# Alabama SC rejects USSC definition of marriage



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Good for Alabama. It's past time for states to stand up for their rights.

http://www.lc.org/newsroom/details/alabama-supreme-court-rejects-u-s-supreme-courts-marriage-opinion


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Are you really sure? That is not the one I read or that was reported earlier today in the following thread.

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/sp...9261-al-supreme-court-rules-gay-marriage.html

"The ruling said while the court may not agree with the Supreme Court's decision last spring, there is no legal way around it."


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Another news link.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-supreme-court-concedes-on-same-sex-marriage/

"The Alabama Supreme Court, which has been a high-profile holdout opposing same-sex marriage since the U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay unions nationally last year, on Friday d*ismissed a set of petitions filed by conservatives who want the stateâs ban on gay unions enforced*."


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

poppy said:


> Good for Alabama. It's past time for states to stand up for their rights.
> 
> http://www.lc.org/newsroom/details/alabama-supreme-court-rejects-u-s-supreme-courts-marriage-opinion


They can stand up, sit down, jump up or turn around, but they still are legally bound by the USSC decisions

Your own link says the petitions were all dismissed
You have to read beyond the hype and spin

http://lc.org//PDFs/030416OrderDismissingPetitionsandMotionswConcurrence.pdf


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

painterswife said:


> "The ruling said while the court may not agree with the Supreme Court's decision last spring, there is no legal way around it."


I'm afraid that's the reality of it.


----------



## rickpaul (Jan 10, 2013)

..That`s ok, the time is commin when they`ll have to bow their knee before Jesus an answer for this.......


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

rickpaul said:


> ..That`s ok, the time is commin when they`ll have to bow their knee before Jesus an answer for this.......


As if God is going to be angry that gay couples can inherit SS & Medicare benefits.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

painterswife said:


> Are you really sure? That is not the one I read or that was reported earlier today in the following thread.
> 
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/sp...9261-al-supreme-court-rules-gay-marriage.html
> 
> "The ruling said while the court may not agree with the Supreme Court's decision last spring, there is no legal way around it."





painterswife said:


> Another news link.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-supreme-court-concedes-on-same-sex-marriage/
> 
> "The Alabama Supreme Court, which has been a high-profile holdout opposing same-sex marriage since the U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay unions nationally last year, on Friday d*ismissed a set of petitions filed by conservatives who want the state&#8217;s ban on gay unions enforced*."




Unfortunately, the news reports on this decision either didn't read it, didn't understand it or thought they could misreport it and no one would know......

http://lc.org//PDFs/030416OrderDismissingPetitionsandMotionswConcurrence.pdf

That's the ruling.
Petitions WERE dismissed. If you read the petitions that were filed, they were from probate and county courts asking for clarification on conflicting orders from higher courts.

The county courts were told to stop not issue same sex marriage licenses. An Alabama Judge then gave them the OPPOSITE order. The petitions filed asks basically, "Which one do we follow?"
Among those petitions filed was one by Liberty Council asking the Alabama Supreme Court to enforce Alabama's constitution and law, specifically banning gay marriages.
So yes, that petition and the others were dismissed friday.........because the AL SC made it's ruling.
The ban is still in effect until further notice.


If in doubt, read page 12 of the ruling in above link.




*On June 26, 2015, by a bare 5-4 majority, the United States Supreme Court declared that all states must now recognize a fundamental right to "same-sex marriage." Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015). Because the Alabama Supreme Court had previously issued orders in this case directing the probate judges of this State not to issue marriage licenses to couples of the same sex, the Court requested briefing on the effect of Obergefell on those orders. See Ex parte State ex rel. Alabama Policy Inst., [Ms. 1140460, March 3, March 10, & March 12, 2015] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. 2015). Today this Court by order dismisses all pending motions and petitions and issues the certificate of judgment in this case. That action does not disturb the existing March orders in this case or the Court's holding therein that the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment, art. I, Â§ 36.03, Ala. Const. 1901, and the Alabama Marriage Protection Act, Â§ 30-1-9, Ala. Code 1975, are constitutional. Therefore, and for the reasons stated below, I concur with the order.*


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

"The petition sought
a writ of mandamus "directed to each Respondent judge of
probate, commanding each judge not to issue marriage licenses
to same-sex couples and not to recognize any marriage licenses
issued to same-sex couples.""

This us directly from the ruling. This is what was struck down.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

painterswife said:


> "The petition sought
> a writ of mandamus "directed to each Respondent judge of
> probate, commanding each judge not to issue marriage licenses
> to same-sex couples and not to recognize any marriage licenses
> ...


That is correct, the dismissal of that petition was because the AL SC has an order not to issue licenses for gay marriages already in effect. That's the part in bold I quoted from Friday's decision.
See link below.
https://www.liberty.edu/media/9980/...for_Clarification_and_Reaffirmation_FINAL.PDF
If the Court is already prohibiting county courts from issuing the license and they already ruled the ban constitutional under Alabama law, there's no need to hear the petition asking them to do what they've already done. 
That's the part that the news reports either didn't see or didn't want to see.
Yes, it was dismissed because nothing has changed.
If you read the rest of the 170 pages, it is clear they reject the SCOTUS authority to regulate a state license. The Alabama Supreme Court said if they want to issue FEDERAL marriage licenses, go ahead.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

They reject the petitions to enforce that law. They want to uphold Alabama's law but they can't. The Supreme Court of the US ruling stands and Same sex marriage in Alabama is legal.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> That is correct, the dismissal of that petition was because the AL SC has an order not to issue licenses for gay marriages already in effect. That's the part in bold I quoted from Friday's decision.
> See link below.
> https://www.liberty.edu/media/9980/...for_Clarification_and_Reaffirmation_FINAL.PDF
> If the Court is already prohibiting county courts from issuing the license and they already ruled the ban constitutional under Alabama law, there's no need to hear the petition asking them to do what they've already done.
> ...


Same sex marriage licenses are being issued in Alabama. State licenses. Nothing changes that.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

painterswife said:


> They reject the petitions to enforce that law. They want to uphold Alabama's law but they can't. The Supreme Court of the US ruling stands and Same sex marriage in Alabama is legal.


Yes, and I apologize for my mistake.:ashamed:

I finally got thru all 170 pages and near the end, the reason the dismissal *nullifies the previous ban the court enforced* was given.
It was in the "procedural effects" section.:flame:

Previously the federal judge only ordered a few counties to issue licenses, but since then ALL Alabama county courts were sued by federal court to issue licenses thereby bringing them all under the federal court's order.
The Alabama Supreme court has conceded they have NO judicial authority to uphold their previous ban on gay marriage.
The scathing comments in their ruling regarding the SCOTUS decision misled me into believing they were defying the federal courts.
I was wrong.
You, Irish Pixie and yes, Bearfoot were right.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I get it. The few sites trying to spin it the other way are confusing. Seems to be pro Christian sites just as in the OP. Lots of gobbledy---- to wade through.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

rickpaul said:


> ..That`s ok, the time is commin when they`ll have to bow their knee before Jesus an answer for this.......


Do you have to pray towards Mecca five times a day?


----------



## Agriculture (Jun 8, 2015)

rickpaul said:


> ..That`s ok, the time is commin when they`ll have to bow their knee before Jesus an answer for this.......


Yeah, keep running with that thought. It will change how the laws work.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

States don't have the right to infringe on the general liberties of the people. Alabama, wrong about rights YET AGAIN.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

rickpaul said:


> ..That`s ok, the time is commin when they`ll have to bow their knee before Jesus an answer for this.......


 Jesus will probably ask them 'Why were you so hateful towards gay people' Did you not understand a word of what I said???'


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

greg273 said:


> Jesus will probably ask them 'Why were you so hateful towards gay people' Did you not understand a word of what I said???'


Well, I am not so sure, Jesus gave us two new commands in that the first was to worship Him with all that we have and the other was to love one another. That said, I do not think that it is the "love" part that He has an issue, it is the perversion of the act of reproduction to where the only result is the sating of lust. This is the same thing addressed about unmarried sex. I think that it is a valid premise so I am comfortable of both of the caveats identified above.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Well, I am not so sure, Jesus gave us two new commands in that the first was to worship Him with all that we have and the other was to love one another. That said, I do not think that it is the "love" part that He has an issue, it is the *perversion of the act of reproduction to where the only result is the sating of lust.* This is the same thing addressed about unmarried sex. I think that it is a valid premise so *I am comfortable* of both of the caveats identified above.


So you're comfortable labeling people as "perverts" if they don't think like you.

