Position Briefs

Tuesday, July 9, 2013

The Radical Gay Agenda

Now that the Hall of Fame posts are up to date, I want to post some stuff about LGBT Rights, some of the recent victories, some of the disgusting backlash, and some other semi-related stuff that I've come accross that I want to share.

First of all, HOO-RAY for the Supreme Court Striking down DOMA! And hoo-ray for their deft handling of the Prop 8 case. Of course, it would have been nice for them to have struck it down outright as well, but doing it the way they did prevents establishing the precedent of CITIZENS defending unconstitutional laws, and really, makes it so that NO ONE can say that the court 'over-reached.' In fact, they dealt only with precisely the issue in front of them, staying well within the bounds or Constitutional Law and Precedent, and reached precisely the correct conclusion - in both cases - with precisely the right reasoning. (Leaving the door WAAAY open to strike down State Prohibitions in a later case, using Justice Kennedy's same reasoning.)

The wierd thing is? Had the State of California actually decide intially to DEFEND Prop 8? And then APPEAL the Lower Court's decision to overturn it? Then the Supreme Court WOULD have had the standing to strike it down, thus invalidating ALL OF THE OTHER State's homophobic marriage statutes! Isn't that amazaing? Because California did the RIGHT THING in NOT defending this abomination of a law... OTHER State's still get to discriminate!

THAT'S what you call "unintended consequences." Funny how things sometimes work out, especially considering the backlash the Godlen State would have gotten if they not only DEFENDED the law, but then APPEALED the decision to strike it down! And yet... If they did? Well, shoot, we might have Gay Marriage in all 50 States Rigth Now!

Which leads me to another milestone in the fight for gay and transgendered equality...

Did you realize that in 29 States it remaines perfectly legal to fire someone for no other reason that being Gay? Add another 5 where it's legal to fire someone for being Transgenered. Now Congress is attempting to do something about that with EDNA. And in respose to pointing out all of the media's misinformation about EDNA, MMFA poster santovicente had this to say:

And so it begins. Getting married ain't nearly good enough. Now, we gotta put up with all sorts of laws making it illegal to not like queers.


Now... I put up his post, because I would like to share my response, which I'm rather proud of, before MMFA decides to take it down. (And they really should! LOL)

You're a right royal prick, aren't you?

No, "getting married" AIN'T enough, you festering boil!

"ENOUGH" is being treaty EQUALLY. Not be DISCRIMINATED against. To have ALL THE SAME INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS as ALL HUMAN BEINGS have and are entitled to, you bucket of sweltering pig's vomit!

Personally, I wonder what would be enough for YOU? Concentration Camps and re-education centers? Maybe YOU'LL be satisfied when you'll be able to go through your day without ever having to deal with anyone who's the slightest bit different that you are, you pimply pustule.

THEY are human beings. YOU would be little more than an APE, IF I wasn't such a wildlife enthusiast.

Now... Putting aside the well deserved rant and artistic vitirol, there is a serious point to make here.

In MY VISION of a perfect world, all people get to enjoy the great opportunity and quality of life that this great coutry offers, and get to participate in the great democratic political process REGARDLESS of whether they are Black, White, Red, Brown or Yellow, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist, Gay, Strait, Bi-, Pan-, Cis-, Trans-, Able-Bodied, Handicapped, Autistic, Blind, Deaf, Mute or Fluently English Speaking. In MY perfect world, ALL PEOPLE enjoy all of the great things that Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness have to offer.

Um...

What does THIS ASSHOLE'S perfect world look like, I wonder? What is so terrible about MY vision, MY ideals, MY 'perfect world' (OURS, really, but you get what I'm saying) that causes scumbags like him to recoil and lash out with hate and venom every time we take one small step closer to it? Seriously!

What are they offering that is so wonderful? What... We all get to enjoy life so long as we do everything just like them?

This isn't chariceture, and it's NOT rhetorical. I want to know what these fuck-nuts on the Right, these Religious Funny-Mentalists have against the idea that ALL human life - ACTUAL human life - is sacrosant, and that no one person's rights are greater than another's, and thus no one has the right to take anything away from another. What the fuck is so WRONG with that? What the fuck is wrong with them? Becuase I cannot even understand, let alone abide, the way these people "think!"

Another MMFA Piece, was this Washingtom Times Piece from Elaine "Shrieking Harpy" Donnelly, saying (among other things) that "Mr. Obama has used the armed forces to deliver on political promises to his homosexual base, and traditional military families are about to pay the bill." This is part of a larger column arguing (falsely) that extending marriage benefits to same-sex couples is somehow going to harm "traditional" military families. Basically that these good old, hard-working Christians are going to have to foot the bill (negligible though it may be) for treating Gays like human beings.

