate would you need to have in your heart to stand by and do nothing as someone wasn't danger. Back to our diver example how much would you need to hate someone to stand by and let them dive off the 12' cliff into 3' water?


So it would be my love for you to make sure I tell you every time you say you believe in a god that in reality it is a fairytale. That you need to stop letting a book written by men to control you and your actions, lead you on a merry chase about things that don't exist.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> No it has to do with my love for you. What kind of hate would you need to have in your heart to stand by and do nothing as someone wasn't danger. *Back to our diver example* how much would you need to hate someone to stand by and let them dive off the 12' cliff into 3' water?


The diver example is a danger that can be proven with empirical data.

"Hell" is a danger that is only *imagined* by a minority of the world's population

If you cannot prove the "danger" the warnings are merely irritating


----------



## Heritagefarm

Bearfootfarm said:


> The diver example is a danger that can be proven with empirical data.
> 
> "Hell" is a danger that is only *imagined* by a minority of the world's population
> 
> If you cannot prove the "danger" the warnings are merely irritating


Actually quite a few people in the world believe in hell, heaven, and afterlife, or something. Atheists, especially in US, are a much smaller group. 



watcher said:


> No it has to do with my love for you. What kind of hate would you need to have in your heart to stand by and do nothing as someone wasn't danger. Back to our diver example how much would you need to hate someone to stand by and let them dive off the 12' cliff into 3' water?


All, but here is what it sounds like. Let's pretend I'm an atheist (I'm not), and that I have an atheist bible. (I don't think they do.) but it directs me to preach logic and pray to Socrates for your rationalism. The end goal is to convert you to atheism to save you from yourself. 
"I'm going to pray for you."
Isn't that just the last bit insulting?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Heritagefarm said:


> Actually quite a few people in the world believe in hell, heaven, and afterlife, *or something*. Atheists, especially in US, are a much smaller group.


I never mentioned "atheists", "afterlife", nor "or something"
I said those that believe in "Hell" are a minority in the world.

Most other religions don't mention "Hell", so those people are counted also.


----------



## Declan

I have traditionally supported gay rights, but that support is steeply declining. This trans locker room stuff and the gay mafia trolling Christians for sport and profit go beyond the pale. If the laws being enacted to protect religious people from those who try to now use their sexuality as a weapon were on the ballot in my state, I would probably support them. If the gays are not willing to act with some degree of maturity and reason, screw helping them if they are going to be running around like irrational children. They are showing the exact same mentality that keeps us from helping people in Africa--the victims will become the victimizers if given half a chance.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Bearfootfarm said:


> I never mentioned "atheists", "afterlife", nor "or something"
> I said those that believe in "Hell" are a minority in the world.
> 
> Most other religions don't mention "Hell", so those people are counted also.


I was basically agreeing with you, just offering a correction. Your response is clearly an attempt to illicite a response.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Heritagefarm said:


> I was basically agreeing with you, just offering a correction. Your response is clearly an attempt to illicite a response.


I was just clarifying what I said.
There are many religions that don't preach about "Hell", which is primarily reserved to the Christian denominations.

Those are a minority worldwide when you count all the other religions as well as the "non-religious"


----------



## Elevenpoint

painterswife said:


> So it would be my love for you to make sure I tell you every time you say you believe in a god that in reality it is a fairytale. That you need to stop letting a book written by men to control you and your actions, lead you on a merry chase about things that don't exist.


Who's reality..yours?
What does not exist?
What is your basis for any comparison? Self?
That's frightening.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> Yup. Plus it's all covered by the golden rule: Treat others how you'd want to be treated.
> 
> I don't need to be threatened to do the right thing.


But its clear others do because why else do we have laws to force them?

Do you have kids? Did they do the right thing just because you instructed them or did they have to be "threatened" with punishment if they failed to do so?


----------



## watcher

Tricky Grama said:


> Not sure why they'd do that..."judge not" ya know...


You are taking things out of context. We are actually told to judge just not to judge hypocritically. We are told to FIRST remove the beam from our eye THEN help our brother remove the mote from his. If we were expected to not judge we would have been told to remove the beam from our eye and let our brother take care of his own mote.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's one of the things often quoted and rarely adhered to


That's because the people who quote only that part are either ignorant or hypocrites. There are plenty of places where we Christians are told to judge and are given the standard to judge by.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> I won't get into another long discussion about how no law forces anyone to sell anything to anyone. You'll continue to falsely contend laws do what they don't and I'll offer all the examples of how they don't which you will ignore. Been there done that.


We'll let that dog lay for now.




mmoetc said:


> I'm glad you think gays should have the same rights as anyone. Now advocate for laws to make it so.


I do. I support laws which are written to directly protect the rights of individuals. I will fight any law which violates the rights of one individual just to make things PC. If there were a law passed or proposed to allow you to advertise and refuse to sell your house to an individual you did not want to have based on race, gender, religion, or whatever I'd support it. Not because I'm a bigot and think any specific race, gender or whatever should not be allowed to own a house. I'd support it because your house is your property and you should have the ability to control it. To support such a law would be supporting the government taking your right to control your private property.




mmoetc said:


> Write your congresscritters and pressure them to repeal all anti discrimination laws not just fight to keep those laws covering everyone else.


You mean like laws which forbid blacks from using the same water fountain as whits? Or maybe the laws which give blacks extra 'points' when it comes to applying for government jobs or public collage slots? Or the laws which allow those colleges to set limits on how many Asians students they will have. Or laws which give some, but not all, men the 'right' to use women's locker or rest rooms? Or laws which allow the government to set the rules for businesses licensing based on what IT thinks is the proper belief system?

I don't know how old you are but the odds are I've been fighting such laws since before you stopped riding a tricycle or at least before you took the training wheels off your bike. I am a true believer in Dr King's dream of living in a society where we judge a man by the content of his character not the color of his skin. I also extend that to things other than skin color such as religion, gender, etc. But at the same time I'm a true believer in freedom. Just as I have the full right to live my life following King's teachings w/o government interference my neighbor has the full right to live his life following the direct opposite belief system w/o government interference.

Once we start making laws which gives the government the power to tell you as an individual how you must live your life then we have started down the slippery slope.

My view is and will always be the government should treat all citizens the same. It shouldn't have any rules, laws or regulations which are in any way based on race, gender, religion or any other such factor. But that does not apply to individuals or groups of individuals. They are free to treat people differently based on any factor they wish, limited ONLY when such treatment violates the rights of the other individual. 




mmoetc said:


> Given the annual outcry ever december about businesses not saying merry christmas I can only imagine the outrage when a Christian isn't allowed to buy a tasty treat because of the cross around their neck.


As long its not the government refusing a good or service to them I have no problem with it. No one else should either. You have the right to tell your employees to tell your customers "Christmas sucks." if you wish. But your neighbors don't have the right to have the government revoke your business license because you 'violated his right to a merry Christmas' with that remark.





mmoetc said:


> The laws should either protect everyone, or no one. The current crop of new laws only seek to protect those who choose religion at the expense of others. Why should only the religous be offered such protections? I'm sure if you truly believe as you say you are against such laws that provide the privilege to discriminate to one group and not all.


The problem is your view rights and of the government's role. One of the government's VERY LIMITED roles is to make sure someone is not violating your rights. 

Like it or not you no right to ANYTHING someone else must provide. That means you don't have the right to use a bathroom unless that bathroom is in a government building. You do not have a right to buy a cake. You have no right to have someone provide you a place to get married. Or even a right to medical t

You have the right to not be discriminated against by any government agent or agency but you have no right to not be discriminated against by another individual. To use the government to force them to treat you differently than they wish is a loss of freedom and a violation of THEIR rights.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> I've been stopped at a sobriety checkpoint and had my liscense and registration checked. I've had that information run through the system to check for wants and warrants. If such tools can be used to test my driving privileges why can't they be used to check your privilege to use a public restroom? Are you ready to carry your birth certificate everywhere to prove you are what you say you are?


They could if the law is written that way. This is what happens when you give the government the powers you wish them to have.




mmoetc said:


> You do have an active imagination. The requirements for being recognized as transgender are complex and rigorous. It's been discussed before. It's not a whim that allows an adolescent boy to one day declare himself a girl and march into a locker room. But complexity and reality aren't the point, are they?


It seems you are the one saying there should be cops standing at the entrances of locker rooms demanding transgenders provide their government ID and government issued licenses to prove they have the proper government approval to use that bathroom. W/o that cop there checking those IDs and licenses what is to prevent that adolescent boy from marching into the locker room? Isn't his word on his gender orientation enough for you? Would you humiliate him by forcing him to discuss it with some government thug? How can you be so insensitive and un-PC? You are truly heartless!


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> So it would be my love for you to make sure I tell you every time you say you believe in a god that in reality it is a fairytale. That you need to stop letting a book written by men to control you and your actions, lead you on a merry chase about things that don't exist.