How is that "loving one another"?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Shine said:


> Well, I am not so sure, Jesus gave us two new commands in that the first was to worship Him with all that we have and the other was to love one another. That said, I do not think that it is the "love" part that He has an issue, it is the perversion of the act of reproduction to where the only result is the sating of lust. This is the same thing addressed about unmarried sex. I think that it is a valid premise so I am comfortable of both of the caveats identified above.


Gay people aren't asking for permission to fool around in thew bedroom. If you think that keeping them from getting married is going to prevent that from happening then you've already lost that battle, because it's already happening.

Did you really think that gays would stop fooling around if they're denied the right to marry?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Shine said:


> Well, I am not so sure, Jesus gave us two new commands in that the first was to worship Him with all that we have and the other was to love one another. That said, I do not think that it is the "love" part that He has an issue, it is the perversion of the act of reproduction to where the only result is the sating of lust. This is the same thing addressed about unmarried sex. I think that it is a valid premise so I am comfortable of both of the caveats identified above.


So, lemme get this right..... You have no problem with two people of the same gender loving each other as long as there is no sexual activity involved. It would Follow that those same two people should be allowed the same benefits of marriage as anyone else as long as they remain celibate.... According to your parameters. 

Unless you have been peeking (is that a sin or just tacky?) you have no way of knowing what anyone does behind closed doors.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Shine said:


> Well, I am not so sure, Jesus gave us two new commands in that the first was to worship Him with all that we have and the other was to love one another. That said, I do not think that it is the "love" part that He has an issue, it is the perversion of the act of reproduction to where the only result is the sating of lust. This is the same thing addressed about unmarried sex. I think that it is a valid premise so I am comfortable of both of the caveats identified above.


You realize that there isn't a way of inserting tab a into slot b that gay couples engage in that heterosexual couples don't. Even good Christian married couples from what I've heard. Some of them even only do those things because they feel good and there's no chance of reproduction from them. Do you judge them as harshly?


----------



## spiritbear (Jan 6, 2016)

If the gay community had been smart about it they would have opposed government issued licenses from the beginning. Could have started a movement against them. Government has no business being involved with marriages.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> You realize that there isn't a way of inserting tab a into slot b that gay couples engage in that heterosexual couples don't. Even good Christian married couples from what I've heard. Some of them even only do those things because they feel good and there's no chance of reproduction from them. Do you judge them as harshly?


Whaaat...? Sex for pleasure? Next you'll be telling us that there are some sort of health benefits to it... 

I continue to find it amusing (and a bit sad) that some people seem so fixated on the sexual component of a relationship when there is so much more to it, companionship, support, affection, friendship, etc. Personally, if someone wants to stick it in someone else's ear I couldn't be less interested as long as they don't do it in front of me. That goes for straight people too, whatever you do behind closed doors is nobody's business and doesn't affect anyone else in any way.


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

From the article linked in the OP: "the Alabama Supreme Court rejected the U.S. Supreme Court&#8217;s marriage opinion by issuing its own Judgment in favor of ***Liberty Counsel&#8217;s*** Petition for Mandamus." Note that the link is to "Liberty Counsel's" (donation soliciting) website. From that I conclude the entity filing this legal action is quite smarmy in its presentation of the facts of the court decisions, very stupid, engaging in cognitive dissonance, deliberately lying, or a combination of the above. Sure, link it to your Facebook pages and spread disinformation and confusion clickety-click.
EdAdd: Perhaps the SCOTUS decision could've attached this to the decision?: [ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hDbpF4Mvkw&list=PL989D50A21854341A&index=1[/ame] I just can't decide whether it would've been better with the majority, or the minority??


----------



## JoePa (Mar 14, 2013)

If you don't know anything about Jesus then you shouldn't try to judge what He said - when asked about divorce he said -"Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, ... For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh" - that is what marriage is all about - 

And yes there will come a time when everyone will recognize Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior - sadly for some will be too late 

The depravity of man - do whatever you want to do because there is no absolute moral law - act like animals if you want and justify it somehow - for those of you who don't believe in God and refuse to acknowledge His laws someday you will be in for a terrible shock - just look at the world around you - murder, wars, crime, hate , abortion, rape, sexual perversion. on and on - why is that happening? - man's failure to love, honor and obey their Creator 

When God created man He gave man the freedom to make choices - to love and obey Him or to go his own way - and you can see the results when man decides to have his own way - but in the darkness there is a light - a Savior who will forgive if the sinner repents - so to you posters who have strayed on the wrong path - get on you knees and ask for forgiveness and start living the life that God intended - and when your on your death bed you'll be looking forward toward eternal life instead on the torments of hell - Amen


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I will never recognize Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. I won't ever respect someone that if they actually created all this would allow people to face the horrors they do when it is not necessary. It is in my opinion a dream that some being made and controls this world and will eventually save you.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Gay people aren't asking for permission to fool around in thew bedroom. If you think that keeping them from getting married is going to prevent that from happening then you've already lost that battle, because it's already happening.
> 
> Did you really think that gays would stop fooling around if they're denied the right to marry?


No, I know that they will do as they see fit. That harms me very little. 

If you knew a loved one was cheating on their taxes or planning to rob a bank, would advise against it? In the end, if they chose to proceed with their plans, what would your stance be? Just out of curiosity, what if you helped with either of those plans? Could you be in danger also?


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

> when asked about divorce he said


I choose to place a key condition on all such quotes. I preface them with a reservation to the effect: When, hundreds of years after the fact, very early church bureaucrats, many very likely having in mind that certain concepts would allow them to control money and exercise power, including some secular power, over their believers, very heavily edited and redacted huge piles of historical documents available to them. One of their very first dicta overlaid onto their flock was clearly, "You must accept *on faith* that our god has personally guided all our decisions, that every word now collated into this (King James, etc) version is literally and forever true (subject to interpretation by a "Pope" for some sects), and if no pope, then this god will always guide preachers and believers not to misread any of these exact words." Issues like left-out edited text (see Scrolls, Dead Sea), questions about multiple definitions and context of language from words predating Latin and English will just be accepted on FAITH. Be a good christian and take it all literally, and on faith, be sure to pay your 10% so all of us can accumulate gold and treasures all the while telling you suckers, errr faithful believers, not to worry about your poverty and lack of education, it'll all be taken care of in your hereafter. And, be sure to vote for whomever we tell you to, or at least the pols who thump bibles most vigorously, and keep your FAITH strong regardless of "supposed facts" that the devil will tempt you to listen to. Just keep shouting down rationality and keep those tithes flowing, and be sure to go out and kill unbelievers and witches if your government and church approves. It's all right here in this god-edited text which you will take literally or else be condemned to eternal hell. Never mind that presently accepted secular strategies like slavery may in subsequent civilizations be seen as totally evil, they're useful to us now so stand unquestioned. Have a nice day.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So, lemme get this right..... You have no problem with two people of the same gender loving each other as long as there is no sexual activity involved. It would Follow that those same two people should be allowed the same benefits of marriage as anyone else as long as they remain celibate.... According to your parameters.
> 
> Unless you have been peeking (is that a sin or just tacky?) you have no way of knowing what anyone does behind closed doors.


yeah, no way that I've been peeking in bedrooms, kinda' funny isn't it? These people started talking about their sexual practices in public. Funny - right?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> You realize that there isn't a way of inserting tab a into slot b that gay couples engage in that heterosexual couples don't. Even good Christian married couples from what I've heard. Some of them even only do those things because they feel good and there's no chance of reproduction from them. Do you judge them as harshly?


The Bible says to test things of this world by what is written therein. That is the guideline for me. I do not prohibit anyone from doing anything, however if I am asked, I do provide my opinion truthfully...


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Shine said:


> No, I know that they will do as they see fit. That harms me very little.
> 
> If you knew a loved one was cheating on their taxes or planning to rob a bank, would advise against it? In the end, if they chose to proceed with their plans, what would your stance be? Just out of curiosity, what if you helped with either of those plans? Could you be in danger also?


Cheating on taxes and robbing banks harms OTHER PEOPLE. 

People loving each other harms NO ONE. 

If you truly believe that they face God's judgement, why not just shut up and let them make their own decisions and face that judgement when the time comes?


----------



## JoePa (Mar 14, 2013)

Won't harm anyone? - until they get Aids - then they want all of us to pay the price - 

Dry' - I bet you spent years and years in reading and studying the bible with an open mind to come up with such a scholarly conclusion - would love to have your autograph - love it when someone judges a religion or institution on those who fail - kinda like judging MIT by the students who flunk out :boring:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JoePa said:


> Won't harm anyone? - until they get Aids - then they want all of us to pay the price -


They do? In what way?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

basketti said:


> Cheating on taxes and robbing banks harms OTHER PEOPLE.
> 
> People loving each other harms NO ONE.
> 
> If you truly believe that they face God's judgement, why not just shut up and let them make their own decisions and face that judgement when the time comes?