And again, I bring it up, because I would like to share my response:

Um... SO FUCKING WHAT?

The abolition of slavery came with a cost too.

We don't treat our fellow human beings with equality because it's cost effective, we do it because IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO, YOU HORRIBLE BITCH!

(What can I say... I was in a ranting mood today!)

But seriously, again: What the fuck is wrong with these fucking people? What they hell is wrong with treating HUMAN FUCKING BEINGS like HUMAN FUCKING BEINGS?! What part of "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL" do these genetically defective mental midgets not fucking understand?!

There were others, but I'm all ranted out now. I hope you enjoyed reading that, and if I've offended your sense of Christian Morals, please feel free to go fuck yourself. Anytime.

I'll leave you with this EXCELLENT video. I almost wish that Anonymous had the intitive (and the balls) to set up some manner of account so he could keep postiong, becuase this directly debunks a lot of what we we used to argue about - the idea of CHOICE and whether or not one is "born that way." As I've said before: Science WOKRS. Yay SCIENCE. (Sadly, I am not planning to re-instate anonymous posting any time soon unless Blogger fixes their spam filter, BIG TIME. There was just too much crap getting through.)

254 comments:

  1. "Did you realize that in 29 States it remaines perfectly legal to fire someone for no other reason that being Gay?"

    Did you realize that in 50 states it is legal to fire someone for no other reason than the boss doesn't like you? What's your point? If you don't want to get fired join a union. That's what happens in Detroit. Oh wait they went bankrupt because of stupid rules that say you can't be fired. How exactly will your complaint correct anything?

    ReplyDelete
  2. So people should be allowed to fire employees based on their religion, then?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Is that what you believe? It seems kind of harsh but liberalizm has some weird beliefs. You people aren't as progressive as you think you are, huh?

    States may allow what Eddie is complaining about, but it is against federal law, so he is being very misleading in his whine about gays getting fired. So, it is NOT "perfectly legal" to fire anyone "for no other reason than being gay". He needs to work on his facts. I guess facts and liberalizm don't get along very well.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm asking about your views, obviously.

    You said "Did you realize that in 50 states it is legal to fire someone for no other reason than the boss doesn't like you? What's your point? If you don't want to get fired join a union." Now, if your view is really that people should be able to fire subordinates for any reason, then religion would be one of those reasons. If you don't think that people should be able to fire subordinates for their beliefs, then your whatever-esque reply to people being fired for sexual orientation makes no sense.

    Get it?

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Now, if your view is really that people should be able to fire subordinates for any reason, then religion would be one of those reasons."

    I didn't say "for any reason". I said "doesn't like you". Now, if you want to ask me about what I SAID and not what you make up that I said, then please do. Otherwise your comment makes no sense, because it is against the law to fire someone simply for religious beliefs.

    Perhaps you want to comment on Eddie's misleading whine about how "perfectly legal" it is to fire gays in 29 states? Since what I said is TRUE and what he said is FALSE, why do you question what I said?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I didn't say "for any reason". I said "doesn't like you"."

      Oh, so "doesn't like you" carries some specific criteria that you failed to mention? That was spectacularly stupid of you, then.

      "Otherwise your comment makes no sense, because it is against the law to fire someone simply for religious beliefs."

      Precisely the point. It needs to be against the law to fire people for being gay as well, but that's not consistent with your comment.

      "Since what I said is TRUE and what he said is FALSE, why do you question what I said?"

      He can take it up with you if he likes. I question you because your comment was idiotic. You're still accountable for what you say no matter what anyone else says, even if you whine about it.

      Delete
    2. "Oh, so "doesn't like you" carries some specific criteria that you failed to mention?"

      Do you know what "at will employment" means? No, you probably don't. Here, I'll help you out:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

      "Precisely the point. It needs to be against the law to fire people for being gay as well, but that's not consistent with your comment."

      It IS against the law to fire someone for "being gay". That's the part that Eddie is misleading everyone with. Eddie said it is legal in some states, when it is NOT legal to do that Federally. Are you supporting his statement? Or simply defending it?

      BTW, I would take it up with Eddie if he'd respond. But, since YOU responded then I am taking it up with you.

      Delete
    3. "Do you know what "at will employment" means?"

      Yes. What does this have to do with what you said?

      "It IS against the law to fire someone for "being gay"."

      I said it NEEDS to be, not that it wasn't. Your point seems to be that since people can be fired for no reason, nobody should care about people being fired for being gay. That's quite clearly what you said.

      "Are you supporting his statement? Or simply defending it?"

      I don't care. I'm talking about what you said.

      "But, since YOU responded then I am taking it up with you."