Its loving for me to pray for you even if you don't want me to. There's no need to tell you unless you ask. When you ask I will tell you.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> The diver example is a danger that can be proven with empirical data.
> 
> "Hell" is a danger that is only *imagined* by a minority of the world's population
> 
> If you cannot prove the "danger" the warnings are merely irritating


The point with our diver is he refuses to believe. It doesn't matter how much empirical data you provide for him. Ever try to convince a drug user to stop? Did all the empirical data you showed him have any effect? I have and it never has. Maybe a better example would be an anorexic. You can show them pictures, show them graphs of how much they should weigh to be healthy and have them weigh themselves and they will still think they are too fat.


----------



## watcher

Heritagefarm said:


> All, but here is what it sounds like. Let's pretend I'm an atheist (I'm not), and that I have an atheist bible. (I don't think they do.) but it directs me to preach logic and pray to Socrates for your rationalism. The end goal is to convert you to atheism to save you from yourself.
> "I'm going to pray for you."
> Isn't that just the last bit insulting?


BTDT and it doesn't bother me at all. I've had Muslims tell me they are praying that I come to see the right path. Same thing with Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons (LDS) and even an old Jew.

I can't see why anyone would be insulted by someone who believed something expressing the will that I believe it as well?

If you were a Dallas Cowboys fan and a Steelers fan told you he wanted you to 'convert' and he is 'praying' that you abandon the Cowboys would you be insulted? Would you be afraid your 'faith' in your team was so weak that his Steelers 'power' could convert you?


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> I was just clarifying what I said.
> There are many religions that don't preach about "Hell", which is primarily reserved to the Christian denominations.
> 
> Those are a minority worldwide when you count all the other religions as well as the "non-religious"


I have to question your research on that. All three of the 'main' religions based on the God of Abraham (Islam, Judaism and Christianity) all preach there is a hell or eternal punishment. From what I know about the Native American religions they also believe in a place of punishment. And doesn't Hinduism also have a hell?

The few I can think of which don't have a hell picture life on earth as a version of hell which you must work hard to escape to reach paradise. 

IOW, every religion I can think of has a punishment factor for those who fail to follow.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> That's because the people who quote only that part are either ignorant or hypocrites. There are plenty of places where* we Christians are told to judge* and are given the standard to judge by.


No you aren't. You're told to "judge* not*"
You can pretend it means something else, but that's what it *says*

You have no right to be "judging" anyone based on standards of* your* religion if they don't adhere to it also.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> The point with our diver is *he refuses to believe.* It doesn't matter how much empirical data you provide for him. Ever try to convince a drug user to stop? Did all the empirical data you showed him have any effect? I have and it never has. Maybe a better example would be an anorexic. You can show them pictures, show them graphs of how much they should weigh to be healthy and have them weigh themselves and they will still think they are too fat.


That's false, since no rational person would dive into 3" of water once* shown.* There is no "belief" needed when reality is involved.

You can't show "Hell". You can only imagine it, because it's not real.

Don't try to segue into "drug users" or fat/anorexic people. 

These lame analogies just take away any credibility you could have if you'd just stick to the actual topic instead of these fantasies.



> IOW, every religion I can think of has a punishment factor for those who fail *to follow*


I never said anything about a "punishment factor".
That's your rhetoric.

If one doesn't "follow" it really makes no difference what they believe.
(For the umpteenth time)

By your "logic", you're going to Hell unless you follow them *all*, since they all must be correct. 

Their religion tells them so.


----------



## Heritagefarm

elevenpoint said:


> Who's reality..yours?
> What does not exist?
> What is your basis for any comparison? Self?
> That's frightening.


Absolutely everyone in the world bases their reality on their senses, perceptions, and "mental glasses." Arguably, since even the scriptures were conjured by mortal men, that was their version of reality as well. 



watcher said:


> But its clear others do because why else do we have laws to force them?
> 
> Do you have kids? Did they do the right thing just because you instructed them or did they have to be "threatened" with punishment if they failed to do so?


Good people make mistakes. It doesn't make them evil. Sometimes good people do evil and sometimes evil people do good.



watcher said:


> BTDT and it doesn't bother me at all. I've had Muslims tell me they are praying that I come to see the right path. Same thing with Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons (LDS) and even an old Jew.
> 
> I can't see why anyone would be insulted by someone who believed something expressing the will that I believe it as well?
> 
> If you were a Dallas Cowboys fan and a Steelers fan told you he wanted you to 'convert' and he is 'praying' that you abandon the Cowboys would you be insulted? Would you be afraid your 'faith' in your team was so weak that his Steelers 'power' could convert you?


I'm not insulted by people expressing their faith. I encourage everyone to fallow their faith, actually. But I've never told anyone my way was better, just offered them encouragement to find it themselves. I think that's how Buddhist spirituality works - you find inner change and happiness instead of outsourcing it to deities.
But I am insulted by people who think they have the truth, I do not, and that there is no other way. The idea that there's only one path, for everyone, and everyone must follow said path, does not seem right.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Declan said:


> I have traditionally supported gay rights, but that support is steeply declining. This trans locker room stuff and the gay mafia trolling Christians for sport and profit go beyond the pale. If the laws being enacted to protect religious people from those who try to now use their sexuality as a weapon were on the ballot in my state, I would probably support them. If the gays are not willing to act with some degree of maturity and reason, screw helping them if they are going to be running around like irrational children. They are showing the exact same mentality that keeps us from helping people in Africa--the victims will become the victimizers if given half a chance.


My gay friends and neighbors too, are NOT like that. But the 'gay community' in Dallas is where you find the one's you are speaking of. Like any group there's bad & good. Many of the problems in the gay community stem from their promiscuity. Widely studied, widely documented. 
May also be why 81% of the abusing priests were gay.


----------



## Tricky Grama

watcher said:


> You are taking things out of context. We are actually told to judge just not to judge hypocritically. We are told to FIRST remove the beam from our eye THEN help our brother remove the mote from his. If we were expected to not judge we would have been told to remove the beam from our eye and let our brother take care of his own mote.


I'm speaking of 'judging' in the context of saying who's going to hell. That's the implication in the bible. It doesn't mean 'discerning'.


----------



## Tricky Grama

watcher said:


> We'll let that dog lay for now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do. I support laws which are written to directly protect the rights of individuals. I will fight any law which violates the rights of one individual just to make things PC. If there were a law passed or proposed to allow you to advertise and refuse to sell your house to an individual you did not want to have based on race, gender, religion, or whatever I'd support it. Not because I'm a bigot and think any specific race, gender or whatever should not be allowed to own a house. I'd support it because your house is your property and you should have the ability to control it. To support such a law would be supporting the government taking your right to control your private property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like laws which forbid blacks from using the same water fountain as whits? Or maybe the laws which give blacks extra 'points' when it comes to applying for government jobs or public collage slots? Or the laws which allow those colleges to set limits on how many Asians students they will have. Or laws which give some, but not all, men the 'right' to use women's locker or rest rooms? Or laws which allow the government to set the rules for businesses licensing based on what IT thinks is the proper belief system?
> 
> I don't know how old you are but the odds are I've been fighting such laws since before you stopped riding a tricycle or at least before you took the training wheels off your bike. I am a true believer in Dr King's dream of living in a society where we judge a man by the content of his character not the color of his skin. I also extend that to things other than skin color such as religion, gender, etc. But at the same time I'm a true believer in freedom. Just as I have the full right to live my life following King's teachings w/o government interference my neighbor has the full right to live his life following the direct opposite belief system w/o government interference.
> 
> Once we start making laws which gives the government the power to tell you as an individual how you must live your life then we have started down the slippery slope.
> 
> My view is and will always be the government should treat all citizens the same. It shouldn't have any rules, laws or regulations which are in any way based on race, gender, religion or any other such factor. But that does not apply to individuals or groups of individuals. They are free to treat people differently based on any factor they wish, limited ONLY when such treatment violates the rights of the other individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long its not the government refusing a good or service to them I have no problem with it. No one else should either. You have the right to tell your employees to tell your customers "Christmas sucks." if you wish. But your neighbors don't have the right to have the government revoke your business license because you 'violated his right to a merry Christmas' with that remark.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is your view rights and of the government's role. One of the government's VERY LIMITED roles is to make sure someone is not violating your rights.
> 
> Like it or not you no right to ANYTHING someone else must provide. That means you don't have the right to use a bathroom unless that bathroom is in a government building. You do not have a right to buy a cake. You have no right to have someone provide you a place to get married. Or even a right to medical t
> 
> You have the right to not be discriminated against by any government agent or agency but you have no right to not be discriminated against by another individual. To use the government to force them to treat you differently than they wish is a loss of freedom and a violation of THEIR rights.


Post of the century award.


----------



## greg273

Tricky Grama said:


> May also be why 81% of the abusing priests were gay.