Repeating myself but what the heck, If asked, I will reply honestly, if not, I will not offer...


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

JoePa said:


> Won't harm anyone? - until they get Aids - then they want all of us to pay the price -
> 
> Dry' - I bet you spent years and years in reading and studying the bible with an open mind to come up with such a scholarly conclusion - would love to have your autograph - love it when someone judges a religion or institution on those who fail - kinda like judging MIT by the students who flunk out :boring:


Shall we ban cigarettes because you know smokers are going to get lung cancer and then we'll all pay that price?

Or Big Macs and maybe steaks because you know those who eat them are going to have heart disease and then we'll all pay for that.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Apples and Oranges as those ar enow against GOD's LAW. You ought to know that.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Shine said:


> yeah, no way that I've been peeking in bedrooms, kinda' funny isn't it? These people started talking about their sexual practices in public. Funny - right?


Thinking back over my sixty some years of conversations I can't recall ever hearing a gay person discussing their sexual habits n public or privately,,,,, but a great many straights have discussed their perceived notions of the gay worlds antics in the bedroom.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> Apples and Oranges as those ar enow against GOD's LAW. You ought to know that.


 Sounds like God broke his own law by making gay people. Ain't heard anybody say they just woke up one day and decided to be gay. Just like no one decided to be straight, it was decided for us. I don't recall having a choice in the matter, I liked girls and that was that. Some folks we knew from an early age didn't. Initially, they got made fun of, but you can only call someone a sissy so many times before a teacher comes up and wacks you. Eventually you learn to leave them alone, and not make thier lives any worse. 
If they're breaking 'Gods Law', then let God deal with them. I won't make their lives any more difficult.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> *The Bible says* to test things of this world by what is written therein. That is the guideline for me. I do not prohibit anyone from doing anything, however if I am asked, I do provide my opinion truthfully...


You still don't seem to get that it doesn't matter what "the Bible says" unless you follow that particular religion, and the majority of the world doesn't


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

greg273 said:


> If they're breaking 'Gods Law', then let God deal with them.


You're going to take all the fun out of religion.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Apples and Oranges as those ar enow against GOD's LAW. You ought to know that.


I used the reason he gave. Are you aware of the separation between church and state or do you also want to start living by Cthulhu's (or any other random religion's) laws as well as your own?


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

arabian knight said:


> Apples and Oranges as those ar enow against GOD's LAW. You ought to know that.


I thought this discussion was about secular law?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> When God created man He *gave man the freedom to make choices* - to love and obey Him or to go his own way


Why is it so many who call themselves "Christians" won't do the same by simply minding their own business?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

basketti said:


> Are you aware of the separation between church and state


Separation of church & state is a political philosophy, but it's not part of our constitution or laws. Some might argue that we already have it, while others will argue that we don't. But in either case, there's no separation of church & state to be aware of.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

JoePa said:


> If you don't know anything about Jesus then you shouldn't try to judge what He said - when asked about divorce he said -"Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, ... For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh" - that is what marriage is all about -
> 
> And yes there will come a time when everyone will recognize Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior - sadly for some will be too late
> 
> ...



Yes there we go again. A thread about "gayness' And we have it compared to "acting like animals" and "depravity". At least you don'y have anyone marrying their horse or grandma this time.

You want to get on your knees. Fine, but don't expect me to and with the words you use don't expect me to respect your choice.

I really could care less what some book you seem to think is all truthful says about marriage. But if you want to discriminate based on that book, can't stop you, but just shake my head.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Separation of church & state is a political philosophy, but it's not part of our constitution or laws. Some might argue that we already have it, while others will argue that we don't. But in either case, there's no separation of church & state to be aware of.


The words aren't in the Constitution but it is pretty much how the establishment clause has been interpreted, no? This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. Thus negating what AK said.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Shine said:


> The Bible says to test things of this world by what is written therein. That is the guideline for me. I do not prohibit anyone from doing anything, however if I am asked, I do provide my opinion truthfully...


And I asked how you judge heterosexual Christians who engage in the same pleasurable, non reproductive sex acts that gays do. What your truthful opinion of them?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You still don't seem to get that it doesn't matter what "the Bible says" unless you follow that particular religion, and the majority of the world doesn't


Au contraire....

You are admonishing me as if your view is the correct one. This is not me setting rules for everyone, it is just my view of what is. 

Your particular version of "what is" does not concern me nor does it change how I feel about the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost.

Why do you want to pile on whenever someone voices their opinion like "you want to force..." or "you don't matter to the rest of the world" or etc... etc... - accept others opinions as they are and go on.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> And I asked how you judge heterosexual Christians who engage in the same pleasurable, non reproductive sex acts that gays do. What your truthful opinion of them?


And what would my answer provide to you? That's a little far out there don't you think, on a public forum? 


But hey... none have spoken to me about such things that I can think of...

ETA: I really don't want to even have that discussion in private. Something like that disgusts me. I would rather drop the subject as if it had not have been brought up.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why is it so many who call themselves "Christians" won't do the same by simply minding their own business?


We would be except for the busybodies going about and taking our God and throwing Him our of this, the country that is ours too...


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Shine said:


> We would be except for the busybodies going about and taking our God and throwing Him our of this, the country that is ours too...


How is anyone doing that?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Shine said:


> And what would my answer provide to you? That's a little far out there don't you think, on a public forum?
> 
> 
> But hey... none have spoken to me about such things that I can think of...


Insight into whether your consistent in your thinking or simply biased against gays. Your initial statement commenting on certain acts and the fact they were simply for pleasure and not for reproduction made no mention of specific knowledge of any peoples' acts. It seemed a more broad condemnation. I'm just curious how far that condemnation goes. Or doesn't.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Au contraire....
> 
> You are admonishing me as if your view is the correct one. This is not me setting rules for everyone, it is just my view of what is.
> 
> ...


Because you *do* want to force others to behave to your standards, and you *do* consider your views "superior".

You always say things like that, then try to reverse when it's pointed out.
You're very predictable




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm View Post
> Why is it so many who call themselves "Christians" won't do the same by simply minding their own business?
> 
> ...


Now tell us how you didn't "mean" that either


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Because you *do* want to force others to behave to your standards, and you *do* consider your views "superior".
> 
> You always say things like that, then try to reverse when it's pointed out.
> You're very predictable
> ...


Have you got a patent on you use of the word "force" yet and for you to think that you know what I want is simply foolish on your part. Keep on keeping on I always say. What I typed is what I meant - do you need that explained too? You are really becoming a waste of time on almost every post. - You just can't help yourself.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> Insight into whether your consistent in your thinking or simply biased against gays. Your initial statement commenting on certain acts and the fact they were simply for pleasure and not for reproduction made no mention of specific knowledge of any peoples' acts. It seemed a more broad condemnation. I'm just curious how far that condemnation goes. Or doesn't.


See - words in my mouth, or so you try. I am not biased against people, I am concerned with behaviors. I sincerely believe that if gay people had have kept their private life private that there would have been little to no issues, but no, they got to stick it in your face. Do you flaunt your sexual escapades?

I am just as disgusted with a hetero couple that flaunts that which should be kept in private as I am with any gay people doing the same.

Does that clear up where I stand?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Have you got a patent on you use of the word "force" yet and for you to think that you know what I want is simply foolish on your part. Keep on keeping on I always say. *What I typed is what I meant* - do you need that explained too? You are really becoming a waste of time on almost every post. - You just can't help yourself.


I know that already
You're the one having trouble admitting to it

If you feel this discussion is a "waste of time", then *don't* have it.
(We've played this game before too)


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Shine said:


> See - words in my mouth, or so you try. I am not biased against people, I am concerned with behaviors. I sincerely believe that if gay people had have kept their private life private that there would have been little to no issues, but no, they got to stick it in your face. Do you flaunt your sexual escapades?
> 
> I am just as disgusted with a hetero couple that flaunts that which should be kept in private as I am with any gay people doing the same.
> 
> Does that clear up where I stand?


In a word , no. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just understand the ones you said. You say things like gays should keep their private lives private. Most do yet you seem to lump all together anyway. You seem to judge those that live privately by your same religous standard. I'm not a big fan of public displays of affection but I've seen and been offended by far more from heterosexuals couples, many I know who were married, than I have by gays. But I didn't really ask about any of that.

I asked about this statement of how your god, and by extension you, judge others. ".....it is the perversion of the act of reproduction to where the only result is the sating of lust." I could get into a discussion of how sexual acts between two people who deeply love one another are often about much more than the sating of lust or reproduction but that's not my point or question. My question to you is the same I asked the first time. Do you judge heterosexual married Christian couples the same when they are engaging in many of those same lustful non reproductive acts? I know, you'll claim no direct knowledge of what they do so you can't judge them. But you have no direct knowledge of what, or why, the vast majority of gays do behind closed doors or why they do what they do. Yet you freely judge all of them. If you claim only to judge the acts do you judge them equally no matter who engages in them?