      It has nothing to do with what you said, so it's irrelevant. So sorry.

      Delete
    4. "Yes. What does this have to do with what you said?"

      Everything. I base my entire statement on that.

      "That's quite clearly what you said."

      What I said is that it is against the law to fire someone for being gay in all 50 states. Eddie said it is legal to fire them in 29 states. He is wrong and I am right.

      Delete
    5. What does "at will" have to do with your apathetic attitude regarding people getting fired for sexual orientation?

      "What I said is that it is against the law to fire someone for being gay in all 50 states."

      That's a lie. Here's your post that I first responded to, in its entirety:"Did you realize that in 50 states it is legal to fire someone for no other reason than the boss doesn't like you? What's your point? If you don't want to get fired join a union. That's what happens in Detroit. Oh wait they went bankrupt because of stupid rules that say you can't be fired. How exactly will your complaint correct anything?" Note the lack of any comment about it being against federal law or anything of the sort.

      Delete
    6. No, it isn't a lie. I said it is legal to be fired for no other reason than the boss doesn't like you. If he fires you because you are gay it is against the law in ALL 50 states. Not just the few that Eddie mentioned. Is that the best you can comprehend what is being said?

      I gave you the link to "at will". You can now go ask someone to explain it to you, since you don't seem to be able to figure it out on your own.

      Delete
    7. Sorry, no. You brought up the legality after. I'm talking about what you said before that. Hence your lie. I quoted exactly what you originally said, and illegality of firing people for being gay is not in it. In fact, after two of my replies to you, you said "Perhaps you want to comment on Eddie's misleading whine about how "perfectly legal" it is to fire gays in 29 states?" Not your first post, but when you obviously felt the need to deflect attention from what you actually said.

      And again, what does "at will" have to do with your apathetic attitude regarding people getting fired for their sexual orientation? You'll have to explain the relevance, if you want to make it a point of contention.

      Delete
    8. "Sorry, no. You brought up the legality after. "

      You're just floundering now. I used the word "legal" in my first statement (the one you quoted)

      "I'm talking about what you said before that. Hence your lie."

      Ok. WHAT did I say "before" that? It seems I DID direct my statement to the "legal" aspects of Eddie's "whine". It is NOT legal to fire someone for "being gay" in ANY state in the US. You can fire them without reason "legally" in ALL the states in the US. Therefore he is WRONG and I am RIGHT because "in 29 States it remaines perfectly legal to fire someone for no other reason that being Gay?" is a LIE. And he refuses to account for his lie. Being a liberal I fully expect that from him. And, being a liberal, I fully expect that from you. Which you are bringing examples of on an almost daily basis.

      Delete
    9. "You're just floundering now. I used the word "legal" in my first statement (the one you quoted)"

      Not in that context, liar.

      "Ok. WHAT did I say "before" that?"

      I've already quoted you more than once.

      "It seems I DID direct my statement to the "legal" aspects of Eddie's "whine"."

      But you didn't say anything about illegality on the federal level, as you claim you did.

      "Therefore he is WRONG and I am RIGHT because "in 29 States it remaines perfectly legal to fire someone for no other reason that being Gay?" is a LIE."

      Even if your assertion is true, and you haven't substantiated it, it has nothing to do with the quote of yours that I took issue with.

      "And he refuses to account for his lie."

      You refuse to account for your bigotry, since you keep trying to deflect from what YOU SAID.

      Delete
    10. "Not in that context, liar."

      Yes, I used it in the correct context for what was being discussed.

      "I've already quoted you more than once."

      You said I lied in a quote before the one you quoted ("I'm talking about what you said before that. Hence your lie." http://www.blogger.com/profile/02183512606468901460). What did I say before that quote? Take you time bringing that quote because I KNOW it will take you forever, since there IS NO QUOTE before the one you quoted.

      "And again, what does "at will" have to do with your apathetic attitude regarding people getting fired for their sexual orientation?"

      'At will' has nothing to do with getting fired for being gay. You really don't know what 'at will' means, do you? Try going to the link I provided, and school yourself, because I'm tired of schooling you by myself. That is the crux of my argument and you don't even know what it means. Lordy, you liberals simply have no clue, do you? You can't even follow a simple a discussion without getting lost. You know the old Bible saying: Nothing new under the sun.

      Delete
    11. "Yes, I used it in the correct context for what was being discussed."

      That's not what you claimed. You didn't talk about "legal" regarding anything federal prohibiting the termination of employees for being gay in your first post. It doesn't matter if you used the word "legal" in it, contrary to your previous argument.

      "What did I say before that quote? Take you time bringing that quote because I KNOW it will take you forever, since there IS NO QUOTE before the one you quoted."