 By definition, if you're a kid toucher, you're a pedophile. Theres no evidence that gay people are more likely to be pedophiles, although we know that was the whole point of your other thread, just to see how much more derision you could pile on the gay folks. 'Oh, if 81% of priests were touching boys, that must mean gays are more likely to be pedophiles'. Sorry tricky, a swing and a miss. I know in your heart you probably believe that, but reality doesn't bear that out. Plenty of 'straight' pedophiles doing damage to youths of the opposite sex.


----------



## Tricky Grama

So sorry, it was not my several studies that confirmed the 81% of those abused. NOT MY studies. Best friend in college was/is a gay guy. We studied together, hung out, his partner died, I was w/him thru it all. My good neighbors are gay.
You can slam me all you want for being the messenger-that's what libs do. Doesn't chance the FACTS on the churches abuse problem. IT WAS mostly gay men doing the abusing. In case anyone's math skills are not up to par-81% is overwhelmingly MOST of the priests. 

There are also studies showing homosexuals are MORE likely to abuses young boys. So sorry, not my doing. But bash away. If ya can't take the truth, just slam the messenger!
There was plenty of derision piled on the priests, huh, til now? Til we see the real problem? Not much of a pedophile problem, but a homosexual problem. 

"The homosexual subculture has always involved sexual attraction to youths, and is a well-accepted part of the gay lifestyle. (The term "twink" denotes an adolescent sex partner, a common occurrence among active homosexuals.) And evidence shows homosexuals abuse children at far higher rates than heterosexuals. According to one study, "homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls." This bears out: Although homosexuals comprise only 1&#8211;3 percent of the entire population, they are committing up to 33 percent of all sex crimes against children."


----------



## greg273

Tricky Grama said:


> Not much of a pedophile problem, but a homosexual problem.


 Not a pedophile problem??? On what planet would that be???


----------



## Heritagefarm

Tricky Grama said:


> So sorry, it was not my several studies that confirmed the 81% of those abused. NOT MY studies. Best friend in college was/is a gay guy. We studied together, hung out, his partner died, I was w/him thru it all. My good neighbors are gay.
> You can slam me all you want for being the messenger-that's what libs do. Doesn't chance the FACTS on the churches abuse problem. IT WAS mostly gay men doing the abusing. In case anyone's math skills are not up to par-81% is overwhelmingly MOST of the priests.
> 
> There are also studies showing homosexuals are MORE likely to abuses young boys. So sorry, not my doing. But bash away. If ya can't take the truth, just slam the messenger!
> There was plenty of derision piled on the priests, huh, til now? Til we see the real problem? Not much of a pedophile problem, but a homosexual problem.
> 
> "The homosexual subculture has always involved sexual attraction to youths, and is a well-accepted part of the gay lifestyle. (The term "twink" denotes an adolescent sex partner, a common occurrence among active homosexuals.) And evidence shows homosexuals abuse children at far higher rates than heterosexuals. According to one study, "homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls." This bears out: Although homosexuals comprise only 1â3 percent of the entire population, they are committing up to 33 percent of all sex crimes against children."





> The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.


http://psc.dss.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html

Great, in depth article about why the methods of identifying whether homosexuals are pedophiles is flawed in the first place. When you ask that question, it's inherently flawed because first you must find homosexuals are ask them whether they're pedophiles or not, in which case they'll say no, or pinging convicted pedophiles for information, which is as biased as you can get.

If you'd like to read the whole article and gain any factual information, you'll learn something. However, you won't, and so you'll continue in your ignorance. Congratulations.


----------



## Irish Pixie

greg273 said:


> Not a pedophile problem??? On what planet would that be???


It's hard for some people to understand that pedophilia is age, and homosexuality is same sex. Ignorance lumps the two together.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Heritagefarm said:


> http://psc.dss.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html
> 
> Great, in depth article about why the methods of identifying whether homosexuals are pedophiles is flawed in the first place. When you ask that question, it's inherently flawed because first you must find homosexuals are ask them whether they're pedophiles or not, in which case they'll say no, or pinging convicted pedophiles for information, which is as biased as you can get.
> 
> If you'd like to read the whole article and gain any factual information, you'll learn something. However, you won't, and so you'll continue in your ignorance. Congratulations.


That rationale stinks. Do you ask a murderer if they've murdered? Do you ask the embezzler if they've stole? 
"1st you have to FIND homosexuals & ask them"??? Gads! Not hard to find...81% of the abuse was by homosexuals. Right there they were. Of course perhaps you're of the group who only believes females are to be believed of their claims of sexual abuse...?
I'm seeing some very telling things from the non-conservatives here. Sorta what was expected tho. The religion bashing comes out in the form of bringing up the catholic church whenever some what to bash. UNTIL its know that homosexuals were to blame for the churches abuse problem. Then its all MY fault! Ha.


----------



## Tricky Grama

When the 2 are done by the same group, then intermingling is correct. 
In the case of the 81% of abuse, homosexuals did both. However, most abuse was of children over the age of 11.


----------



## oneraddad

How many of those homosexuals were white ?

White people are a bunch of perverts.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Tricky Grama said:


> That rationale stinks. Do you ask a murderer if they've murdered? Do you ask the embezzler if they've stole?
> "1st you have to FIND homosexuals & ask them"??? Gads! Not hard to find...81% of the abuse was by homosexuals. Right there they were. Of course perhaps you're of the group who only believes females are to be believed of their claims of sexual abuse...?
> I'm seeing some very telling things from the non-conservatives here. Sorta what was expected tho. The religion bashing comes out in the form of bringing up the catholic church whenever some what to bash. UNTIL its know that homosexuals were to blame for the churches abuse problem. Then its all MY fault! Ha.


Your incoherent rant shows how very little you know about the scientific method, statistics, math, or life.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Heritagefarm said:


> Your incoherent rant shows how very little you know about the scientific method, statistics, math, or life.


:thumb:


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> It's hard for some people to understand that pedophilia is age, and homosexuality is same sex. Ignorance lumps the two together.


But both are unnatural because neither allows for the continuation of the species.

And I still believe each, as well as other paraphilias, are mental disorders not just "alternative life styles".


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> But both are unnatural because neither allows for the continuation of the species.
> 
> And I still believe each, as well as other paraphilias, are mental disorders not just "alternative life styles".


There's nothing "unnatural" about anything humans do.
I think lots of behaviors can be called "mental disorders"

Religious fanaticism would be one

Obsession with homosexuals would be another


----------



## Irish Pixie

Irish Pixie said:


> It's hard for some people to understand that pedophilia is age, and homosexuality is same sex. Ignorance lumps the two together.





watcher said:


> But both are unnatural because neither allows for the continuation of the species.
> 
> And I still believe each, as well as other paraphilias, are mental disorders not just "alternative life styles".


Thank you for proving my point. 

I have only responded to thank you, I will not have any further discussion with you.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's nothing "unnatural" about anything humans do.
> I think lots of behaviors can be called "mental disorders"
> 
> Religious fanaticism would be one
> 
> Obsession with homosexuals would be another


Winner winner chicken dinner. :thumb:


----------



## Elevenpoint

Tricky Grama said:


> When the 2 are done by the same group, then intermingling is correct.
> In the case of the 81% of abuse, homosexuals did both. However, most abuse was of children over the age of 11.


Then there was the study of 129 incarcerated men for child molestation....they molested 11,007 boys for an average of 85 each. Which is just about right. Fantasy thinking is when you believe a man molest a boy and is caught the very first time every time.
An FBI expert on homosexual men molesting boys said they are the most prolific and persistent offenders.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's nothing "unnatural" about anything humans do.


You think having sex with a horse is natural?


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> Thank you for proving my point.
> 
> I have only responded to thank you, I will not have any further discussion with you.


Thank you for showing you have nothing to support you POV.


----------



## Txsteader

Heritagefarm said:


> All, but here is what it sounds like. Let's pretend I'm an atheist (I'm not), and that I have an atheist bible. (I don't think they do.) but it directs me to preach logic and pray to Socrates for your rationalism. The end goal is to convert you to atheism to save you from yourself.
> "I'm going to pray for you."
> Isn't that just the last bit insulting?


No. Why should it, if I don't share your beliefs? I certainly don't take it as condescending, but only that we believe differently.....certainly not that you are smarter than me or are a better person than me.

But that's the root of a lot of our (collective 'our') disagreements on this board; people who want to be offended by _everything_.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> Winner winner chicken dinner. :thumb:


I'm not obsessed with it any more than I am with orthopedic surgery, taxes, cooking, etc. but when the subject comes up I'm willing to get involved in the discussion and give my opinion and views.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> You think having sex with a horse is natural?