----------



## JoePa (Mar 14, 2013)

This whole discussion wouldn't take place if the gays didn't try to define their relationship as marriage - for thousands of years in western culture marriage has been a relation between a male and female - now all of a sudden a minority want to change its definition - that's where the problem starts - gays should have stayed in the closet - look what they do to gays in the Muslim countries - if the Muslims ever take over this country they better get back into the closet - and lock the door - 

As far as God allowing gays to be born that way - God created a world that was perfect which included man who had the freedom to make choices - man chose to sin and God cursed the world - as a result we have sickness, hardships, etc. and people are born with disabilities - one of which is being born gay - people have all kinds of disabilities - both mental and physical - it is how you handle these disabilities that counts - if you have a tendency to steal. rape, murder and so forth you must resist during these things - if you are born gay and have an attraction to people of your own sex you must realize that it is wrong and resist this tendency - it can be done - there are many books written by gay people who were successful in doing this and many in time got rid of this tendency - but if you think that there is nothing wrong with it then naturally you will continue and try to defend it - but I can tell you that the vast majority of people think it is discussing, sinful and perverted - so be it -


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JoePa said:


> This whole discussion wouldn't take place if the gays didn't try to define their relationship as marriage - for thousands of years in western culture marriage has been a relation between a male and female - now all of a sudden a minority want to change its definition - that's where the problem starts - gays should have stayed in the closet - look what they do to gays in the Muslim countries - if the Muslims ever take over this country they better get back into the closet - and lock the door -
> 
> As far as God allowing gays to be born that way - God created a world that was perfect which included man who had the freedom to make choices - man chose to sin and God cursed the world - as a result we have sickness, hardships, etc. and people are born with disabilities - one of which is being born gay - people have all kinds of disabilities - both mental and physical - it is how you handle these disabilities that counts - if you have a tendency to steal. rape, murder and so forth you must resist during these things - if you are born gay and have an attraction to people of your own sex you must realize that it is wrong and resist this tendency - it can be done - there are many books written by gay people who were successful in doing this and many in time got rid of this tendency - but if you think that there is nothing wrong with it then naturally you will continue and try to defend it - but I can tell you that the vast majority of people think it is discussing, sinful and perverted - so be it -


Religion does not own marriage. Nuff said.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> I asked about this statement of how your god, and by extension you, judge others. ".....it is the perversion of the act of reproduction to where the only result is the sating of lust."
> 
> My question to you is the same I asked the first time. Do you judge heterosexual married Christian couples the same when they are engaging in many of those same lustful non reproductive acts?
> 
> ...


I would have thought that my previous answer(s) would have covered this but OK, I have been obtuse before so it is a might difficult to answer clearly. The Bible tells a man and a woman that they are to give one's self to the other, one must look to the other's needs and the other shall do so also. This is not an intricate list of duties, it is but a overall suggestion of love. There are many actions where a man and his wife or a wife and her husband might do that does not equate sinfulness, what that list entails, I do not have a current copy. It is my guess that the Good Lord might frown upon the act that you are referencing, I do not have that insight. 

Reproduction and lust are the areas of focus that I think you are seeking to clarify if I am not mistaken. Heteros do things of a sexual nature that are not devoted to reproducing from time to time if I am to use myself as an example. I do not go around and keep everyone current on these endeavors, they are my and my wife's private affairs. 

In the city that I live in, in just a few weeks there will be a celebration going on for Gay Pride. It is a giant "lust fest", people carrying around large anatomical representations of body parts, dressed in such a fashion to where they are just barely within the legal boundaries, simulating sex acts in and along the center of our city for a whole weekend. During this weekend the heteros are wise to stay far away from this event as male/female couples are attacked and harassed throughout the weekend.

Do you know whether or not any city has a Hetero Fest that is similar to this event?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ya 'they' want to be singled out as 'special' and they ain't no better then ANYONE else on this planet, but they sure like to push it ones face and put themselves on a pedestal don't they?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Ya 'they' want to be singled out as 'special' and they ain't no better then ANYONE else on this planet, but they sure like to push it ones face and put themselves on a pedestal don't they?


Special means getting something that others don't. Being able to marry the person they love is getting what most people all ready have so not so special.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Special means getting something that others don't. Being able to marry the person they love is getting what most people all ready have so not so special.


Why would not the country build a Civil Union to mimic all the rights bestowed by marriage? That seems to me to be the path to take. I mean if all they want is the mirrored rights of marriage, why do they have to change the whole meaning of the word "Marriage"? If they did not want to infringe upon the rights of others, similar to the suit of Citizens v USA where something is declared to be what it is not then why not take the path of least resistance to reach the goal that they might desire? Why hijack Marriage?

I have in place an agreement with my wife filed in court that supersedes the government's control and we have agreed to grant each other all of the rights of marriage without creating an agreement with the state begging them to grant us "their" controlled rights. I did not rise up and make other people give me the rights of marriage bestowed by the state, I rose up and took them back for our personal enjoyment and security.

So, in effect, if I am able to do this, why cannot those that want the rights of a married couple to be in force with their relationship do as I have done. 

What's to stop them from doing so? Just where is the discrimination regarding the rights brought about with making an agreement with the state if you can establish those same rights with a legal document?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Shine said:


> Why would not the country build a Civil Union to mimic all the rights bestowed by marriage? That seems to me to be the path to take. I mean if all they want is the mirrored rights of marriage, why do they have to change the whole meaning of the word "Marriage"? If they did not want to infringe upon the rights of others, similar to the suit of Citizens v USA where something is declared to be what it is not then why not take the path of least resistance to reach the goal that they might desire? Why hijack Marriage?
> 
> I have in place an agreement with my wife filed in court that supersedes the government's control and we have agreed to grant each other all of the rights of marriage without creating an agreement with the state begging them to grant us "their" controlled rights. I did not rise up and make other people give me the rights of marriage bestowed by the state, I rose up and took them back for our personal enjoyment and security.
> 
> ...


Marriage is not owned by religion. I am married and has nothing to do with religion. Why would I deny that to another couple? My meaning of the word was never changed.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Shine said:


> Why would not the country build a Civil Union to mimic all the rights bestowed by marriage? That seems to me to be the path to take.


I thought the same thing, but republicans wouldn't touch it. All I can say is that they had all the time in the world to do it. It could be that they wanted this fight for political fodder.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Marriage is not owned by religion. I am married and has nothing to do with religion. Why would I deny that to another couple? My meaning of the word was never changed.


OK, then why did they have to change the definition? Before the year 2000 all dictionaries held that the definition of "Marriage" was a "Legal Union between a man and a woman". That is what I am referring to. Which meaning do you subscribe to?

In your marriage did you beg the state to be treated as such, a "married" couple? Did you follow all of their edicts to become recognized by the State as a married couple?

Would not allowing the State to construct a Civil Union pact between any two consenting adults avoid such a mess? ....and allow both sides to be happy or is there a different subterfuge in play?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Shine said:


> OK, then why did they have to change the definition? Before the year 2000 all dictionaries held that the definition of "Marriage" was a "Legal Union between a man and a woman". That is what I am referring to. Which meaning do you subscribe to?
> 
> In your marriage did you beg the state to be treated as such, a "married" couple? Did you follow all of their edicts to become recognized by the State as a married couple?
> 
> Would not allowing the State to construct a Civil Union pact between any two consenting adults avoid such a mess? ....and allow both sides to be happy or is there a different subterfuge in play?


Marriage - the joining of two people. That is my definition. Don't need a civil union. We have marriage and it works just fine.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Shine said:


> OK, then why did they have to change the definition? Before the year 2000 all dictionaries held that the definition of "Marriage" was a "Legal Union between a man and a woman". That is what I am referring to. Which meaning do you subscribe to?


Dictionaries don't change the meaning of words, they recognize new uses for words. But I heard the term "gay marriage" long before the year 2000.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Marriage - the joining of two people. That is my definition. Don't need a civil union. We have marriage and it works just fine.


OK, then your definition takes away from the traditional definition, it takes away from me who respected the original definition. This is what I was talking about when I referenced that people were striping God from any and all references in this country. You are "For" the changing of the definitions to suit your agenda.

Or did you surmise that your definition was more appropriate that the one found in the dictionaries and learned individuals for the last 2000 or more years?

Blue is the new yellow. Yeah, I get it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Shine said:


> OK, then your definition takes away from the traditional definition, it takes away from me who respected the original definition. This is what I was talking about when I referenced that people were striping God from any and all references in this country. You are "For" the changing of the definitions to suit your agenda.
> 
> Or did you surmise that your definition was more appropriate that the one found in the dictionaries and learned individuals for the last 2000 or more years?
> 
> Blue is the new yellow. Yeah, I get it.