      I didn't claim there was a post before the one I originally quoted. The reference you're talking about was to your third post, not your first, obviously. Again:"You brought up the legality after. I'm talking about what you said before that", followed by;" I quoted exactly what you originally said, and illegality of firing people for being gay is not in it." Note the word "originally". To remind you, here was your claim regarding your first post:"If he fires you because you are gay it is against the law in ALL 50 states." That comment, or anything resembling it, is not there.

      "'At will' has nothing to do with getting fired for being gay."

      Then why are you talking about it?

      "That is the crux of my argument and you don't even know what it means."

      Because you're not explaining yourself at all. Your fault, not mine.

      Delete
    12. "That comment, or anything resembling it, is not there."

      My gawd, you really have no clue do you? I asked Eddie what his point was regarding MISLEADINGLY AND INCORRECTLY stating that it is "perfectly legal" to fire someone for being gay in 29 states. When I said in my second post is that it is ILLEGAL to fire someone for being gay in all 50 states. What is it that you are arguing? Are you saying it is legal to fire someone for being gay in 29 states or illegal in all 50? Sorry, but I have fully explained myself several times. Which, it appears, is how long it takes you to figure something out.

      Also a point that Eddie has failed to defend. I think he knows he was wrong and is afraid to account for his statements.

      Delete
    13. I addressed your first post. Your second post was an unsupported assertion used as a deflection, and you never answered my original question. As in "failed to defend" your comment, hypocrite.

      Delete
    14. "and you never answered my original question."

      Oh, yeah, I answered it. With a question that you ignored. For very good reason (good liberal).
      http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-radical-gay-agenda.html?showComment=1374417742493#c9101805831532046909

      "Your second post was an unsupported assertion used as a deflection,"

      My second post was FACT that you are denying. You are a well trained liberal ... ignore FACTS and promote HATRED. As in constant name-calling and hateful rhetoric. Good liberal (pet ... pet) ... good liberal.

      Have you figured out, yet, why normal people hate liberals so much? Because you promote hatred and lies. Let's see Eddie defend his lie that I exposed. Oh, wait, he won't defend his lies. And he'll use hatred as his excuse. Good liberal

      Come on Eddie ... Bring it on. You said I couldn't beat you in a fair argument. Well, I've kicked your ass so hard you won't even show you punk ass back on your own web site. Bring it Eddie!! Or leave it for everyone else to see what a punk ass liar you are.

      I'll bet you're sorry you let me back on your site now, huh?

      Delete
    15. "Oh, yeah, I answered it. With a question that you ignored."

      You're lying again. You asked "Is that what you believe?", and I told you I was asking about your views. That answered your idiotic question. Meanwhile, you never answered mine.

      "My second post was FACT that you are denying."

      For one thing, you've brought no evidence of that "fact". And it's still a deflection, so I haven't bothered "denying" anything of the sort. You haven't given any reason for me to pay it any mind, since it has nothing to do with what you originally said, and what I took issue with.

      Delete
    16. "For one thing, you've brought no evidence of that "fact"."

      Looks like I get to spike that imaginary ball, again. You can't seriously believe it is legal to fire someone for "being gay" do you? What country do you live in? Maybe it is legal in Iran (where you live?) but not in America. And, for you to say you won't believe that until I bring proof is simply a showing of how intelligent you are.

      Delete
    17. So your evidence is for you to assert that it's true. You do realize that you can do that for anything, right? You can't even substantiate your deflection.

      I'll take your failure to address the rest of my post as an admission that you can't keep up your end of the conversation.

      Delete
    18. Yes, I assert it is true. What more evidence do you need? Should I bring a wiki site for you? Should I get something from Michael Savage? Should I go to a lawyer and ask them to give me the complete law as it is written? How am I supposed to please you in this regard? After all, we are all here to please you. Because if you don't believe it then it must not be true.

      Delete
    19. I assert that the Federal government considers it illegal to fire someone for "being gay". Which means it is NOT "perfectly legal" (as Eddie says it is) to fire someone for being gay ... FEDERALLY. If you have something that says the Federal government considers it A-OK to fire someone for "being gay" then you should mention that. If you say it is "perfectly legal" to fire someone for being gay I will provide you the proof that it is not.

      Delete
    20. "Yes, I assert it is true. What more evidence do you need?"

      Something from an objective source, idiot. Your word is meaningless.

      "I assert that the Federal government considers it illegal to fire someone for "being gay". Which means it is NOT "perfectly legal" (as Eddie says it is) to fire someone for being gay ... FEDERALLY."

      That would apply to government workers, then. What about everyone else?

      Delete
    21. Everyone else, too. Do you agree with what Eddie asserts? That it is "perfectly legal" to fire someone for being gay in 29 states?