If it *happens* it's "natural", and bestiality has occurred throughout history

That's not always the same as "acceptable"


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> No. Why should it, if I don't share your beliefs? I certainly don't take it as *condescending*, but only that we believe differently.....certainly not that you are smarter than me or are a better person than me.
> 
> But that's *the root* of a lot of our (collective 'our') disagreements on this board; people who want to be offended by _everything_.


Those doing the "praying" quite often have just finished telling everyone "their way is better" and those being prayed for are "sick" or "perverts" who don't understand the error of their ways, and must be saved.

I think the "root" is that people won't just admit to their own behavior.

They purposely :stirpot: , then run brag about it on other sites like a bunch of middle school girls gossiping.


----------



## greg273

Tricky Grama said:


> When the 2 are done by the same group, then intermingling is correct.
> In the case of the 81% of abuse, homosexuals did both. However, most abuse was of children over the age of 11.


 You're still incorrect saying the problem is about gays, not pedophiles. The priests could be gay, and go about their busines, and not cause ANY problems. It is only when they start messing with kids it becomes a PROBLEM. So, the PROBLEM IS PEDOPHILES, NOT GAY PEOPLE. Get it right tricky. No amount of your wishing, and your obvious anti-gay attitude is going to change the facts on this.


----------



## greg273

watcher said:


> You think having sex with a horse is natural?


 Does that happen a lot where you're from??


----------



## Heritagefarm

Txsteader said:


> No. Why should it, if I don't share your beliefs? I certainly don't take it as condescending, but only that we believe differently.....certainly not that you are smarter than me or are a better person than me.
> 
> But that's the root of a lot of our (collective 'our') disagreements on this board; people who want to be offended by _everything_.


Then you have a good method of agreeing to disagree. 



watcher said:


> You think having sex with a horse is natural?





Bearfootfarm said:


> If it *happens* it's "natural", and bestiality has occurred throughout history
> 
> That's not always the same as "acceptable"


:runforhills::TFH::tmi::huh:


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> If it *happens* it's "natural", and bestiality has occurred throughout history
> 
> That's not always the same as "acceptable"


How many horses you have?


----------



## Irish Pixie

greg273 said:


> You're still incorrect saying the problem is about gays, not pedophiles. The priests could be gay, and go about their busines, and not cause ANY problems. It is only when they start messing with kids it becomes a PROBLEM. So, the PROBLEM IS PEDOPHILES, NOT GAY PEOPLE. Get it right tricky. No amount of your wishing, and your obvious anti-gay attitude is going to change the facts on this.


I wish I could like this more than once.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> I wish I could like this more than once.


Like it all you want...still won't make it true.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Heritagefarm said:


> Your incoherent rant shows how very little you know about the scientific method, statistics, math, or life.


I'm sorry you cannot understand the studies & research done but calling my post incoherent is pretty much showing your ignorance...

I could ask you what you have found on this subject that proves these studies in error or are you just content to toss insults at the messenger in typical fashion?

I could ask if you've logged any hours in the Gay community, assisting w/other healthcare professionals trying to help w/Aids epidemic? How many gays did you take care of who were ill, dying?

So, go ahead & tell me what you know about gay lifestyle, science, life.

I resent your remarks.


----------



## Tricky Grama

greg273 said:


> You're still incorrect saying the problem is about gays, not pedophiles. The priests could be gay, and go about their busines, and not cause ANY problems. It is only when they start messing with kids it becomes a PROBLEM. So, the PROBLEM IS PEDOPHILES, NOT GAY PEOPLE. Get it right tricky. No amount of your wishing, and your obvious anti-gay attitude is going to change the facts on this.


So you are going to disregard that 81% of the abuse was by gays? How do you justify that? Just ignore it? Or are you just going to call me names? I resent that b/c I'll bet the farm that I've done far more for gays that you ever thought of doing. It doesn't change the facts of the abuse. 
Seems most abusers were gay men, not "gay people", they didn't go on about their biz, they abused boys. I did not wish for anything Greg, get that right. Read something b/4 spouting.


----------



## Declan

Tricky Grama said:


> So you are going to disregard that 81% of the abuse was by gays? How do you justify that? Just ignore it? Or are you just going to call me names? I resent that b/c I'll bet the farm that I've done far more for gays that you ever thought of doing. It doesn't change the facts of the abuse.
> Seems most abusers were gay men, not "gay people", they didn't go on about their biz, they abused boys. I did not wish for anything Greg, get that right. Read something b/4 spouting.


Sorry, but 81% of what abuse? From what I have read and heard, but children who are victims of sexual abuse are victims of sexual abuse by a family member or someone else in their household.


----------



## greg273

Declan said:


> Sorry, but 81% of what abuse? From what I have read and heard, but children who are victims of sexual abuse are victims of sexual abuse by a family member or someone else in their household.


 She found a link that talked about priests... now she's stuck on this '81%' thing, as if that automatically means '81% of pedophiles are gay priests'.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Tricky Grama said:


> I'm sorry you cannot understand the studies & research done but calling my post incoherent is pretty much showing your ignorance...
> 
> I could ask you what you have found on this subject that proves these studies in error or are you just content to toss insults at the messenger in typical fashion?
> 
> I could ask if you've logged any hours in the Gay community, assisting w/other healthcare professionals trying to help w/Aids epidemic? How many gays did you take care of who were ill, dying?
> 
> So, go ahead & tell me what you know about gay lifestyle, science, life.
> 
> I resent your remarks.


I already provided a carefully formulated article written by a university professor. It details statistical anomalies, errors and biases inherent in and the difficulty of providing explanations based on aforementioned "research." It lists better methods and details the difficulty of proving with impirical research the link between pedophiles and gays. Since you didn't read it, and I did, it indicates that one of us is now much better equipped to understand the difficulties thus.


----------



## Txsteader

http://www.catholicleague.org/homosexuality-and-sexual-abuse/
emphasis mine


> The conventional wisdom maintains there is a pedophilia crisis in the Catholic Church. Popular as this position is, it is empirically wrong: the data show it has been a homosexual crisis all along. The evidence is not ambiguous, though there is a reluctance to let the data drive the conclusion. But that is a function of politics, not scholarship.
> 
> Alfred Kinsey was the first to identify a correlation between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of minors. In 1948, he found that 37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children under 17 years old. More recently, in organs such as the _Archives of Sexual Behavior, the Journal of Sex Research, the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, and Pediatrics_,* it has been established that homosexuals are disproportionately represented among child molesters*.





> After the _Boston Globe_ broke the story on priestly sexual abuse in 2002, the American bishops established an independent panel to study this issue. When the National Review Board released its findings in 2004, noted Washington attorney Robert S. Bennett, who headed the study, said, &#8220;There are no doubt many outstanding priests of a homosexual orientation who live chaste, celibate lives,* but any evaluation of the causes and context of the current crisis must be cognizant of the fact that more than 80 percent of the abuse at issue was of a homosexual nature.*&#8221;


----------



## Irish Pixie

Heritagefarm said:


> I already provided a carefully formulated article written by a university professor. It details statistical anomalies, errors and biases inherent in and the difficulty of providing explanations based on aforementioned "research." It lists better methods and details the difficulty of proving with impirical research the link between pedophiles and gays. Since you didn't read it, and I did, it indicates that one of us is now much better equipped to understand the difficulties thus.


They would much rather use obviously biased links, I mean really, why would the "catholic league" lie about pedophile priests? :facepalm:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> Like it all you want...still *won't make it true*.


You're correct.
Her "liking" it is not what makes it true.
Reality is what makes it true.


----------



## Heritagefarm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756



> Previous investigations have indicated that the ratio of sex offenders against female children vs. offenders against male children is approximately 2:1, while the ratio of gynephiles to androphiles among the general population is approximately 20:1. The present study investigated whether the etiology of preferred partner sex among pedophiles is related to the etiology of preferred partner sex among males preferring adult partners. Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately *11:1.* This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually. This, of course, *would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children.*


----------



## Declan

greg273 said:


> She found a link that talked about priests... now she's stuck on this '81%' thing, as if that automatically means '81% of pedophiles are gay priests'.


Well thanks for clearing that up. One of the problems in these conversations for me is that people use the word "pedophile" too loosely. Pedophiles technically are those who are attracted to prepubescent children. So far as I have heard, the priest cases have all involved pubescent or older minors. They probably work on two different psychological dynamics.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Tricky Grama said:


> So you are going to disregard that 81% of the abuse was by gays? *How do you justify that? Just ignore it?* Or are you just going to call me names? I resent that b/c I'll bet the farm that I've done far more for gays that you ever thought of doing. It doesn't change the facts of the abuse.
> Seems most abusers were gay men, not "gay people", they didn't go on about their biz, they abused boys. I did not wish for anything Greg, get that right. Read something b/4 spouting.


The same way you ignored Fordy's blatantly racist words, and then denied multiple times he said them ?

You should heed your own advice


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> Does that happen a lot where you're from??


