Gay love

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Son is pitching.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When he's done, I look forward to you trying to explain why you have a shred of credibility left on this thread. You tell me why the Democrats weren't leading the opposition to the civil rights march. Hint - you can't do it by naming a few prominent democrats who were in favor of civil rights, because I didn't claim that zero democrats were pro-civil rights. What I said was, the vast majority of those blocking Civil Rights legislation back then, were Democrats. That's what I said. And after I posted the numbers, I cannot fathom how you can disagree.

[basswipe]

I guess I just don't get this thread.I don't understand all these long winded replies.I already dumbed it down once but I guess I have to do it again:

OBAMA IS COURTING THE GAY COMMUNITY FOR VOTES.ITS CALLED PANDERING.Its that simple,nothing more and nothing less.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

When he's done, I look forward to you trying to explain why you have a shred of credibility left on this thread. You tell me why the Democrats weren't leading the opposition to the civil rights march. Hint - you can't do it by naming a few prominent democrats who were in favor of civil rights, because I didn't claim that zero democrats were pro-civil rights. What I said was, the vast majority of those blocking Civil Rights legislation back then, were Democrats. That's what I said. And after I posted the numbers, I cannot fathom how you can disagree.

Your assertion was that it was "funny" for Democrats to make an analogy between civil rights and gay rights because it was "the Democrats who were opposed to civil rights for blacks".

This doesn't make any sense.

As you've wisely indicated (aka the preemptive back track ) not all Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act.

Certainly so, the legislation was proposed by a Democratic President and passed by a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate.

Remember, Democrats in the south were originally advocates strong states rights and slavery as an economic necessity (i.e. at the time more conservative). This was the culture that persisted even as slavery was outlawed. The South's loyalty to their party kept many voting as Democrats until the Democratic party shifted further to the Left...and ultimately drove Southern Democrats to the Republican Party which is precisely why Southern states tend to vote Republican today.

Hell, perhaps the most vocal Democratic opponent to Civil Rights was Strom Thurmond...who switched parties and became a Republican in 1964.

Republicans did join ranks with Democrats and made the Civil Rights Act an example of bi-partisan legislation...back then...but we all know the Republican party has moved to the Right...characterized by Nixon's Southern Strategy, the Moral Majority and more recently the bastardization of even Ronald Reagan's legacy.

So I'm not sure what's all that funny about it. I guess it could be considered ironic, assuming you lacked a basic understanding of American history.

As for the black response, here's a pretty interesting take...

Is the black church guilty of spiritual hypocrisy in same-sex marriage debate? – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Your assertion was that it was "funny" for Democrats to make an analogy between civil rights and gay rights because it was "the Democrats who were opposed to civil rights for blacks".

This doesn't make any sense.

As you've wisely indicated (aka the preemptive back track ) not all Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act.

Certainly so, the legislation was proposed by a Democratic President and passed by a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate.

Remember, Democrats in the south were originally advocates strong states rights and slavery as an economic necessity (i.e. at the time more conservative). This was the culture that persisted even as slavery was outlawed. The South's loyalty to their party kept many voting as Democrats until the Democratic party shifted further to the Left...and ultimately drove Southern Democrats to the Republican Party which is precisely why Southern states tend to vote Republican today.

Hell, perhaps the most vocal Democratic opponent to Civil Rights was Strom Thurmond...who switched parties and became a Republican in 1964.

Republicans did join ranks with Democrats and made the Civil Rights Act an example of bi-partisan legislation...back then...but we all know the Republican party has moved to the Right...characterized by Nixon's Southern Strategy, the Moral Majority and more recently the bastardization of even Ronald Reagan's legacy.

So I'm not sure what's all that funny about it. I guess it could be considered ironic, assuming you lacked a basic understanding of American history.

As for the black response, here's a pretty interesting take...

Is the black church guilty of spiritual hypocrisy in same-sex marriage debate? – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

-spence

Spence, I didn't "backtrack" when I said some Democrats supported civil rights. I would never say anything so stupid as saying that zero democrats supportwed civil rights. Just because you but your foot in your mouth several times a day, don't assume everyone else wallows in ignorance too.