      Delete
    22. How does it apply to everyone else, exactly?

      Delete
    23. Answer the question. Or, like Eddie, are you scared to?

      Delete
    24. No, you answer the question. I'm actually trying to figure out what you're basing your claim on, despite you dragging your feet. Now, when you explain the basis for the "fact" you keep touting, then I will be able to determine whether you are right, or whether Eddie is.

      Why would you want me to make a determination before you make your case? That's just plain stupid. At the moment, I will admit that your reference to "federal government" (not "federal law") is a red flag suggesting that you are being dishonest. Of course, being fair, I'm giving you the opportunity to explain otherwise.

      Funny how you're so conspicuously hesitant to take that opportunity, isn't it?

      Delete
    25. You're scared ... like Eddie

      Delete
    26. As you dodge the question, yet again.

      Delete
    27. "That would apply to government workers, then. What about everyone else?"

      Do you mean that question?

      Delete
    28. You already said "Everyone else, too" and I asked you how. Obviously I'm serious about the question.

      Are you serious about your claim? Because you're sure having problems explaining it.

      Delete
    29. because no one can be discriminated against (under federal law) because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Did that really need to be explained?

      Now, answer my question. Unless you are afraid to.

      Delete
    30. You didn't list sexual orientation. What federal law prevents the firing of employees for their sexual orientation?

      Delete
    31. You have said: "No, the point is that if you chose to be straight, then you're attracted to both genders.". If you are attracted to both genders then you are gay. If being straight makes you gay then there is no choice involved and there is no sexual "orientation". That would make firing you for being gay equal to firing you for being stupid or for being late for work. Which means (by your logic) Eddie is wrong about the 29 states because (again by your logic) there is no such thing a "gay" since everyone who is straight is gay and anyone who is fired is being fired because they are gay. And it isn't "perfectly legal" to fire anyone for being gay. Because being straight means you are gay. That is according to what YOU say.

      BTW, you still haven't answered my question. Is it your policy to demand answers to yours while you refuse to answer other's?

      Delete
    32. "You have said: "No, the point is that if you chose to be straight, then you're attracted to both genders.". If you are attracted to both genders then you are gay. If being straight makes you gay then there is no choice involved and there is no sexual "orientation"."

      No, being straight doesn't make you gay. You would have to be bisexual to "choose" to behave as straight. I can safely ignore the rest of your convoluted bullshit, since your premise has been corrected.

      "BTW, you still haven't answered my question."

      My answer relies on yours. What federal law are you citing? Without that, then obviously it's up to the states to decide, and Eddie's statistic would be correct.

      Delete
    33. I gave you the federal law. Now you are denying what you said AND refusing to answer the question. You said if you are straight then you are bi-sexual. Since bi-sexual is gay then you are saying being straight is being gay. No wonder you agree with Eddie, you think like a liberal and deny what you say like a liberal then demand answers to shit you make up.

      Delete
    34. You didn't cite any law.

      Your convoluted bullshit doesn't have any bearing, even if it were true. You pointed to anti-discrimination laws for everything EXCEPT sexual orientation, so whether you think I said that "gay is straight" (and I didn't) or not, the criteria you listed still don't apply. You seem to be pretending that some wild extrapolation and misrepresentation of my commentary is supposed to be recognized as law, somehow.

      Delete
    35. Sexual orientation is a choice. No different than the choice of hair color. If I decide to exclude all red-heads from my business, they have NO recourse other than to find another place to go and do business, (one that accepts red-heads). There is NO way you can force me to do business with someone who CHOOSES to be different and then whines about not being allowed to have their way.

      When you can prove gays are born that way you will have a valid point. Until that happens, you are just another whining little liberal.

      Delete
    36. "There is NO way you can force me to do business with someone who CHOOSES to be different and then whines about not being allowed to have their way."

      Hilarious. So you bring up something genetic "red-heads" and then think that's relevant to discriminating based on "choice".

      So, again, you think it's just fine for someone to discriminate against you because of your faith. Because that's a choice. Nice work, moron.

      And you still haven't cited the law that applies to all fifty states regarding termination for sexual orientation. Why is that? You wanted to divert to Eddie's "29 states" claim, now you want to (unwittingly) dodge your own argument and confirm my original suspicions about your bigotry. You think people should be able to discriminate based on one's faith, with no legal ramifications.

      Thanks for confirming that, again.

      Delete
    37. "Hilarious. So you bring up something genetic "red-heads" and then think that's relevant to discriminating based on "choice"."

      It's completely understandable that you don't understand that there is a complete INDUSTRY that caters to people CHANGING their hair color. Stop your whining, until you learn a little more about what you're whining about.

      " Why is that?"