You do understand that the word marriage is not 2000 years old.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Shine said:


> OK, then your definition takes away from the traditional definition, it takes away from me who respected the original definition. This is what I was talking about when I referenced that people were striping God from any and all references in this country. You are "For" the changing of the definitions to suit your agenda.


But of course the Bible also recognized plural marriage. When did that change, and why aren't you fighting to maintain that definition?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Nevada said:


> But of course the Bible also recognized plural marriage. When did that change, and why aren't you fighting to maintain that definition?


Other than for a barren wife, I an unaware of this recognition. Can you provide me this reference, it would be interesting to read.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

painterswife said:


> You do understand that the word marriage is not 2000 years old.


Not certain where you are going with this. I would imagine that the "word" is much older than 2000 years but I am only aware in a limited fashion as to what your historical illusion might be.


----------



## JoePa (Mar 14, 2013)

It is much longer than 2000 years -much much longer -from the beginning - God made them male and female -


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Shine said:


> Other than for a barren wife, I an unaware of this recognition. Can you provide me this reference, it would be interesting to read.


This should help you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_Christianity


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Shine said:


> Not certain where you are going with this. I would imagine that the "word" is much older than 2000 years but I am only aware in a limited fashion as to what your historical illusion might be.


The word itself marriage is itself only appeared in around 1250â1300 ad.That means that there is no 2000 years of definition for the word. Other words were use. In fact English is not 2000 years old.

Language and words meaning evolve. restaurant workers marry ketchup bottles. Are you going to demand a different word for that?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

painterswife said:


> The word itself marriage is itself only appeared in around 1250â1300 ad.That means that there is no 2000 years of definition for the word. Other words were use. In fact English is not 2000 years old.
> 
> Language and words meaning evolve. restaurant workers marry ketchup bottles. Are you going to demand a different word for that?


OK, I guess that you are omitting the Dead Sea Scrolls.

No, "marry" is suitable in the mindset of pairing "ketchup bottles", you are being foolish in this endeavor.

OK, how about we change the meaning of the word "Freedom" to mean "A person otherwise restricted by the edicts of their government"? Yeah, that is it, boy, we have to get to work, there's too many words that have obsolete meanings attached to them, it will be a great new world of communication!!!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Shine said:


> OK, I guess that you are omitting the Dead Sea Scrolls.
> 
> No, "marry" is suitable in the mindset of pairing "ketchup bottles", you are being foolish in this endeavor.
> 
> OK, how about we change the meaning of the word "Freedom" to mean "A person otherwise restricted by the edicts of their government"? Yeah, that is it, boy, we have to get to work, there's too many words that have obsolete meanings attached to them, it will be a great new world of communication!!!


You are saying that the actual word marriage was used in the dead sea scrolls even though it did not exist then. Prove it.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Nevada said:


> This should help you.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_Christianity


Sorry - took a bit of back checking. Most of the citations on the Wiki info spoke of Old Testament situations, yes it did speak of "plural" arrangements as "marriages" but for Christianity [which I shy away from as a means of "accomplishment" and seek to be a follower of Christ's Teachings or someone who finds pleasure in what He defines as "Good"] ...for Christianity there are citations regarding the passing of the "Old" as obsolete when faced with the New Covenant. While we are not to ignore the wisdom of the Old Testament, we are no longer bound by it. This is not to go without saying that Christians should have the Law written onto their hearts [as should I] so as to be better able to walk the path that Christ has set for us.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

painterswife said:


> You are saying that the actual word marriage was used in the dead sea scrolls even though it did not exist then. Prove it.


http://www.ericlevy.com/Revel/DeadSeaScrolls/Baumgarten - The Damascus Covenant Reconsidered.pdf

Start reading at the top of the page numbered 52


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Shine said:


> Sorry - took a bit of back checking. Most of the citations on the Wiki info spoke of Old Testament situations, yes it did speak of "plural" arrangements as "marriages" but for Christianity [which I shy away from as a means of "accomplishment" and seek to be a follower of Christ's Teachings or someone who finds pleasure in what He defines as "Good"] ...for Christianity there are citations regarding the passing of the "Old" as obsolete when faced with the New Covenant. While we are not to ignore the wisdom of the Old Testament, we are no longer bound by it. This is not to go without saying that Christians should have the Law written onto their hearts [as should I] so as to be better able to walk the path that Christ has set for us.


So you don't mind the meaning of the word "marriage" being changed from the Old Testament meaning to the New Testament meaning?

And somehow it's defined twice in the Bible, although the word "marriage" doesn't actually appear in the Bible at all. How can you claim Biblical ownership of a word that doesn't appear in the Bible?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Shine said:


> http://www.ericlevy.com/Revel/DeadSeaScrolls/Baumgarten - The Damascus Covenant Reconsidered.pdf
> 
> Start reading at the top of the page numbered 52


You do know that the dead sea scrolls were not written in English, they were translated. The word marriage and the English language did not exist then. That means they used another word in another language.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Nevada said:


> So you don't mind the meaning of the word "marriage" being changed from the Old Testament meaning to the New Testament meaning?
> 
> And somehow it's defined twice in the Bible, although the word "marriage" doesn't actually appear in the Bible at all. How can you claim Biblical ownership of a word that doesn't appear in the Bible?


If one uses the Bible as a guideline then as it is the Bible that carries this particular change, I am of the impression that it is proper.

Deuteronomy 24:
*5* If a man has recently married, he must not be sent to war or have any other duty laid on him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to the wife he has married.

This is just the first hit, there are more...


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

painterswife said:


> You do know that the dead sea scrolls were not written in English, they were translated. The word marriage and the English language did not exist then. That means they used another word in another language.


Semantics.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Shine said:


> Semantics.


Now you get it. You are quibbling over semantics when you are really taliking about a holy marriage not what I have a civil marriage.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Now you get it. You are quibbling over semantics when you are really taliking about a holy marriage not what I have a civil marriage.


I get it??? lol


ETA: You bring an important distinction to the table here. Two different meanings. Which meaning is it that the Gay Persons wish to have attributed to them? 

Civil? Then let them have at it. 

Holy? I'll fight that until the day I die.

Now you understand my stance in both scenarios

I have not found where they identify which "marriage" that they want.


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Shine said:


> I get it??? lol
> 
> 
> ETA: You bring an important distinction to the table here. Two different meanings. Which meaning is it that the Gay Persons wish to have attributed to them?
> ...


I can't speak for gays, but I think it starts with wanting the same rights that the government bestows on everyone that is married in the eyes of the law. 

Do you look at a wedding ceremony performed in a court house by a judge as holy matrimony? How about by an Elvis impersonator in Vegas?

Jim


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Shine said:


> If one uses the Bible as a guideline then as it is the Bible that carries this particular change, I am of the impression that it is proper.
> 
> Deuteronomy 24:
> If a man has recently married, he must not be sent to war or have any other duty laid on him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to the wife he has married.
> ...


The KJV doesn't actually use the word: 

_Deuteronomy 24:5 King James Version (KJV)
5 When a man hath taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business: but he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up his wife which he hath taken._

Of course, when you can release a new version of the Bible written the way you like, it's easy to say any word appears in the Bible because it was put there on purpose. I'm guessing that quote was from NIV, which is a 1970s era release.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JoePa said:


> people are born with disabilities - one of which is being born gay - people have all kinds of disabilities - both mental and physical - it is how you handle these disabilities that counts


 Is being a bigot on that list? How many times does it have to be said... your list of sins are all things that do direct harm to others. Two adult people who are attracted to each other does no harm to anyone, except maybe your puritanical sensibilities. Now is it 'weird' or 'unusual', or course, but I am not going to judge them for it. Seems to me God wouldn't take kindly to ostracizing someone for something they didn't choose. Didn't you learn anything in grade school?? Like how to get along with people different than you? 

As far as gays being 'better off in the closet', in reality the world would be better off if the bigots stayed in the closet.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Jim Bunton said:


> I can't speak for gays, but I think it starts with wanting the same rights that the government bestows on everyone that is married in the eyes of the law.
> 
> Government benefits do not concern me.
> 
> ...


Is there something that is not understandable about what I have explained above? Did I not say that I do not care about government marriages? Why would you then RE-ASK me what I have explained?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Nevada said:


> The KJV doesn't actually use the word:
> 
> _Deuteronomy 24:5 King James Version (KJV)
> 5 When a man hath taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business: but he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up his wife which he hath taken._
> ...


wow... just wow. What happens when you take a wife. Are you accusing me of changing the Bible or could it be said that you are the one? I really do not care to argue about something that is as clear as the implication of "taking a wife" - if you want to beat about the bush - find someone else.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Shine said:


> I get it??? lol
> 
> 
> ETA: You bring an important distinction to the table here. Two different meanings. Which meaning is it that the Gay Persons wish to have attributed to them?
> ...