"ultimately drove Southern Democrats to the Republican Party which is precisely why Southern states tend to vote Republican today."

Correct. You finally got one right.

"Certainly so, the legislation was proposed by a Democratic President and passed by a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate. "

That's true, but midleading, and you know it. The Republicans were of course in the minority. But you keep dismissing the fact (gee, I wonder why) that a much larger percentage of Republicans voted for the bill, than Democrats. I'll repeat. Of the 27 Senators who voted against, 21 were Democrats. Of the 126 reps who voted against, 91 were Democrats. Talk about an inconvenient truth...for you, that is. You can't process facts that don't fit your agenda, even if those facts are 60 years old. Amazing.

Again, in typical liberal fashion, you assume blacks should support homosexuals because they too were discriminated against. Blacks don't see it that way, no matter how many times you look down your noses at them condescendingly, and smugly suggest otherwise.

"bi-partisan legislation...back then"

Ahhh. So you are implying that Republicans aren't interested in bipartisanship anymore. Interesting. Spence, do me a favor, look back, and see who has been bi-oartisan with Supreme Court nominees, and which party is obstructionist? Republicans routinely confirm the most liberal justices nominated by Democrats (the voted to confirm Sotomayor and Ginsburg, for example). Remember what happened to Bush's nominee, Robert Bork. The Democrat refusal to confirm Bork was so partisan and unprecedented, it gave way to a new term, called "Borking". Bork, as an appellate judge, had never been overturned by a higher court. His confirmation was denied by Democrats. Sotomayor had been overturned many times, and she was confirmed. Interesting, if your mind isn't so closed off that you have to stick your head in the sand because it makes your side look reprehensible.

Again Spence, I know you want to believe that Democrats are always compromising, and that Republicans are always obstructing. If you could prove that, I'd support your assertion. But once again, you cannot.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

But you keep dismissing the fact (gee, I wonder why) that a much larger percentage of Republicans voted for the bill, than Democrats.

Actually I gave a very clear and reasoned explanation.

Again, in typical liberal fashion, you assume blacks should support homosexuals because they too were discriminated against. Blacks don't see it that way, no matter how many times you look down your noses at them condescendingly, and smugly suggest otherwise.

Actually, the article points out that black leaders use the same biblical approach to condemn homosexuality as were used to promote slavery.

This is very interesting no?

Ahhh. So you are implying that Republicans aren't interested in bipartisanship anymore. Interesting. Spence, do me a favor, look back, and see who has been bi-oartisan with Supreme Court nominees, and which party is obstructionist? Republicans routinely confirm the most liberal justices nominated by Democrats (the voted to confirm Sotomayor and Ginsburg, for example). Remember what happened to Bush's nominee, Robert Bork. The Democrat refusal to confirm Bork was so partisan and unprecedented, it gave way to a new term, called "Borking". Bork, as an appellate judge, had never been overturned by a higher court. His confirmation was denied by Democrats. Sotomayor had been overturned many times, and she was confirmed. Interesting, if your mind isn't so closed off that you have to stick your head in the sand because it makes your side look reprehensible.

Here you go again...taking something tangent to the conversation just to attempt a point nobody even asked you to make.

Sotomayor managed to get 9 Republican votes...and you're citing this as a bi-partisan accomplishment?

Wow.

As for real bi-partisan legislation, right now I don't believe it's possible unless perhaps it was related to national defense.

Again Spence, I know you want to believe that Democrats are always compromising, and that Republicans are always obstructing. If you could prove that, I'd support your assertion. But once again, you cannot.

I never claimed democrats were always compromising.

-spence

[likwid]

Jesus effing christ, let em get married already.
Everyone can take the religious/bigot/whatever excuses why they can't and get stuffed.

Marriage is a sham in this country with the rate of divorce. Where's the 'religious' outrage over that?

[Sea Dangles]

18 years for me tomorrow.
Great years
no sham

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

18 years for me tomorrow.
Great years
no sham

Exemplary...I'm nearing 10.