      Because you haven't shown that sexual preference is ANYTHING MORE THAN CHOICE. When you can show that you are born that way, you win. Until then, my analogy with hair color stands and is correct.

      Concerning your bigotry remark: shut your pie hole. You are the biggest bigot I've seen and now you whine because you can't sufficiently argue your point? Good job, liberal

      Delete
    38. "It's completely understandable that you don't understand that there is a complete INDUSTRY that caters to people CHANGING their hair color."

      Oh, no, I read what you wrote. I'm still laughing at the idea of you asking your customers if the carpet matches the drapes so you know whether to discriminate against them. Absolutely riotous.

      "Because you haven't shown that sexual preference is ANYTHING MORE THAN CHOICE."

      First off, I've explained how your views are ludicrous. More importantly, what the hell does that have to do with your claim that it's against federal law to fire employees for being gay? I said, quite clearly, that you haven't cited that law, and asked why. It has nothing to do with what you're demanding, moron.

      "Concerning your bigotry remark: shut your pie hole."

      Sorry, you post, I'm allowed to post as well. Get over it.

      "You are the biggest bigot I've seen and now you whine because you can't sufficiently argue your point?"

      Where have you shown any bigotry on my part? You haven't, and you can't.

      Delete
    39. " I said, quite clearly, that you haven't cited that law, and asked why. It has nothing to do with what you're demanding, moron."

      This is your chance to prove that being gay is a genetic issue. Since you can't prove that, then when you admit you can't prove that, we'll advance farther. The key is WHEN you prove they are born that way, then federal law prohibits any of that type of discrimination. But, since you are afraid to go to that effort (since there is none of that proof) we are stuck with you asking inane questions based on ASSUMPTIONS and OPINIONS that you have and believe.

      "Sorry, you post, I'm allowed to post as well. Get over it."

      Ok, you admit you are a bigot. Thanks

      Delete
    40. "The key is WHEN you prove they are born that way, then federal law prohibits any of that type of discrimination."

      So you called Eddie a liar based on an argument by me that hadn't been broached yet? That's interesting, especially since you kept demanding for me to say whether I agreed with him or not. If your argument really hinged on my actions, then that question made no sense. Obviously I believe it's not a choice, so federal law should prohibit that type of discrimination. But your claim was that it does already prohibit that discrimination, hence your charge of lying against Eddie. So what law, exactly, is open-ended regarding things that can be proven to be genetic?

      "But, since you are afraid to go to that effort (since there is none of that proof) we are stuck with you asking inane questions based on ASSUMPTIONS and OPINIONS that you have and believe."

      As if your ludicrous notion of people choosing to be gay isn't based on assumptions and opinions?

      "Ok, you admit you are a bigot."

      No, I didn't. I simply don't take orders from you. Again, you can't demonstrate bigotry on my part. I dare you to "go to that effort", instead of making inane accusations based on assumptions and opinions.

      How'd that work out for you?

      Delete
    41. "So you called Eddie a liar based on an argument by me that hadn't been broached yet?"

      That's right. You were too stupid to understand that I was promoting the idea that gays were born that way and used civil rights to defend that. You, however, only wanted to argue with me and spent endless hours trying to convince someone that you are right. Well, Eddie knows gays are not born that way and he also knows there should be NO LAW against those who choose to deny services to people who make personal CHOICES. When he can prove that gays are born that way then he could make a valid argument to the point of his dumb '29-states' whine. That is why he did not say anything. He isn't a complete idiot. You, however ...

      Delete
    42. "That's right."

      Why would one person be considered a liar if that definition hinges on the beliefs of someone else?

      Let's revisit your own words:"So, it is NOT "perfectly legal" to fire anyone "for no other reason than being gay". He needs to work on his facts." Apparently, "facts" are reliant on MY opinion, in your view. How bizarre.

      "You were too stupid to understand that I was promoting the idea that gays were born that way and used civil rights to defend that."

      So, then, there is no federal law prohibiting the termination of employees for their sexual orientation. And state law would then be in effect, meaning in 29 states it's perfectly legal to fire someone for being gay. Remember, we're not dealing with should/could/would territory, we're talking about what actually is. That was your claim, that it is not legal to fire someone for being gay, according to "federal law".

      Delete
    43. "So, then, there is no federal law prohibiting the termination of employees for their sexual orientation."

      Is there a federal law against firing you for what color you dye your hair? Choices, buddy, choices. At least you can admit that they are not born that way. And, have that admission on record.

      ... And, that is the best you can do after I wipe the floor with you and the intelligence you think you have? You just don't let go, do you? Well, good for you. Stick by your convictions. Just try to figure out what they are, first.