It must because the government felt the need to make it illegal.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Heritagefarm said:


> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756


Thank you. Unbiased, science based fact. Folks, this is how it's done.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're correct.
> Her "liking" it is not what makes it true.
> Reality is what makes it true.


Oh no...CDC reports that 82% of syphilis cases are from homosexual men.
They got an axe to grind...don't they?
Yea that rainbow flag waving sanitized fun loving life is good..ain't it?
Keep going...then I'll trot out the truth of the rest of the std lifestyle..domestic abuse ..etc.
Go ahead...triple dog dare you.


----------



## farmrbrown

Maybe someone who sticks to just the facts, can explain this sentence from the last linked study?


*This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually. *


----------



## mreynolds

I'm not really understanding this line of debate. I admit I didn't read all of it though so there may be a reason. But was wondering out loud. Again. 

(y'all expect that from me right?)

How is a homosexual pedophile worse than one that's heterosexual? Aren't they equally as bad?


----------



## Declan

farmrbrown said:


> Maybe someone who sticks to just the facts, can explain this sentence from the last linked study?
> 
> 
> *This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually. *


My gut instinct is that some gays feel so alienated from their hetero peers that they abuse children because they think they can get away with it or because they find children more accepting and less judgmental about their sexuality since they have not gone through puberty yet and don't really have strong sexual desires themselves. Just a hunch that it is more a result of the environment they grew up in than their "gayness" for lack of a better word.


----------



## farmrbrown

mreynolds said:


> I'm not really understanding this line of debate. I admit I didn't read all of it though so there may be a reason. But was wondering out loud. Again.
> 
> (y'all expect that from me right?)
> 
> How is a homosexual pedophile worse than one that's heterosexual? Aren't they equally as bad?


Yes, they are equally bad.
As to the recent topic, the conflicting studies, it's a two part question/statement that is being debated.

1) There are numerically more heterosexual pedophiles than homosexual ones.
2) There are a higher number of pedophiles *proportionally*, in the homosexual population than the heterosexual population.

(Which is why I asked the previous question, to see if anyone else figured out why neither side wants to admit what the other sees.):cat fight:


----------



## mreynolds

Ok then, since you put it that way I'll stick a dog in this hunt then. Lets use the basis of logic and not emotion. 

Lets assume that both #1 and #2 are absolutely correct. Facts as we know them. Number 1 there are more heterosexual people in the world so it only stands to reason that they outnumber the homosexual pedophiles. This is common logic. 

Number 2 there are more proportionately homosexual pedophiles. Could this be that if you are hetero you don't have a problem telling lets say your friends, family and coworkers that you are? The hetero is easily counted. The homosexuals on the other hand don't always tell who they are. This could mean that maybe we don't have a proper count so the math may be off. 

But one is too many. Why wouldn't we just try and figure out what makes a pedophile tick instead. We are slinging mud and just losing ground here.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Irish Pixie said:


> Thank you. Unbiased, science based fact. Folks, this is how it's done.


Shhh. The secret might get out.



farmrbrown said:


> Maybe someone who sticks to just the facts, can explain this sentence from the last linked study?
> 
> 
> *This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually. *


It would seem to support Tricky's hypothesis, but the preceding 11:1 ratio seems backwards?



mreynolds said:


> I'm not really understanding this line of debate. I admit I didn't read all of it though so there may be a reason. But was wondering out loud. Again.
> 
> (y'all expect that from me right?)
> 
> How is a homosexual pedophile worse than one that's heterosexual? Aren't they equally as bad?


I would say so, which renders the original hypothesis invalid for any purpose. Most of the pedophiles were gay, according to one source. Maybe. Even if they were, what's it really prove? Seems like a red herring to me. Actually, more of a red whale.:facepalm:


----------



## farmrbrown

Heritagefarm said:


> It would seem to support Tricky's hypothesis, but the preceding 11:1 ratio seems backwards?


Yes it *seems* so, unless you eliminate the emotions from the math.
That was my point. The numbers aren't biased, but the comments about the studies are.
The logic of the numbers is what stood out to me.

It seems to me that both sides are trying to deny what the numbers clearly show. No one likes to admit the fact that someone they know, trusted, friends with, or part of their social group is a child predator. That ultimately distracts from the simple truth that children are being harmed.


----------



## greg273

farmrbrown said:


> Maybe someone who sticks to just the facts, can explain this sentence from the last linked study?
> 
> 
> This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually*. *


 You left out the next sentence...



> This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children.


----------



## greg273

Tricky Grama said:


> So you are going to disregard that 81% of the abuse was by gays?


 It was done by gay PEDOPHILES. HOw many times does it have to be said? Being gay doesn't make one a pedophile, nor '81% likely' to BE a pedophile, nor a 'beastiophile' or whatever else goes on in the overheated imaginations of the outspoken anti-gay crowd.


----------



## Heritagefarm

greg273 said:


> You left out the next sentence...


Quite right. 

Folks, I think we need a basic stats lesson. 
Exhibit A: a grey elephant. 
Exhibit B: a grey sculpture. 
Hence: all elephants are grey things, but not all grey things are elephants. 
I lied. That was a logic lesson. 
If pedophiles are mostly gay, it does not correlate to gays being pedophiles. All it means is that pedophiles are more likely to be gay!!


----------



## Elevenpoint

greg273 said:


> It was done by gay PEDOPHILES. HOw many times does it have to be said? Being gay doesn't make one a pedophile, nor '81% likely' to BE a pedophile, nor a 'beastiophile' or whatever else goes on in the overheated imaginations of the outspoken anti-gay crowd.


Get real...has nothing to to with an anti gay crowd.
Has to do with reality.
All the LGBT crowd wants to paint the lifestyle as oh so good.
Nope.
Nothing but dark.
Period.


----------



## greg273

elevenpoint said:


> All the LGBT crowd wants to paint the lifestyle as oh so good.
> .


 NO, what they are saying is 'This is who we are, the days of hiding are over'. And if that offends your puritanical sensibilites, so be it. Why should anyone who is not harming others be ashamed of who they are? 
And its not 'a lifestyle', its who they are. Again, if you don't like it, it your problem, not thiers.


----------



## Txsteader

Elffriend said:


> I mentioned to my DD that I made that post last night and she said that 2 Spirit is more commonly added in Canada than in the U.S., which I didn't know.
> 
> It IS about being inclusive.


Inclusive in _what_??? Labeling oneself according to one's sexual preference? For what purpose? 

Just like your daughter saying that she's not sexually attracted to anyone. What purpose does that serve? What benefit or advantage does it provide her to make that designation about herself? Is she so lacking in self-confidence that she feels the need to explain her sexuality to others??? That she only 'fits in' by labeling herself????

Why should she care what anyone else thinks, particularly about something as (what used to be) private as sexuality.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Declan said:


> Sorry, but 81% of what abuse? From what I have read and heard, but children who are victims of sexual abuse are victims of sexual abuse by a family member or someone else in their household.


You're correct there. 
I'm speaking of the abuse of minors by gay priests in the Catholic Church. Heterosexual priests abused also but 80.9% of that abuse was by gay men. They were far more likely to abuse the 11-17 age group. Those ages composed the majority of cases.


----------



## Tricky Grama

greg273 said:


> She found a link that talked about priests... now she's stuck on this '81%' thing, as if that automatically means '81% of pedophiles are gay priests'.


You couldn't be more wrong. If you'd like to educate yourself, read a link or 2 in that thread.
There were thousands of abuses by priests in the Catholic Church. What they found is, most of the abuse was on 11-17 y/o boys. And 80.9% of the entire group who were abused, were abused by gay men.
If you have links proving otherwise, please post. 
Otherwise you're just rambling...


----------



## Tricky Grama

Heritagefarm said:


> I already provided a carefully formulated article written by a university professor. It details statistical anomalies, errors and biases inherent in and the difficulty of providing explanations based on aforementioned "research." It lists better methods and details the difficulty of proving with impirical research the link between pedophiles and gays. Since you didn't read it, and I did, it indicates that one of us is now much better equipped to understand the difficulties thus.


Ok, one article...doesn't seem to counter any of the research on the churches abuse problem.
But it did give you an opportunity to insult, huh.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> They would much rather use obviously biased links, I mean really, why would the "catholic league" lie about pedophile priests? :facepalm:


Hmmmm, wiki? And many others.
I can see there's an element here who are like the 3 symbols-see no evil, speak no evil...


----------



## Tricky Grama

Heritagefarm said:


> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756


So, is this a study of priests' abuse?


----------



## Tricky Grama

mreynolds said:


> I'm not really understanding this line of debate. I admit I didn't read all of it though so there may be a reason. But was wondering out loud. Again.
> 
> (y'all expect that from me right?)
> 
> How is a homosexual pedophile worse than one that's heterosexual? Aren't they equally as bad?