Holy is only in the church and none of my concern. They get to fight it out with their church if they wish and then it is up to the church.

So now we have no need for a civil union because we already have civil marriage.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Shine said:


> Is there something that is not understandable about what I have explained above? Did I not say that I do not care about government marriages? Why would you then RE-ASK me what I have explained?


But all this hubbub is only about civil marriage, unless you can find some sort of clergy to marry you.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

* Hebrews 13:4King James Version (KJV)*

4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> OK, then your definition takes away from the traditional definition, *it takes away from me* who respected the original definition. This is what I was talking about when I referenced that people were striping God from any and all references in this country. You are "For" the changing of the definitions to suit your agenda.
> 
> Or did you surmise that your definition was more appropriate that the one found in the dictionaries and learned individuals for the last 2000 or more years?
> 
> Blue is the new yellow. Yeah, I get it.


No one has "taken" anything from you.

You'd whine endlessly if anyone suggested "Allah" should be mentioned in Govt., or the Koran used in writing laws


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> I get it??? lol
> 
> 
> ETA: You bring an important distinction to the table here. Two different meanings. Which meaning is it that the Gay Persons wish to have attributed to them?
> ...


We've long understood your stance


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one has "taken" anything from you.
> 
> You'd whine endlessly if anyone suggested "Allah" should be mentioned in Govt., or the Koran used in writing laws


Oh... look who's here...


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

JoePa said:


> It is much longer than 2000 years -much much longer -from the beginning - God made them male and female -


And there is the answer.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Shine said:


> I would have thought that my previous answer(s) would have covered this but OK, I have been obtuse before so it is a might difficult to answer clearly. The Bible tells a man and a woman that they are to give one's self to the other, one must look to the other's needs and the other shall do so also. This is not an intricate list of duties, it is but a overall suggestion of love. There are many actions where a man and his wife or a wife and her husband might do that does not equate sinfulness, what that list entails, I do not have a current copy. It is my guess that the Good Lord might frown upon the act that you are referencing, I do not have that insight.
> 
> Reproduction and lust are the areas of focus that I think you are seeking to clarify if I am not mistaken. Heteros do things of a sexual nature that are not devoted to reproducing from time to time if I am to use myself as an example. I do not go around and keep everyone current on these endeavors, they are my and my wife's private affairs.
> 
> ...


This is a close as you've come to answering the question asked. You still talk in circles around making a direct statement and throw in things not relevant to the question. At the risk of putting words in your mouth I'll attempt clarify what I think you said. It's not the act of perverting the reproductive act you find so offensive ( and no, I don't want any details of your personal life) or that you're even sure your god objects to it is simply who is doing it. For some people perverting the reproductive act is just fine, for those you disapprove of not so much.

I've been to a couple of of gay pride parades and celebrations with my wife. We've been openly welcomed and saw no violence. I'll give your unverified accusations of what happens in your area the same credibility I give all such personal attributions. While not strictly a heterofest I'd suggest you head to New Orleans early next February to see the behavior you speak of. I'd suggest you go to your local party store and stock up on plastic beads and trinkets before you leave. It will save you some money on those bribes one gives to young ladies so that they will flash their breasts at you. It's a celebration that's been going on long before any gay pride Fest.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

MMOETC - You are correct, I would be uncomfortable in NO too, it is pretty much the open display of those things that should be kept private. For instance, I do not go to nudist parks, I do not expect my wife and children to have to be exposed to those things in the public arena, I do not take them there, I will not make an effort to shut them down, but I know that they are there and what goes on there. It is a shock to be going downtown with the family to the fishing pier and get exposed to behavior that I would not want my family exposed to.

ETA: I do not think that the celebrations in NO are what could be called a celebration of a certain lifestyle though, maybe some people just getting drunk and stretching the boundaries of what is considered acceptable...


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Shine said:


> MMOETC - You are correct, I would be uncomfortable in NO too, it is pretty much the open display of those things that should be kept private. For instance, I do not go to nudist parks, I do not expect my wife and children to have to be exposed to those things in the public arena, I do not take them there, I will not make an effort to shut them down, but I know that they are there and what goes on there. It is a shock to be going downtown with the family to the fishing pier and get exposed to behavior that I would not want my family exposed to.
> 
> ETA: I do not think that the celebrations in NO are what could be called a celebration of a certain lifestyle though, maybe some people just getting drunk and stretching the boundaries of what is considered acceptable...


One of the detractions of living in a free and open society is that you run the risk of being exposed to things that make you uncomfortable. But others run the same potential risk. I've also seen that uncomfortableness as an opportunity to learn things about myself and others and have discussions with family and friends I likely wouldn't have if not confronted with being uncomfortable. And that I see as a benefit of living in a free and open society.

And if you read my post you'll note that I made the same caveat. Then again, if it's the behavior that you object to it shouldn't really matter who engages in it or why.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> One of the detractions of living in a free and open society is that you run the risk of being exposed to things that make you uncomfortable. But others run the same potential risk. I've also seen that uncomfortableness as an opportunity to learn things about myself and others and have discussions with family and friends I likely wouldn't have if not confronted with being uncomfortable. And that I see as a benefit of living in a free and open society.
> 
> And if you read my post you'll note that I made the same caveat. Then again, if it's the behavior that you object to it shouldn't really matter who engages in it or why.


We have something akin to Mardi Gras here with the Gasparilla Parade, however, the behavior that you cite as happening in NO was quashed from happening here.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> We have something akin to Mardi Gras here with the Gasparilla Parade, however, the behavior that you cite as happening in NO was *quashed from happening here*.


So you were successful in forcing your standards on others there?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Shine said:


> ETA: I do not think that the celebrations in NO are what could be called a *celebration of a certain lifestyle* though, maybe some people just getting drunk and stretching the boundaries of what is considered acceptable...


 When are you going to understand that gay people aren't living a 'certain lifestyle', its WHO THEY ARE. Smoking cigarettes, now thats a lifestyle choice. Taking up hang gliding, thats a lifestyle choice. See the difference?
You've been on this planet for how many years, and you still think its a 'choice' people make?? Being ostracized and outcast from society doesn't sound like such a fun thing. Plenty of teens end up killing themselves over the shame it of all, and you think its something people choose. Come on now, open your eyes.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Shine said:


> wow... just wow. What happens when you take a wife. Are you accusing me of changing the Bible or could it be said that you are the one? I really do not care to argue about something that is as clear as the implication of "taking a wife" - if you want to beat about the bush - find someone else.


The discussion is about the ownership of the word "marriage." I don't see how Christianity can own a word that doesn't appear in the Bible.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

greg273 said:


> When are you going to understand that gay people aren't living a 'certain lifestyle', its WHO THEY ARE. Smoking cigarettes, now thats a lifestyle choice. Taking up hang gliding, thats a lifestyle choice. See the difference?
> You've been on this planet for how many years, and you still think its a 'choice' people make?? Being ostracized and outcast from society doesn't sound like such a fun thing. Plenty of teens end up killing themselves over the shame it of all, and you think its something people choose. Come on now, open your eyes.


Do they have medicine for Hypochondriacs? ...depressed people? ...People that think that they are Dr. M.L.K. or Superman?

Maybe a few are born that way but the masses that are jumping on the bandwagon now? No, I think that there is an undercurrent at work here... 

Somebody made a detour and found themselves lost, then someone comes by and tells them that they are not "lost" but have just located a new "found". My eyes are open, my ears too, my heart is also open to them as listed above and many more. How many pharmaceuticals are in America's water supply? How much contamination? You want to call this the new "normal"? 

I'm not biting.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Nevada said:


> The discussion is about the ownership of the word "marriage." I don't see how Christianity can own a word that doesn't appear in the Bible.


Please refer to Post #96. Check your wording in the KJV. It matches mine.

I do not think that Christianity "owns" the word but for the longest time, the definition was aligned with what Christianity and other offshoots indicated it was...


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Shine said:


> Do they have medicine for Hypochondriacs? ...depressed people? ...People that think that they are Dr. M.L.K. or Superman?
> 
> Maybe a few are born that way but the masses that are jumping on the bandwagon now? No, I think that there is an undercurrent at work here...
> 
> ...


 Huh??


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> *Do they have medicine for Hypochondriacs? * ...depressed people? ...People that think that they are Dr. M.L.K. or Superman?
> 
> Maybe a few are born that way but the masses that are jumping on the bandwagon now? No, I think that there is an undercurrent at work here...
> 
> ...