-spence

[Piscator]

Going on 7 years this June, no sham here.

[The Dad Fisherman]

20 Years for me on Wednesday....

[scottw]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

20 Years for me on Wednesday....

that's a great #...congrats!...19 years for me..

[sburnsey931]

This is the President's Etch-a-Sketch moment. Now that the race is one on one they will both reposition themselves in the general election.
To the advisors it is a simple math problem....though evolving....to do and say whatever is needed to defeat each other. Every campaign is full of flip flops and every term served is full of empty campaign promises.
It's all about how gullible the voters can be.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by likwid

Marriage is a sham in this country with the rate of divorce. Where's the 'religious' outrage over that?

you are aware that the divorce rate has been steadily declining in this country and is currently at it's lowest level since 1970(albiet for a host of reasons) but you didn't mention any factors regarding the causes for the rate before declaring marriage a sham..

btw, if marriage is indeed a "sham", why would gay couples be so anxious to participate in a "sham"?

U.S. divorce rate declines, reason unclear
2012-03-17

By David Crary / The Associated Press
NEW YORK -- By the numbers, divorce just isn't what it used to be.

Despite the common notion that America remains plagued by a divorce epidemic, the national per capita divorce rate has declined steadily since its peak in 1981 and is now at its lowest level since 1970.

[Jim in CT]

To the liberals who are making saints out of Obama and Biden for supporting gay marriage, here is #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney doing the same exact thing in 2009.

Video of the Day: #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney Endorsing Gay Marriage in 2009 - Garance Franke-Ruta - Politics - The Atlantic

[Fly Rod]

No body here can really believe that OBAMA believes in gay marriges...U just do not change your mind over nite.....if he believed, why did he not mention that he was for gay marriges in 2008..2009..2010...2011

It is just a politcal ploy which I think has back fired...even some gays believe it is only a political move.

[RIROCKHOUND]

why not?

My position has changed through time. Young and dumb 10 years ago there is no way I would have thought it was right. Knowing one half of some very faithful lesbian couples that I worked with over the years has certainly changed my perspective on it.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

No body here can really believe that OBAMA believes in gay marriges...U just do not change your mind over nite.....if he believed, why did he not mention that he was for gay marriges in 2008..2009..2010...2011

You don't? 6-7 years ago, I was a liberal and felt like taxes should be higher.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

You don't? 6-7 years ago, I was a liberal and felt like taxes should be higher.

JD, yup, increasing age and expeience can lead to knowledge, wisdom and common sense.

[Fly Rod]

rirockhound:
Like U it took me years to understand the gay and lesbian rights movement. I have a few gay friends too... So be it.... and as I stated in an earlier post I still do not believe in man marrying man or woman marrying woman....but with goofy Biden making the statement Obama comes out for gay marriages of which is only to get the gay vote.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by scottw

you are aware that the divorce rate has been steadily declining in this country and is currently at it's lowest level since 1970(albiet for a host of reasons) but you didn't mention any factors regarding the causes for the rate before declaring marriage a sham..

btw, if marriage is indeed a "sham", why would gay couples be so anxious to participate in a "sham"?

The sanctity of marriage is a sham, sorry, I forgot everything had to be spelled out for you.

U.S. divorce rate declines, reason unclear
2012-03-17

By David Crary / The Associated Press
NEW YORK -- By the numbers, divorce just isn't what it used to be.

Despite the common notion that America remains plagued by a divorce epidemic, the national per capita divorce rate has declined steadily since its peak in 1981 and is now at its lowest level since 1970.

The 2012 Statistical Abstract: Births, Deaths, Marriages, & Divorces

Scroll down to the bottom, tell me, how many marriages were there vs divorces?

[spence]

You guys still don't get it...this has nothing to do with gay marriage.

-spence

[zimmy]

This is from one of those chain email things that has been going around for years. Whether it was actually sent to Dr. Laura Shropshireslasherer and whether the guy from U of V wrote it isn't clear, but the points are great. It's reference to those who use the bible to justify being anti-gay marriage. I am sure you all will appreciate the spirit of it

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I
have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that
knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend
the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that
Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of
debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements
of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine
claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians.
Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in
her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is
how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take
offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my
neighbours.....They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I
smite them?

