The new hatemongers

[novacain]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Since this is my thread, point is where I say it is but be that as it may you'll still trying to argue semantics I see. Very dictatorial of you, 90 posts would say you are wrong. As you said semantics but very telling of your nature. My OP was about two gay men (hereafter referred to as faggots) who spat on a uniformed clergymen. Why did they do that? Because he was catholic? Because he was a clergymen? Because he was a FOX news contributor? With all the demonization by the left against the church, authority figures, and FOX news any of the three could be correct. The question is, what's next. I'll tell you...
I addressed the original topic in an earlier post, guess you didn't read it. In it I gave a possible reason for their actions. I don't agree with their actions but I can understand why they may have happened. Unlike you, I don't let their actions affect my feelings about the group as a whole.
Let's lay the blame equal here, both sides left and right do plenty to demonize each other as they need to and see fit. You yourself made a demonizing statement against the cops at the parade in an earlier post in this thread, or did you forget that?
You'll tell me what you think might be next but without that proverbial crystal ball, it's nothing more than one of many possible outcomes.

The left will start going after organized religion using whatever pretext they have. Right now it is "gay pride" and the target is the catholic church. Later it will be something else and maybe the Mormons or Baptist even though the only "religion" that is completely against gay people is Islam.

I find that very unlikely, there are long long standing protections for religion, I don't see those being over turned any time in the near future. The churches job is to TEACH, it's Gods job to judge, the church has been over stepping for some time now in my opinion. The church and the right would like us to believe they are under attack to gain help in their fight against this and other things they oppose. I haven't seen a single person say you don't have a right to your beliefs religious or otherwise, you can have them all you want. Now both you and the right DO NOT have the right to press those beliefs on the rest of us. Both sides are still going to try regardless, it's the nature of the beast.
As to Islam being the only one completely against being gay, you might just want to fact check that.

Last night on O'Reilly they had a gay woman on who represented some gay rights organization. She was asked about problems with the church and gay marriage since the SCOTUS did not make gay marriage legal but it did overturn state attempts to define what marriage was. She said that they had no problem with churches or religions who opposed gay marriage. Sounds nice doesn't it. Then the father asked if she supported even the tax exempt churches....she hestitated slightly and then said that if any church is getting money from the government (a liberal concept that if you get a tax credit then you are getting federal money) is of course going to have to OBEY federal law which includes accepting gay marriage. She was exposed as a liar, a bigot, and an operative with an unnamed agenda.

Separation of Church and State, ever hear of it. Under that I really don't think the church should be exempt from taxes, but they made their case for it, our government agreed with it and so it is. Our system at work. Now this lady that said that because the church is exempt from tax that they must also obey the federal law including accepting gay marriage. There is no federal law saying anything like that. The only law being dealt with here is that gay marriage needs to be legally recognized by both the state and federal governments, the same as heterosexual marriage is. That's all, that's it, nothing more yet both sides keep trying to toss other things into the mix to cloud it.
If churches don't want to recognize gay marriage that is their right, and no state should be allowed to tell them otherwise, in the same vane the church shouldn't be telling or influencing the states into not legally recognizing it.
There has not yet been a sound legal argument based on any legal facts or reasoning to oppose gay marriage, you haven't made one, the church hasn't made one and the state hasn't made one, they have all been moral and philosophical objections.
You've said many times SCOTUS's decision on this was based on "feelings"......... your objection and that of everyone else against it is totally and completely based on "FEELINGS".
Now as to this lady she's a bit misguided, I see where her thought was going, but it was still wrong, As to her being "a liar, a bigot, and an operative with an unnamed agenda" without having seen the show I can't speak to it, but with it being Un'Reality I'm sure those are the exact thoughts about her he wanted you to walk away with.

[Yssup Rider]

Poor JDrunk.

The hypocrisy of his stand on this speaks volumes to his pickled brain.

Intervention?

[JD Barleycorn]

No one can take you seriously can they?

[novacain]

Hello, pot..............

[JD Barleycorn]

OOOooopppps! That is a forbidden topic...and I don't smoke or drink anyway.

[novacain]

LMAO, really Judy, are you going to grasp for that straw............. you bang that RTM I'm sure the mods could use a laugh................
Question........... Did your parents have any children that lived?

[JD Barleycorn]

Unlike yours, my parents were married and I have a brother and a sister. Even though I don't talk to the brother, he is smarter and more honest than you are.

[novacain]

LMAO, and your response just solidifies my question................ dunce!

And I'll pull a page from your book................ just where was I dishonest?? link?

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Since this is my thread, point is where I say it is but be that as it may you'll still trying to argue semantics I see. My OP was about two gay men (hereafter referred to as faggots) who spat on a uniformed clergymen. Why did they do that? Because he was catholic? Because he was a clergymen? Because he was a FOX news contributor? With all the demonization by the left against the church, authority figures, and FOX news any of the three could be correct. The question is, what's next. I'll tell you...

The left will start going after organized religion using whatever pretext they have. Right now it is "gay pride" and the target is the catholic church. Later it will be something else and maybe the Mormons or Baptist even though the only "religion" that is completely against gay people is Islam.

Last night on O'Reilly they had a gay woman on who represented some gay rights organization. She was asked about problems with the church and gay marriage since the SCOTUS did not make gay marriage legal but it did overturn state attempts to define what marriage was. She said that they had no problem with churches or religions who opposed gay marriage. Sounds nice doesn't it. Then the father asked if she supported even the tax exempt churches....she hestitated slightly and then said that if any church is getting money from the government (a liberal concept that if you get a tax credit then you are getting federal money) is of course going to have to OBEY federal law which includes accepting gay marriage. She was exposed as a liar, a bigot, and an operative with an unnamed agenda.