Absolutely! I never said otherwise.
But it does appear that some don't believe gays are capable of pedophilia at all. They keep defending...the links are all there in the other thread-but those links deal w/the abuse in the Catholic Church. I don't recall reading in any of those a correlation to 'outside' life.


----------



## Tricky Grama

greg273 said:


> It was done by gay PEDOPHILES. HOw many times does it have to be said? Being gay doesn't make one a pedophile, nor '81% likely' to BE a pedophile, nor a 'beastiophile' or whatever else goes on in the overheated imaginations of the outspoken anti-gay crowd.


Again, you do not get to make up the definition of pedophile. How many times does that need to be said?
Seems all you can think about is pedophilia in the church when the vast majority of abuse was on children older than the definition of pedophilia.
Being gay of course does not make one a pedophile. Who said that?


----------



## Declan

Tricky Grama said:


> You're correct there.
> I'm speaking of the abuse of minors by gay priests in the Catholic Church. Heterosexual priests abused also but 80.9% of that abuse was by gay men. They were far more likely to abuse the 11-17 age group. Those ages composed the majority of cases.


Okay, but the Catholic Church may not be the best example. From what I know of it, unless things change, the alter boys are boys. If they were all alter girls then the numbers might have reversed themselves. Has to do some with the opportunity to offend I would think, and there would be more opportunities with the boys.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> Absolutely! I never said otherwise.
> But it does appear that some don't believe gays are capable of pedophilia at all. They keep defending...the links are all there in the other thread-but those links deal w/the abuse in the Catholic Church. I don't recall reading in any of those a correlation to 'outside' life.


Of course gays are capable of pedophilia. You insinuating that as a truth is absolute rubbish because no one has ever said such a thing on this board. 

The problem with the church and pedophilia is the cover up. There would have been significantly less molested children if the church had admitted there was a problem instead of transferring pedophile priests to other diocese to molest even more children. 

All pedophiles are sexually attracted to children, some pedophiles are homosexual, that does not mean all homosexuals are pedophiles. That's a fact. 

Some pedophiles do not care the sex of the children they molest as it's more about age to them than male or female. Some pedophiles have a preference- even if they molest same sex children they are still pedophiles, they might be homosexual as well. 

There has been good information linked in this thread, I suggest you read it.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Declan said:


> Okay, but the Catholic Church may not be the best example. From what I know of it, unless things change, the alter boys are boys. If they were all alter girls then the numbers might have reversed themselves. Has to do some with the opportunity to offend I would think, and there would be more opportunities with the boys.


There have been altar girls for at least the last 30 years.


----------



## farmrbrown

greg273 said:


> You left out the next sentence...


Yes, I intentionally left that out the exact same way Heritage and Pixie did their quotes to deny the stated conclusion - or to prevent showing an obviously conflicted conclusion.
There is no way possible BOTH those statements can be true unless you decipher the raw data and assign **** and heterosexuality to the study subjects, AND figure out what the scientific mumbo jumbo is actually trying to say in plain language.

I had to look up those two terms (gynephiles and androphiles) before I could understand the sentence. That line has to do with attraction to male or female, not the sex of the person that is attracted.
If you perceive incorrectly that it DOES, then you come to the opposite conclusion of the sentence I highlighted.
Either that or the two sentences are in absolute conflict and therefore you can dismiss the study as being valid at all.

Again, the study isn't biased, but the comments made about it are.


----------



## mreynolds

farmrbrown said:


> Yes, I intentionally left that out the exact same way Heritage and Pixie did their quotes to deny the stated conclusion - or to prevent showing an obviously conflicted conclusion.
> There is no way possible BOTH those statements can be true unless you decipher the raw data and assign **** and heterosexuality to the study subjects, AND figure out what the scientific mumbo jumbo is actually trying to say in plain language.
> 
> I had to look up those two terms before I could understand the sentence. That last line has to do with attraction to male or female and nothing to do with the sex of the person's attraction.
> If you perceive incorrectly that it DOES, then you come to the opposite conclusion of the sentence I highlighted.
> 
> Again, the study isn't biased, but the comments made about it are.


Yessir. You cant build a house with a half load shy of bricks. It never works out.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Tricky Grama said:


> Ok, one article...doesn't seem to counter any of the research on the churches abuse problem.
> But it did give you an opportunity to insult, huh.


Pot calling the kettle black here. 



Txsteader said:


> Inclusive in _what_??? Labeling oneself according to one's sexual preference? For what purpose?
> 
> Just like your daughter saying that she's not sexually attracted to anyone. What purpose does that serve? What benefit or advantage does it provide her to make that designation about herself? Is she so lacking in self-confidence that she feels the need to explain her sexuality to others??? That she only 'fits in' by labeling herself????
> 
> Why should she care what anyone else thinks, particularly about something as (what used to be) private as sexuality.


Labels help other, more narrowminded people understand each other. Especially since many try to discriminate against people with those labels, regardless of whether there's a good reason or not.



Tricky Grama said:


> So, is this a study of priests' abuse?


That would be your pet project. The Burden of Proof is on you to show why those numbers are even important in the first place. "Male preists molesting male children are homosexuals." Duh!




farmrbrown said:


> Yes, I intentionally left that out the exact same way Heritage and Pixie did their quotes to deny the stated conclusion - or to prevent showing an obviously conflicted conclusion.
> There is no way possible BOTH those statements can be true unless you decipher the raw data and assign **** and heterosexuality to the study subjects, AND figure out what the scientific mumbo jumbo is actually trying to say in plain language.
> 
> I had to look up those two terms (gynephiles and androphiles) before I could understand the sentence. That line has to do with attraction to male or female, not the sex of the person that is attracted.
> If you perceive incorrectly that it DOES, then you come to the opposite conclusion of the sentence I highlighted.
> Either that or the two sentences are in absolute conflict and therefore you can dismiss the study as being valid at all.
> 
> Again, the study isn't biased, but the comments made about it are.


The last line demonstated my original point just fine, I think.


----------



## painterswife

Sexual orientation does not make you more predisposed to be a sex offender. It is a simple concept that some don't want to acknowledge.


----------



## Tricky Grama

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases


Cases of child sexual abuse crimes (and subsequent cover-ups) committed in the 20th and 21st centuries by Catholic priests, nuns, and members of Roman Catholic orders have led to numerous allegations, investigations, trials and convictions. The abused include boys and girls, some as young as 3 years old, with the majority between the ages of 11 and 14.[1][2][3][4] The accusations began to receive wide publicity in the late 1980s. Many relate to cases in which a figure was accused of abuse for decades; such allegations were frequently made by adults or older youths years after the abuse occurred. Cases have also been brought against members of the Catholic hierarchy who covered up sex abuse allegations, moving allegedly abusive priests to other parishes, where abuse sometimes continued.[5][6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_on_the_causes_of_clerical_child_abuse


In Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity: The Journal of Treatment and Prevention, Cimbolic & Cartor (2006) noted that because of the large share of post-pubescent male minors among cleric victims there is need to further study the differential variables related to ephebophile versus pedophile offenders.[11] Cartor, Cimbolic & Tallon (2008) found that 6 percent of the cleric offenders in the John Jay Report are pedophiles; 32 percent ephebophiles, 15 percent 11 & 12 year olds only (both male and female), 20 percent indiscriminate, and 27 percent mildly indiscriminate.[12] They also found distinct differences between the pedophile and ephebophile groups. They reported that there may be &#8220;another group of offenders who are more indiscriminate in victim choice and represent a more heterogeneous, but still a distinct offender category&#8221; and suggested further research to determine &#8220;specific variables that are unique to this group and can differentiate these offenders from pedophile and ephebophile offenders&#8221; so as to improve the identification and treatment of both offenders and victims.[12]

http://www.catholicleague.org/homosexuality-and-sexual-abuse/

http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/...e-would-not-have-happened-without-homosexuals

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2010/04/02/expert-donohues-claim-that-most-abusive-priests/162640

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Spirituality/gay-priests-problem/story?id=10381964