      Delete
    44. "Is there a federal law against firing you for what color you dye your hair?"

      What would that have to do with your claim of fact?

      "At least you can admit that they are not born that way."

      I didn't say that, either. I don't care about "born that way". It's not a choice.

      "... And, that is the best you can do after I wipe the floor with you and the intelligence you think you have?"

      I'm sure you have an explanation for how it's a victory for you to admit that you think people should be able to discriminate against others based on religion ("Choices, buddy, choices."), while also failing to deny lying about your claim of a federal law. That's sarcasm, of course. You don't actually have any such explanation.

      Delete
    45. "What would that have to do with your claim of fact?"

      It has everything to do with how I fooled your stupid ass.

      "It's not a choice."

      Choice/born that way. What other options are there?

      "I'm sure you have an explanation for how it's a victory for you to admit that you think people should be able to discriminate against others based on religion"

      I never said that. Did I?

      "You don't actually have any such explanation."

      Yes, I do. To fool your stupid ass. And it worked like a charm. You can't even decide if gays are born that way or choose that way. You say not choice, but won't admit not born that way. How can someone have an intelligent conversation with someone as stupid at you?

      Delete
    46. "It has everything to do with how I fooled your stupid ass."

      Not only are you a liar, but you're a horrible liar. If you were really lying to play a trick, then you certainly wouldn't do it to promote the idea that it's fine to discriminate against people who make choices when I asked you about discriminating against people of faith. Because that further proves you think it's fine to do that. Especially considering how you hounded me to answer the question about Eddie. For instance:"Since what I said is TRUE and what he said is FALSE, why do you question what I said?" That's quite clear and emphatic. You don't have any explanation for what your trick was supposed to accomplish. Let's also note this:"because no one can be discriminated against (under federal law) because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." See the word "religion" in there? That's a CHOICE. So your supposed point that it's fine to discriminate based on matters of choice is destroyed by your own poorly-chosen words.

      "I never said that. Did I?"

      You said "Choices, buddy, choices". Religion is a choice. And you can hardly insist that I refrain from drawing reasonable conclusions when you twist my words so blatantly. You wouldn't want to be guilty of a double standard, would you?

      "You can't even decide if gays are born that way or choose that way."

      It's not either/or. Obviously (to an intelligent person), environmental factors would not be consistent with "born that way", and would still mean it's not a choice.

      Oh, and you owe Eddie a public apology for calling him a liar. That's if you want to stick to your absurd story, of course.

      Delete
    47. "You wouldn't want to be guilty of a double standard, would you?"

      Why not? I'm a right winger. You hold a double standard, too. But you live in denial. (not born that way/ not choice) You got schooled and this is the best you can whine about? Good for you.

      "It's not either/or. Obviously (to an intelligent person), environmental factors would not be consistent with "born that way", and would still mean it's not a choice."

      Sorry, little man, it IS one or the other. You can't have it both ways (as you've told me). Because your "environmental factors" doesn't explain why there are murderers and rapists. They simply CHOOSE to do those evil things. Fully understanding the consequences of their choices.

      "Oh, and you owe Eddie a public apology for calling him a liar. "

      No I don't. He's a man. He can understand what I was doing. He didn't fall for the schooling I sent you to. He isn't stupid and knows what just happened. He is probably laughing at you right now.
      So, don't tell me what I owe someone else. Perhaps you should stick to figuring out how to avoid being so schooled the next time we have a conversation.

      Delete
    48. "You hold a double standard, too."

      How so?

      "Sorry, little man, it IS one or the other. You can't have it both ways (as you've told me)."

      Saying that it's neither is not having it both ways, idiot.

      "Because your "environmental factors" doesn't explain why there are murderers and rapists."

      You really don't think that upbringing has an impact on behavior? Are you serious?

      "No I don't. He's a man."

      What does being a man have to do with you being accountable for your actions? I must have a much stronger sense of morals than you, if you can't grasp how what you did was wrong.

      "He can understand what I was doing."

      How could he understand it, when you can't even explain it? I'd love to see you try. Explain, in detail, what your goal was when repeatedly lying about a federal law. Explain how that was supposed to work towards some conceivable end.

      I already know you can't, so your story is shot to hell. And, as a liar, you know you're going to follow it there.

      Delete
    49. "You really don't think that upbringing has an impact on behavior? Are you serious?"

      Exactly. So you are saying, as fact, that you are NOT born gay. That means there is NO civil rights argument for your cause. And, there is no point to the 29-states whine of Eddie's. Since there is no discrimination involved. People can choose who they want to have work for them. And, if a sexually deviant lifestyle is harmful to a business's image then they will get fired. Simple as that. Who cares if there are no laws against firing gays for being gay. People get fired every day for all kinds of reasons. A sexually deviant lifestyle should be no different.
      And, if you notice, in my very first post I asked what the point of that statement was. Since there isn't any reason to worry about something like that. Then you chime in and take my statements out of context and miss-quote me. Why don't you take accountability for your own statements and lies?