Do they have medicine for those who think supernatural beings talk to them?

You're dodging the question with your standard tactic of asking rambling questions of your own, trying to change the subject


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Huh??


Diversion through confusion


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Diversion through confusion


Please accept this non reply - my posts hoping that your day is better have been deleted with the attribute "not nice". I understand the current slant of the moderation, it is better that I do not reply, you've decided that my previous request to you is of no value so - all you get is non replies.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Do they have medicine for those who think supernatural beings talk to them?
> 
> You're dodging the question with your standard tactic of asking rambling questions of your own, trying to change the subject


Are you attempting to indicate that you think that I need medicine? Are you making it seem as if I am not in my right mind? Wow, I got deleted for that and I only hoped that you had felt better. Funny the way things go...

P.S. Show me any post where I have said that ANY supernatural being has spoken to me. See, exactly what I complained to you about, and you continue with your diatribe. You say these things and they're allowed to pass. I feel that they are quite hateful and insulting. Have I attacked you?

ETA: Oh... which question have I been dodging? If it is from you, well - you know. I don't reply to you - others, I will reply as honestly as I can. You? No way.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Please accept this non reply - my posts hoping that your day is better have been deleted with the attribute "not nice". I understand the current slant of the moderation, it is better that I do not reply, you've decided that my previous request to you is of no value so -* all you get is non replies*.


Again your words don't match your actions



> I don't reply to you - others, I will reply as honestly as I can. You? No way.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Shine said:


> We have something akin to Mardi Gras here with the Gasparilla Parade, however, the behavior that you cite as happening in NO was quashed from happening here.



It's been many decades since I heard that word, lol. Brings back fond childhood memories.
I don't think many people outside of Tampa would even know what the heck that was................




Bearfootfarm said:


> So you were successful in forcing your standards on others there?


I doubt that is the case.
Unless you are asserting that Tampa's rich history of pirates is akin to celebrating a gay pride parade.
:croc:



Nevada said:


> The discussion is about the ownership of the word "marriage." I don't see how Christianity can own a word that doesn't appear in the Bible.



You tried that ridiculous argument once before.
Yeshua is mentioned several times, but not "Jesus" in the original language.
"God" isn't written anywhere either. In fact the Hebrew name for Him is missing the vowels when it is found - YHWH. And those letters aren't there either, they are in Hebrew and spelled BACKWARDS!
We could go on and on...........
"Bible" isn't written anywhere in the bible either, so I guess you can sue them for false advertising as well.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I doubt that is the case.
> Unless you are asserting that Tampa's rich history of pirates is akin to celebrating a gay pride parade.


Context allows things to have a meaning.
Your statement has none that I can discern
Nothing I said had anything to do with Pirates, gay or straight


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

farmrbrown said:


> It's been many decades since I heard that word, lol. Brings back fond childhood memories.
> I don't think many people outside of Tampa would even know what the heck that was................
> 
> It has become a wonderful week long festival. There is a children's parade, an adult parade during the day time and night time, the streets are filled with festivity. There are Triathlons for the athletes, Jr. Races for the Kids and other events throughout the week. 15 to 20 years ago it was an event to go get as drunk as possible, get into fights and generally act if there are no boundaries but the local people asked for more control and the local authorities complied.
> ...


I even ran the triathlon one year... Bayshore Blvd is the perfect place to stage a pirate attack.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Shine said:


> We have something akin to Mardi Gras here with the *Gasparilla Parade,* however, the behavior that you cite as happening in NO was quashed from happening here.





Bearfootfarm said:


> So you were successful in forcing your standards on others there?





Bearfootfarm said:


> Context allows things to have a meaning.
> Your statement has none that I can discern
> Nothing I said had anything to do with Pirates, gay or straight




Nothing YOU said, specifically, used the word "pirates".
Your reply to Shine was about the Gasparilla Parade..........look to that for your "context", then my statement will become clear.
He and I knew exactly what I meant. If you were commenting on the actions surrounding the Gasparilla, I thought you would have known as well.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Nothing YOU said, specifically, used the word "pirates".
> *Your reply to Shine was about the Gasparilla Parade*..........look to that for your "context", then my statement will become clear.
> He and I knew exactly what I meant. If you were commenting on the actions surrounding the Gasparilla, I thought you would have known as well.


No, it was not "about" any parade, and since I didn't *say *"pirates" it wasn't about them either 

I plainly stated what it was "about", but you always overlook what I *say* and look for some hidden meanings



> Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm View Post
> So you were successful in *forcing your standards on others* there?


(Figured out what it's *about* yet?)

You may have known what he meant, and you may have known what you meant, but I highlighted the portion of his comment to which I replied, and it (again) had nothing to do with Pirates, parades, gays, or heterosexuals

Your statement remains false, as I told you the first time.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Your statement remains false, as I told you the first time.


He can't really believe the things he's saying. I think he's just yanking your chain.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> He can't really believe the things he's saying. I think he's just yanking your chain.


He may think so but he'd be wrong about that too.

For him to do that, I'd have to care


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Shine said:


> We have something akin to Mardi Gras here with the Gasparilla Parade, however, the behavior that you cite as happening in NO was quashed from happening here.





Bearfootfarm said:


> So you were successful in forcing your standards on others there?





farmrbrown said:


> It's been many decades since I heard that word, lol. Brings back fond childhood memories.
> I don't think many people outside of Tampa would even know what the heck that was................
> 
> 
> ...





Bearfootfarm said:


> No, it was not "about" any parade, and since I didn't *say *"pirates" it wasn't about them either
> 
> I plainly stated what it was "about", but you always overlook what I *say* and look for some hidden meanings
> 
> ...


I had it figured out from the start, and nothing I said was false.
Two posters were comparing Madri Gras in New Orleans to Gasparilla in Tampa.
You chimed in without knowing the history behind the celebration in Tampa, and instead of admitting, "Oh, NOW I see why you mentioned pirates in your reply, that explains it!" instead you resort to claiming truthful statements as being false.
Shine went further to describing the decline in the behavior for a time, and the recent rebound, back to the way it was when my grandparents, parents, and I remembered it.
*He* didn't *force* any standards to change *"there"*, and making assumptions about community events you know nothing about is probably something for you to avoid in the future, particularly if you're not willing to learn what is true or false.
As I've said before, being mistaken isn't a big deal.......it's the ability to accept the correction that's important to learn.
I wouldn't expect anyone who wasn't a local to know much about it, and the details aren't that critical, they just trigger memories from a happy childhood.
What isn't expected or appreciated is what you said to me when it was apparent that you stuck your foot in your mouth.
The same would be true for me if I'd never been in the French Quarter at Mardi Gras and started telling a local there, what was or wasn't true.
It's wild, it's entertaining and the behavior stretches the imagination. The people there decide what they will allow and as visitor, I can observe but have no right to decide. I certainly won't make any false statements about it. 
To that end, I would say that Mardi Gras is NOT a "gay pride parade" in case that is what you referred to as false. There are gay groups that do participate, but the parade itself (many parades in fact that week) are not exclusively gay.
It was the behavior in general (drunk and debauchery) that we were discussing.



Nevada said:


> He can't really believe the things he's saying. I think he's just yanking your chain.


:umno:


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Here is what you said:
Quote:
We have something akin to Mardi Gras here with the Gasparilla Parade, however, the behavior that you cite as happening in NO was *quashed from happening here*. 

You Typed: So you were successful in forcing your standards on others there? "

To me that meant that you were insinuating that somehow I would have been active in forcing my standards on those that went to the Gasparilla. Is that what you meant?

That's funny because I have told you repeatedly that we are in a discussion forum and I am providing people with my opinions. If you cannot understand that then what's the point of me telling you again and again?

I really wish you would quit with this "you are forcing people to do what you say to do" because it is just not true. So from this point on, if you type the same trash, you will know that it is trash beforehand.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown :



> I had it figured out from the start, and nothing I said was false.


Repetition won't make it so



> He didn't force any standards to change "there", and making assumptions about community events you know nothing about is probably something for you to avoid in the future, particularly if you're not willing to learn what is true or false.


Like you falsely accusing people of "celebrating Finicum's death" with no proof?
How many times do you have to be told I wasn't talking about "the event"?

Shine: 


> To me that meant that you were insinuating that somehow *I would have been active in forcing my standards on those that went to the Gasparilla.* Is that what you meant?
> 
> That's funny because I have told you repeatedly that we are in a discussion forum and I am providing people with my opinions. If you cannot understand that then *what's the point of me telling you again and again?*


I often wonder why you repeat yourself so often, to no avail

You said 



> Originally Posted by Shine View Post
> We have something akin to Mardi Gras here with the Gasparilla Parade, however, the behavior that you cite as happening in NO *was quashed* from happening here.