Of about 3,000 reported cases of sexual misconduct among priests committed in the past 50 years, only 300, or 10 percent, of those cases involved true pedophiles. Pedophilia is psychologically classified as sexual attraction to prepubescent children, younger than 13. Ninety percent of the reported abuse cases involved Roman Catholic priests classified as ephebophiles, those attracted to teens between 13 and 19. Of those reported cases, 60 percent were homosexual abuse and 30 percent heterosexual abuse, according to the 2004 John Jay Report commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/feb/27/20040227-111236-5901r/?page=all
Eighty-one percent of sex crimes committed against children by Roman Catholic priests during the past 52 years were homosexual men preying on boys, according to a comprehensive study released yesterday on the church&#8217;s sex abuse crisis.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Tricky Grama said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases
> 
> 
> Cases of child sexual abuse crimes (and subsequent cover-ups) committed in the 20th and 21st centuries by Catholic priests, nuns, and members of Roman Catholic orders have led to numerous allegations, investigations, trials and convictions. The abused include boys and girls, some as young as 3 years old, with the majority between the ages of 11 and 14.[1][2][3][4] The accusations began to receive wide publicity in the late 1980s. Many relate to cases in which a figure was accused of abuse for decades; such allegations were frequently made by adults or older youths years after the abuse occurred. Cases have also been brought against members of the Catholic hierarchy who covered up sex abuse allegations, moving allegedly abusive priests to other parishes, where abuse sometimes continued.[5][6]
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_on_the_causes_of_clerical_child_abuse
> 
> 
> In Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity: The Journal of Treatment and Prevention, Cimbolic & Cartor (2006) noted that because of the large share of post-pubescent male minors among cleric victims there is need to further study the differential variables related to ephebophile versus pedophile offenders.[11] Cartor, Cimbolic & Tallon (2008) found that 6 percent of the cleric offenders in the John Jay Report are pedophiles; 32 percent ephebophiles, 15 percent 11 & 12 year olds only (both male and female), 20 percent indiscriminate, and 27 percent mildly indiscriminate.[12] They also found distinct differences between the pedophile and ephebophile groups. They reported that there may be âanother group of offenders who are more indiscriminate in victim choice and represent a more heterogeneous, but still a distinct offender categoryâ and suggested further research to determine âspecific variables that are unique to this group and can differentiate these offenders from pedophile and ephebophile offendersâ so as to improve the identification and treatment of both offenders and victims.[12]
> 
> http://www.catholicleague.org/homosexuality-and-sexual-abuse/
> 
> http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/...e-would-not-have-happened-without-homosexuals
> 
> http://mediamatters.org/blog/2010/04/02/expert-donohues-claim-that-most-abusive-priests/162640
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Spirituality/gay-priests-problem/story?id=10381964
> 
> Of about 3,000 reported cases of sexual misconduct among priests committed in the past 50 years, only 300, or 10 percent, of those cases involved true pedophiles. Pedophilia is psychologically classified as sexual attraction to prepubescent children, younger than 13. Ninety percent of the reported abuse cases involved Roman Catholic priests classified as ephebophiles, those attracted to teens between 13 and 19. Of those reported cases, 60 percent were homosexual abuse and 30 percent heterosexual abuse, according to the 2004 John Jay Report commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
> 
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/feb/27/20040227-111236-5901r/?page=all
> Eighty-one percent of sex crimes committed against children by Roman Catholic priests during the past 52 years were homosexual men preying on boys, according to a comprehensive study released yesterday on the churchâs sex abuse crisis.


No one's arguing with your pet statistic, I don't think. What we are arguing is what you're trying to gain from it. So far, you've done nothing to show it has any meaning beyond the simple fact that the catholic preists were mostly gay. Correlation does not show causation, i.e., the cum hoc ergo proptere hoc logical fallacy. Since your argument doesn't show it's validity, it also a red herring - which isn't a logical fallacy so much as, I believe, inability.

From your 6th ABC link:



> To link homosexuality and pedophilia (or ephebophilia) is obviously *erroneous, uninformed and irresponsible. *Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Pedophilia and ephebophilia are sexual disorders that afflict both heterosexuals and homosexuals, and mostly heterosexuals.


From your 5th mediamatter link:



> But in an interview with Media Matters, Margaret Smith -- a John Jay College criminologist who worked on the 2004 study -- said that while Donohue "quoted the study's data correctly," he "drew an unwarranted conclusion" in asserting that most of the abusers were gay.


Your own links are refuting your point, whatever that is. You should vet your articles first, before assuming people like me won't read them.


----------



## Tricky Grama

I posted a bunch of links coming to a bunch of conclusions. My point in all of this, as I stated several times, is b/c there's some anti-Christians here (I used that b/c many have said that conservatives are anti-gay, so it must be fair) who seem to relish in the catholic church's problem of abuse & bring it up frequently when religion is a topic.

Most of the reliable conclusions state that 80.9% of the abuse IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH was by gay men. Certainly doesn't let them off the hook by any means. The cover up was almost as bad as the abuse itself. But facts remain, if the seminaries had done their job, most could've been prevented...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky Grama View Post
Ok, one article...doesn't seem to counter any of the research on the churches abuse problem.
But it did give you an opportunity to insult, huh.

Pot calling the kettle black here. 

Really? You were pretty full of insults in an earlier post.
"Your incoherent rant shows how very little you know about the scientific method, statistics, math, or life." Your post #804, I believe.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> I posted a bunch of links coming to a bunch of conclusions. My point in all of this, as I stated several times, is b/c there's some anti-Christians here (I used that b/c many have said that conservatives are anti-gay, so it must be fair) who seem to relish in the catholic church's problem of abuse & bring it up frequently when religion is a topic.
> 
> Most of the reliable conclusions state that 80.9% of the abuse IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH was by gay men. Certainly doesn't let them off the hook by any means. The cover up was almost as bad as the abuse itself.


So you are trying to say what? 

You don't like that people here talk about the catholic churches sex abuse problems and because some of those people are not Christian you are going to try to make an erroneous point to get back at them? That is what I get from your thread and posts.


----------



## Tricky Grama

And you'd be wrong.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> And you'd be wrong.


If I am wrong then just maybe your assumptions about HT members are wrong.


----------



## greg273

Tricky Grama said:


> Most of the reliable conclusions state that 80.9% of the abuse IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH was by gay men. .


 And *100%* of it was done by *pedophiles* or 'ephebophiles'.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Tricky Grama said:


> And you'd be wrong.


Not sure you're qualified to say anyone is wrong. You seem to have a great deal of trouble reading and processing what is in posts. As evidenced by your posts to me regarding the Fordy post in the "Is This Nation Too Far Gone" thread. I think you owe me an apology. I'm sure hell will freeze over first.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> And you'd be wrong.


Okay this is interesting. I was sent this bit of info anonymously by someone that is a member of another forum that you Tricky must be a member of. This is what they said you posted.

"Well, I certainly succumbed. Sick & tired of pixie bring up catholic priests' abuse while defending gays. Turns out, the churches problem is homosexual priests, not pedophiles...except for the homosexuals who were BOTH! 81% of abuse came from homosexual priests!
So, I posted a batch of links. So what do you think happened? 
Yup-I'm attacked!
BWhahaha!"

Want to share what forum you are posting this stuff on? I would love to visit and see what else you are saying.

Seems like this thread is a all about Pixie and what she posts.


----------



## Heritagefarm

That's low. I would never talk about a poster, clear on another forum, behind their back. never. And you have the audaity to tell me I'M insulting?!


----------



## painterswife

I have no problem with anyone talking about me at other forums. I have done the same.

It is the reason for the thread and then denying it I find a problem.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> Oh no...CDC reports that* 82%* of syphilis cases are from homosexual men.
> They got an axe to grind...don't they?
> Yea that rainbow flag waving sanitized fun loving life is good..ain't it?
> Keep going...then I'll trot out the truth of the rest of the std lifestyle..domestic abuse ..etc.
> Go ahead...triple dog dare you.


You're mistaken about that number, but feel free to "trot out" any "truth" you can.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Tricky Grama said:


> You're correct there.
> I'm speaking of the abuse of minors by gay priests in the Catholic Church. Heterosexual priests abused also but 80.9% of that abuse was by gay men. *They were far more likely to abuse the 11-17 age group*. Those ages composed the majority of cases.


It still mainly proves Catholic priests are highly likely to be gay.
The age range is beyond that which fits the definition of "pedophile", although I see you changed your terminology to "minors" to get around that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

painterswife said:


> So you are trying to say what?
> 
> You don't like that people here talk about the catholic churches sex abuse problems and because some of those people are not Christian you are going to try to make an erroneous point to get back at them? That is what I get from your thread and posts.


She doesn't like people mentioning Catholic priests and sex abuse, so she started a thread about Catholic priests and sex abuse to get even.

Or at least that seems to be her "logic"


----------



## Heritagefarm

Bearfootfarm said:


> It still mainly proves Catholic priests are highly likely to be gay.
> The age range is beyond that which fits the definition of "pedophile", although I see you changed your terminology to "minors" to get around that.


pedophile generically refers to a sexual attraction to children. that includes minors


----------



## farmrbrown

mreynolds said:


> Yessir. You cant build a house with a half load shy of bricks. It never works out.


:thumb:




Heritagefarm said:


> The last line demonstated my original point just fine, I think.


Yes, the last line does.
The next to last line says completely the opposite.
Which one is true?

*This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually. This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children.*


----------



## Txsteader

Heritagefarm said:


> That's low. I would never talk about a poster, clear on another forum, behind their back. never. And you have the audaity to tell me I'M insulting?!


Oh, please. The same thing has been done on another forum by the ones who are making the accusations now. Just saying.