In other words, she was "exposed" as a typical lyin liberal .

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

In other words, she was "exposed" as a typical lyin liberal .

Why should churches be tax exempt in the first place?

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Why should churches be tax exempt in the first place?

For the same reason Planned Parenthood is, they both provide charitable work for the people of the community they are in. The idea being that the money that would be paid in taxes would go the community.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by novacain

Separation of Church and State, ever hear of it. Under that I really don't think the church should be exempt from taxes, but they made their case for it, our government agreed with it and so it is. Our system at work. Now this lady that said that because the church is exempt from tax that they must also obey the federal law including accepting gay marriage. There is no federal law saying anything like that. The only law being dealt with here is that gay marriage needs to be legally recognized by both the state and federal governments, the same as heterosexual marriage is. That's all, that's it, nothing more yet both sides keep trying to toss other things into the mix to cloud it.
If churches don't want to recognize gay marriage that is their right, and no state should be allowed to tell them otherwise, in the same vane the church shouldn't be telling or influencing the states into not legally recognizing it.
There has not yet been a sound legal argument based on any legal facts or reasoning to oppose gay marriage, you haven't made one, the church hasn't made one and the state hasn't made one, they have all been moral and philosophical objections.
You've said many times SCOTUS's decision on this was based on "feelings"......... your objection and that of everyone else against it is totally and completely based on "FEELINGS".
Now as to this lady she's a bit misguided, I see where her thought was going, but it was still wrong, As to her being "a liar, a bigot, and an operative with an unnamed agenda" without having seen the show I can't speak to it, but with it being Un'Reality I'm sure those are the exact thoughts about her he wanted you to walk away with.

See the red print. First, you'll never accept any argument as being on sound legal or ethical grounds. You can always take any (and you will) argument to some moral or religious concept and thus disqualify it in your mind. So arguing with you is like arguing with an idiot (something I've said before). Nothing will change your mind once you've decided what you want to believe.

1. The definition of marriage should be left to the will of the people and not the courts. Let each state decide through legislation or referendum. The majority are against "gay marriage". The states that support "gay marriage" do so for the most part by judicial fiat and not the will of the people. If the left truly cares about majority rule, democracy, or a representative republic then they most support citizen support.

2. Government has intruded into the marriage realm because of tax and inheritance laws. Who gets what because of their relationship. There is no chance of natural child bearing inside of a conventional gay marriage (no surrogates, no girl friends). Without the child bearing and subsequent inheritance rights, there is no interest of government in marriage except for political gains.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by dirty dog

For the same reason Planned Parenthood is, they both provide charitable work for the people of the community they are in. The idea being that the money that would be paid in taxes would go the community.

But churches do not have to have their books examined. We don't know WHAT they're doing with their money.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

See the red print. First, you'll never accept any argument as being on sound legal or ethical grounds. You can always take any (and you will) argument to some moral or religious concept and thus disqualify it in your mind. So arguing with you is like arguing with an idiot (something I've said before). Nothing will change your mind once you've decided what you want to believe.

1. The definition of marriage should be left to the will of the people and not the courts. Let each state decide through legislation or referendum. The majority are against "gay marriage". The states that support "gay marriage" do so for the most part by judicial fiat and not the will of the people. If the left truly cares about majority rule, democracy, or a representative republic then they most support citizen support.

2. Government has intruded into the marriage realm because of tax and inheritance laws. Who gets what because of their relationship. There is no chance of natural child bearing inside of a conventional gay marriage (no surrogates, no girl friends). Without the child bearing and subsequent inheritance rights, there is no interest of government in marriage except for political gains.

Using your logic, anything voted on by the people is ok, regardless of whether it is discriminatory or not. Do you have to see everything through a political lens? Majority rule? We don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic. Caring about either one does not mean one must support the unequal treatment of one segment of society by another segment, simply because that segment is larger. Are you fucking nuts?

[novacain]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

See the red print. First, you'll never accept any argument as being on sound legal or ethical grounds. You can always take any (and you will) argument to some moral or religious concept and thus disqualify it in your mind. So arguing with you is like arguing with an idiot (something I've said before). Nothing will change your mind once you've decided what you want to believe.
The exact same thing could also be said of you, you oppose this only on your belief's that it is wrong, I on the other hand do not feel it's wrong............ which makes neither of us either right or wrong........... as this is how we believe, our feelings about the subject. Gay marriage physically harms no one, you can't show me where it does, no one can because it doesn't........... it might offend you, it might disgust you but it does not in any way truly harm you. So if it harms no one person, where is any sound logical basis with which to deny it........... you don't have one, you never did, you never will.

1. The definition of marriage should be left to the will of the people and not the courts. Let each state decide through legislation or referendum. The majority are against "gay marriage". The states that support "gay marriage" do so for the most part by judicial fiat and not the will of the people. If the left truly cares about majority rule, democracy, or a representative republic then they most support citizen support.
I'd support a national vote on the matter, see what the TRUE will of the people really is, not just the people in this state or that state. I have a feeling your "majority against" would be proved false.

2. Government has intruded into the marriage realm because of tax and inheritance laws. Who gets what because of their relationship. There is no chance of natural child bearing inside of a conventional gay marriage (no surrogates, no girl friends). Without the child bearing and subsequent inheritance rights, there is no interest of government in marriage except for political gains.
Really, this is your weak stance.......... so I guess according to you, homosexual couples don't adopt children, they also don't amass wealth and property. We both know this here is one of the dumbest and untrue arguments you have ever made, it's a proven fact that gay couples do both. So it seems there is a reason for government involvement beyond political gains.

You really need to just walk away from this Judy, you have nothing sound to argue this with, might be why the judgment that was made................ was made.