That seems to imply some group was instrumental in making the decisions you say you support, so "your views" were forced on others who may not agree.

This isn't rocket science

farmrbrown :


> What isn't expected or appreciated is what you said to me when it was apparent that you stuck your foot in your mouth.


You're still confused about that part because you keep assuming things that are false.
I'm not going to explain it further because I realize you just want to argue as always, and these games are boring and tiresome.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> farmrbrown :
> 
> 
> Repetition won't make it so
> ...


Please stop.
You can state your opinions all you want, but telling lies about what I said or did tests my patience.
I posted the "proof", it was the opinion of the mod that it did not appear that way to her.
There are posts that anyone can search right now, read and decide for themselves. I *could* post them individually and was even asked to do so by pm.
I refused, not because I am making false claims without proof, but because my opinion of snitches is lower than that of insensitive jerks.
If I wish to call someone out, I'll do it publicly not anonymously.
I thought I explained my reasons clearly in my reply to wr.
I believe you slander people for your own entertainment. That is my opinion of course, based on your own words posted on HT in another thread.
Search it for yourself if you want "proof".





Bearfootfarm said:


> Shine:
> 
> I often wonder why you repeat yourself so often, to no avail
> 
> ...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasparilla_Pirate_Festival
Once again, if you believe community standards are a form of conspiracy, so be it. Sometimes the majority of people just appreciate decency.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

farmrbrown said:


> Please stop.
> You can state your opinions all you want, but telling lies about what I said or did tests my patience.
> I posted the "proof", it was the opinion of the mod that it did not appear that way to her.
> There are posts that anyone can search right now, read and decide for themselves. I *could* post them individually and was even asked to do so by pm.
> ...


Actually, you haven't posted any proof.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> Please stop.
> You can state your opinions all you want, but telling lies about what I said or did tests my patience.
> I posted the "proof", it was the opinion of the mod that it did not appear that way to her.
> There are posts that anyone can search right now, read and decide for themselves. I *could* post them individually and was even asked to do so by pm.
> ...


I'm sorry, but I have to agree with those criticizing you for making unfounded allegations that Mr. Finicum's death was celebrated by anyone here, even as I disagree with how some are voicing that criticism. If posts exist that support your claim cite them and let the rest of us offer our interpretation rather than relying on yours. Allow those you accuse to defend themselves or apologize and retract statements that would celebrate another's tragic death. Or retract your own unsupported allegations.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I too call for Farmrbrown to prove his accusations. It is insulting to all HT members to post such crap and not back it up.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

And I support your call, just not the way you call.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Please stop.
> You can state your opinions all you want, but *telling lies about what I said or did tests my patience.*
> I posted the "proof", it was the opinion of the mod that it did not appear that way to her.
> There are posts that anyone can search right now, read and decide for themselves. I *could* post them individually and was even asked to do so by pm.
> ...


I couldn't possibly care less about your "patience" since you choose to read my posts.



> *I believe* you slander people for your own entertainment


I believe you're a drama queen. :shrug:

The difference in our beliefs is yours is false and there is no evidence, while you show proof of my beliefs on a regular basis, and have done so for quite some time now. 

The evidence doesn't require any search. Just read what's on this page.

You always want to make things about yourself, or about me.

I've told you that many times before, and that is the only thing you have ever proven beyond a doubt as far as I can tell.

You know how to solve the problem if you don't like reading my posts

These tantrums get old

It's a shame when threads get shut down just because you throw one (more)


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Copy and Pasted:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shine View Post
We have something akin to Mardi Gras here with the Gasparilla Parade, however, the behavior that you cite as happening in NO *was quashed* from happening here. 

That seems to imply some group was instrumental in making the decisions you say you support, so "your views" were forced on others who may not agree.

This isn't rocket science"

It would be an assumption on your part to think that the group that caused the changes to the Festivities of the Gasparilla week has caused my views to be forced upon others. This is my complaint about you. I stated a fact and you added your embellishment so that you could attempt to insult me as being a person who "controls others". Here it is, perfect and in your own words, show me anywhere in my statement where I alluded that I support the views that some behaviors took away from the enjoyment of the many at the festivities. 

This is your problem, you take something that someone had typed, add your words to their statement, thereby changing it and then you insult them. I find this to be QUITE dishonest, I know that as long as I have been learning about honor, that this is something that HONEST people do not do.

Stop adding to my meanings - that is dishonest. The above copy and paste sections shows that you are guilty of doing what I have accused you of. You do not need to go search anywhere else - here it is for all to see.

To sum it up as I see it - you are a person that tells anyone that because they have opinions that they want to control people. I could turn the whole thing around and say the same thing about you and your opinions but that would be dishonest of me so I won't do that.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> I'm sorry, but I have to agree with those criticizing you for making unfounded allegations that Mr. Finicum's death was celebrated by anyone here, even as I disagree with how some are voicing that criticism. If posts exist that support your claim cite them and let the rest of us offer our interpretation rather than relying on yours. Allow those you accuse to defend themselves or apologize and retract statements that would celebrate another's tragic death. Or retract your own unsupported allegations.


Well, I won't retract what I believe to be the truth.

I do respect the right of the accused to offer a defense, although I don't see what that would change, as a matter of opinions.
The defense will obviously be, "That's not what I meant".
"It may have LOOKED like I was glad he got shot, but I never really felt that way and you can't prove it."

Is that what you're really after?
If so, I again decline.
I'll post the thread and some of the page numbers, even though that shouldn't be necessary, but if it wasn't obvious before, I doubt anyone will be able to see it if I quote them individually.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Copy and Pasted:
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Shine View Post
> We have something akin to Mardi Gras here with the Gasparilla Parade, however, the behavior that you cite as happening in NO *was quashed* from happening here.
> ...


You've stated many times what you "approve" and don't "approve", and how you would control things if you had the power.

You have no credibility when you continue to deny reality in such a manner



> This is your problem, you take something that someone had typed, *add your words to their statement*, thereby changing it and then you insult them.


I've added nothing at all to anything you've ever stated, but feel free to show an actual example . Rewording quotes is against the rules.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You've stated many times what you "approve" and don't "approve", and how you would control things if you had the power.
> 
> You have no credibility when you continue to deny reality in such a manner
> 
> I've added nothing at all to anything you've ever stated, but feel free to show an actual example . Rewording quotes is against the rules.


Which "quote" did I re-word? You've shown many times what you approve and disapprove of, how would you "control" others if you had the power? [I could type here that I know what that is as you do about others but that would not be true. You do it anyways]

Added something to that which I wrote? - Right above your post here is proof that you change the meanings of what people intent to imply.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Which "quote" did I re-word? You've shown many times what you approve and disapprove of, how would you "control" others if you had the power? [I could type here that I know what that is as you do about others but that would not be true. You do it anyways]
> 
> Added something to that which I wrote? - Right above your post here is proof that *you change the meanings* of what people intent to imply.


You're bordering on incoherence now.

Before you said I "added words to your quotes" and now you say I "change the meanings".

Yesterday you said you'd "no longer reply" and that's not true either.

I don't think you know what you really mean, and you seem to have a hard time figuring out what others mean also.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're bordering on incoherence now.
> 
> Before you said I "added words to your quotes" and now you say I "change the meanings".
> 
> ...


When someone acts towards someone as you are doing it makes people angry. I cannot believe that you are OK with what you do. You know how you are operating, you must accept that as "good" behavior. Then you twist things to look innocent. You add meanings that were never intentionally meant as shown above and then use that manufactured opportunity to insult people as if you are some sort of wonderful and perfect entity. And you do it over and over. I feel sorry for you.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> When someone acts towards someone as you are doing it makes people angry. I cannot believe that you are OK with what you do. You know how you are operating, you must accept that as "good" behavior. Then you twist things to look innocent. You add meanings that were never intentionally meant as shown above and then use that manufactured opportunity to insult people as if you are some sort of wonderful and perfect entity. *And you do it over and over*. I feel sorry for you.


You're just repeating yourself now.
Same as always, running in circles.

Put me on ignore.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're just repeating yourself now.
> Same as always, running in circles.
> 
> Put me on ignore.


Can't, you would have more opportunity to twist my statements. Do me a favor - put me on ignore.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Can't, you would have more opportunity to twist my statements. Do me a favor - put me on ignore.


I'm not the one constantly complaining.
You know the solution


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

You know when you go to a tractor pull and they hook the tractor up to the sled, then the tractor snarls and growls and roars through the dirt and the weight on the sled slowly moves farther forward on the sled until it gets too much for the tractor and it bogs down, the wheels spin in the dirt and it stops... 

I think we're there...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

I think we got there about 20 posts back


----------