ETA: I see at least PW is mature enough to admit it.


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> Oh, please. The same thing has been done on another forum by the ones who are making the accusations now. Just saying.
> 
> ETA: I see at least PW is mature enough to admit it.


I have never denied it. I am the only one who made any accusations. I have been very up front about participation in other forums. That however is not a problem. I do find it bizarre that tricky admits that she is doing it on purpose to get back at a Pixie on another forum and then denies it here.


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> I have never denied it. I am the only one who made any accusations. I have been very up front about participation in other forums. That however is not a problem. *I do find it bizarre that tricky admits that she is doing it on purpose to get back at a Pixie on another forum and then denies it here.*


Unless I've missed something, I don't perceive it as, or see where she admits that she's 'doing it on purpose trying to get back at Pixie'. From what I've read, she's merely refuting claims made in this thread.


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> Unless I've missed something, I don't perceive it as, or see where she admits that she's 'doing it on purpose trying to get back at Pixie'. From what I've read, she's merely refuting claims made in this thread.


Actually she says she posted the thread because she is sick and tired of of what Pixie posts so she started a thread about gay catholic priests. Pretty clear.


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> Actually she says she posted the thread because sick and tired of of what Pixie posts so she started a thread about gay catholic priests. Pretty clear.


Well, she's entitled to her opinion. She's also entitled to post her opinions here, is she not? Even if it is refute what someone else has posted? 

How, exactly, does one send a message or email anonymously? Want to fess up as to who did it?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Heritagefarm said:


> pedophile generically refers to a sexual attraction to children. that includes minors


Tricky's *link* said the cut-off age for "pedophile" was 11
Minors can be anyone under 21 in some cases and 18 in others


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> Unless I've missed something, I don't perceive it as, or see where she admits that she's '*doing it on purpose trying to get back at Pixie'*. From what I've read, she's merely refuting claims made in this thread.


You should read it again if that's what you think.



> Sick & tired of pixie bring up catholic priests' abuse while defending gays.


Seems pretty clear to me


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> Well, she's entitled to her opinion. She's also entitled to post her opinions here, is she not? Even if it is refute what someone else has posted?
> 
> How, exactly, does one send a message or email anonymously? Want to fess up as to who did it?


She is more than welcome to share her opinions. Not being honest about her motives is kind of crappy. 

I received an pm from someone that is a member of a forum but has never posted. I messaged them back but they have not responded to me. I suspect they don't want me to know who they are. Maybe they suspect I just might fess up and they would get called out by their friends.


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> She is more than welcome to share her opinions. Not being honest about her motives is kind of crappy.
> 
> I received an pm from someone that is a member of a forum but has never posted. I messaged them back but they have not responded to me. I suspect they don't want me to know who they are. Maybe they suspect I just might fess up and they would get called out by their friends.


And you trust that this 'anonymous' person is telling you the truth about what was said?


----------



## Lisa in WA

Txsteader said:


> And you trust that this 'anonymous' person is telling you the truth about what was said?


Are you saying it's not true?


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> And you trust that this 'anonymous' person is telling you the truth about what was said?


They gave me a screen shot with her name and a time stamp on it. I don't know what forum it is from so I have no proof other than what looks to me like Tricky's own words. If it is a fake it is excellent work because they write, use punctuation and words just like she does. That and it describes perfectly the thread.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> And you trust that this 'anonymous' person is telling you the truth about what was said?


Why don't you ask Tricky if it's real?


----------



## Txsteader

basketti said:


> Are you saying it's not true?





Bearfootfarm said:


> Why don't you ask Tricky if it's real?


Goodness, did I kick a hornet's nest?

No, I'm not saying that it's not true. But I am having a hard time believing that PW received an email from an 'anonymous' sender who, coincidentally, is reporting something said on another board that has nothing to do w/ her. I can't help but wonder why.

Regardless, it shouldn't be difficult to figure out which member it is, that joined but never posted on the other site.


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> Goodness, did I kick a hornet's nest?
> 
> No, I'm not saying that it's not true. But I am having a hard time believing that PW received an email from an 'anonymous' sender who, coincidentally, is reporting something said on another board that has nothing to do w/ her. I can't help but wonder why.
> 
> Regardless, it shouldn't be difficult to figure out which member it is, that joined but never posted on the other site.


Are you a member of the site that Tricky posted this on? I am not because I would have read it for myself. Thanks for confirming that it is true though. Otherwise you would not be trying to figure out who the person is that has registered but not posted on the site it was posted on. PS if I am not on the site then I was not PM'd the info on that site and the person who PM'd me could be the most prolific poster for all I know.


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> Are you a member of the site that Tricky posted this on? I am not because I would have read it for myself. Thanks for confirming that it is true though. Otherwise you would not be trying to figure out who the person is that has registered but not posted on the site it was posted on. PS if I am not on the site then I was not PM'd the info on that site and the person who PM'd me could be the most prolific poster for all I know.


Whoever it is, they're not very nice as they're intentionally :stirpot: on this site.

:nono:


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> Whoever it is, they're not very nice as they're intentionally :stirpot: on this site.
> 
> :nono:


Would you say that about Tricky? I would say that her post here was doing the same thing after seeing what she posted elsewhere.


----------



## RichNC

painterswife said:


> Are you a member of the site that Tricky posted this on? I am not because I would have read it for myself. Thanks for confirming that it is true though. Otherwise you would not be trying to figure out who the person is that has registered but not posted on the site it was posted on. PS if I am not on the site then I was not PM'd the info on that site and the person who PM'd me could be the most prolific poster for all I know.


Ma'am, unless someone is using the same user name as you use here, you were just on that site you pretend not to know about about an hour or so ago.


----------



## roadless

My goodness some of you folks really take this stuff seriously. 
In the big picture does it really matter what random strangers say or don't say about you?
We all know who we are regardless. 
The way I view it is what folks say about another tells me a whole lot more about them than who they are talking about.
Not that any of this stuff is related to the OP ; )


----------



## painterswife

RichNC said:


> Ma'am, unless someone is using the same user name as you use here, you were just on that site you pretend not to know about about an hour or so ago.


What site was that? I have not found the post by Tricky on any of the sites I am on. So you have seen the post. What site is it?


----------



## Heritagefarm

Txsteader said:


> Oh, please. The same thing has been done on another forum by the ones who are making the accusations now. Just saying.
> 
> ETA: I see at least PW is mature enough to admit it.


I don't talk about people behind their backs on other forums. What you say to me, and what I say to you, stays on this forum. Doesn't that make you feel better? Sure, Google can parse it, but who else wants to read this? 



Bearfootfarm said:


> Tricky's *link* said the cut-off age for "pedophile" was 11
> Minors can be anyone under 21 in some cases and 18 in others


Hmm... I'm under the impression pedophilia is attraction to children, which could include minors. I'd say the cutoff would be 18.


----------



## painterswife

roadless said:


> My goodness some of you folks really take this stuff seriously.
> In the big picture does it really matter what random strangers say or don't say about you?
> We all know who we are regardless.
> The way I view it is what folks say about another tells me a whole lot more about them than who they are talking about.
> Not that any of this stuff is related to the OP ; )


Looks like what tricky said is reality. Two people here on HT have confirmed it.


----------



## roadless

Did I confirm something? :shrug:

All I can confirm is that I am cozy on my couch enjoying my Saturday night.
I was speaking in generalities.


----------



## painterswife

roadless said:


> Did I confirm something? :shrug:
> 
> All I can confirm is that I am cozy on my couch enjoying my Saturday night.


No Txsteader and RichNC did


----------



## roadless

Oh, ok.thanks


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> Looks like what tricky said is reality. Two people here on HT have confirmed it.


What she did was start a separate thread on the subject. She didn't direct it at anyone here, name anyone here, attack anyone here or disparage anyone here. 

Why does it bother you (and apparently others) that she posted about it another site???

And your anonymous informant is a trouble=making coward. Just sayin'.


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> What she did was start a separate thread on the subject. She didn't direct it at anyone here, name anyone here, attack anyone here or disparage anyone here.
> 
> Why does it bother you (and apparently others) that she posted about it another site???
> 
> And your anonymous informant is a trouble=making coward. Just sayin'.


Yes that person is a trouble maker.  I guess that they thought that Tricky was being a trouble maker first and did not like it. She made the post because of Pixie so it was directed at someone here. She should admit it here.


----------



## oneraddad

I thought that's what this place was all about, each side posting something hoping to outrage the other ?


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're mistaken about that number, but feel free to "trot out" any "truth" you can.


I was wrong...it's 83%. That's on the CDC website. Gay bisexual and men that have sex with other men are responsible for 83% of primary and secondary cases in 2014.
Quit lying.
Try not to be a disrespecful punk.
In real life you would get cracked in the mouth by just about anyone.
Now report the post crybaby.


----------