5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally
obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there
'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some
wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.
19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes
me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester
blend).
He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary
that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to
stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a
private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their
in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy
considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,
Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education
University of Virginia

P.S. It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

This is from one of those chain email things that has been going around for years. Whether it was actually sent to Dr. Laura Shropshireslasherer and whether the guy from U of V wrote it isn't clear, but the points are great. It's reference to those who use the bible to justify being anti-gay marriage. I am sure you all will appreciate the spirit of it

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I
have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that
knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend
the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that
Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of
debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements
of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine
claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians.
Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

Apparently, God has changed His mind, and so the Bible was revised and updated with what some call The New Testament. It is very progressive, and from the frame of mind that your questions suggest, you would probably like this revision--it is SO 21st century, filled with love and caring for the poor and such. And . . . can you imagine . . . a whole nation was founded on various principles and beliefs in the combined version of old and new testaments. It even, eventually, abolished slavery.

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her?

There are other countries that have not heard of, nor subscribe to, this revision and you could probably sell her in those places. The price could be tricky. If you do not follow their version, the price may be your head.

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in
her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is
how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take
offense.

With most women, you can usually tell when they are in this unclean period, as they are often more cranky than usual and not so attractive as such. I take it you're a bit of a clod that you have not caught on to this state of affairs even though you have asked several (most women). Perhaps they are mostly taking offense to your stupidity?

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my
neighbours.....They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I
smite them?

Your neighbors are, unlike you, probably being polite. Rather than suggesting that you're rather odd in having an outdoor alter on your property and burning animals on it, they merely mention the odor. Of course, if they knew you were contemplating smiting them, they might actually tell you how crazy you are and would endeavor to have you put in more secure surroundings. For your good as well as theirs. I take it that your city has not evolved into modern ways such as codes against burning on open alters in residential areas?

5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally
obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

Again, you might refer to the amended portion called The New Testament. Technically, police will only respond after the killing has occurred rather than doing the killing themselves. Of course, if they do respond to someone who is being threatened by the likes of you, they might, inadvertantly kill you. But that's not what your looking for. And, for such reasons, many feel the need to arm themselves. So you might be careful about the smiting thing . . . you might encounter someone with a 30 round clip, and . . well . . . the smiting may become unpleasant for you.

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there
'degrees' of abomination?

Of course there are, as witnessed by the degree to which you have descended.

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some
wiggle-room here?

Your vision is so myopic that you might not safely cross the street, much less try to wiggle your way into contact with other people . . . or God.

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.
19:27. How should they die?

Probably from the laughter evinced by your sincere ignorance.

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes
me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

You do seem to be stuck on Leviticus. Try to peruse some of the other books including the updated version. The Bible HAS been considered to evoke beautiful literary content as well as its religious merit. But if you must wallow in Leviticus, as pig-headed people might do, I suggest you stay away from contact sports, since well muscled athletes with usual sports mentality tend to punish behaviour that deviates too far from the norm.

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester
blend).
He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary
that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to
stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a
private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their
in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy
considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,
Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education
University of Virginia

P.S. It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian

AHHHH . . . I see that Leviticus has twisted you into a caricature of reason and intellect that tilts at windmills. Your errant quest to fight God's battles is ill equipped. You cannot comprehend God. And no book of the Bible will enlighten you. Scholars have studied all the scripts and still do not "know" totally the word of God.

They "know" of a presence, but cannot truly name it, nor fully understand.

So you may mock the Word, as it has been translated by man, and so is imperfect. As is imperfect all of man's endeavors and his quest for knowledge. His "science" keeps naming existence but has yet to give a fully comprehensive description. It seems, even, that his attempt to see distorts the picture. Eating from the Tree of Knowledge has made us ignorant that the word of God IS Creation, and that "eternal" is incomprehensible to us, the created. And if the nexus between God and science is essence, then that essence must be unchanging. If it is not, then we can never know it.