      Delete
    50. "So you are saying, as fact, that you are NOT born gay. That means there is NO civil rights argument for your cause."

      I never said someone had to be born a certain way to have civil rights. You yourself listed "religion" as protected, and that's a choice.

      "And, there is no point to the 29-states whine of Eddie's. Since there is no discrimination involved."

      Check a dictionary to find out that there most certainly is discrimination involved. You just think it's acceptable.

      "People can choose who they want to have work for them."

      Including the criterion of personal faith, as you would have it.

      "Who cares if there are no laws against firing gays for being gay."

      Who cares if people are fired for being Catholic? Same logic, since people get fired for all kinds of reasons.

      "Then you chime in and take my statements out of context and miss-quote [sic] me."

      I didn't take anything out of context, nor did I misquote you. You haven't even tried to justify those charges, yet you state them as established. Make an effort.

      Delete
    51. "I didn't take anything out of context, nor did I misquote you."

      Your first post: "So people should be allowed to fire employees based on their religion, then?"

      I neither mentioned religion nor implied religion when I said: "Did you realize that in 50 states it is legal to fire someone for no other reason than the boss doesn't like you?". You are the one who took my statement out of context and misquoted my statement. Where did I mention religion?

      Delete
    52. "Your first post: "So people should be allowed to fire employees based on their religion, then?""

      I sure don't see any quote marks in my original post. Those would be included if I was using your words. That's inherent to any type of quote or taking something out of context. Seriously, learn the definitions of the words and terms you're using.

      "I neither mentioned religion nor implied religion when I said: "Did you realize that in 50 states it is legal to fire someone for no other reason than the boss doesn't like you?"."

      I didn't suggest that you did say anything about religion. As I already explained to you:"Now, if your view is really that people should be able to fire subordinates for any reason, then religion would be one of those reasons." It's a perfectly justifiable question. Note that last word. I asked you about your views. I didn't assert them, as you're so fond of doing. If it really wasn't a fair question, it would have been too easy for you to demonstrate that. Yet, you didn't do that, for some mysterious reason.

      Now, would you like to explain how what you're doing here isn't "whining"? It sure looks like you're crying about some fictional mistreatment.

      Delete
    53. Did I say mention ANYTHING about religion in my first post?? DID I ? You went off on a tangent, thinking I had said something about religion or anything else. I did not. I said you can be fired if the boss doesn't like you. How you get religion out of that was your own doing. A misleading and misquoting one at that. You obviously thought I mentioned religion so you asked me about it. I didn't, however, and said so in my response. Which apparently holds true about your beliefs. Because you never denied it: you have the harsh beliefs that religious folks should be discriminated against. And I mentioned that your view wasn't unexpected coming from a liberal. But you took my statement out of context since I wasn't talking about religion.

      Of course we always have this one: "Now, if your view is really that people should be able to fire subordinates for any reason, then religion would be one of those reasons."

      Did I say "for any reason"? No. You misquoted my statement. So, now I have demonstrated that you both misquoted me and took my statements out of context. And that's all within your first two posts. It sure doesn't take long for you liberals to start lying, huh? I'm surprised it took that long!

      Delete
    54. "Did I say mention ANYTHING about religion in my first post??"

      No, moron, and I didn't say you did. I'm really not sure how you didn't catch that the first two times around.

      "You went off on a tangent, thinking I had said something about religion or anything else."

      What number am I thinking of? If you claim you can read my mind, let's see you prove it. Seriously, this has already been explained to you. If you really believed what you originally said, then that sentiment would apply to religion.

      "I said you can be fired if the boss doesn't like you. How you get religion out of that was your own doing."

      You said that in the context of people being fired for being gay, the thrust of your point being that you didn't care. Do you or do you not think that people should be able to be legally fired for their faith? If not, why not?

      "I didn't, however, and said so in my response."

      No, you didn't.

      "Because you never denied it: you have the harsh beliefs that religious folks should be discriminated against."

      I didn't see the need to deny it, because I didn't take you seriously. What you did was obviously a lame dodge. I was asking about your beliefs, and you knew it already.

      "And I mentioned that your view wasn't unexpected coming from a liberal."

      I've never heard any liberal argue that people should be allowed to be fired for their religious views. I bet you haven't, either.

      "Did I say "for any reason"? No. You misquoted my statement."

      I didn't put quotes around "for any reason", so it wasn't supposed to be quoting you. Now, if you really want to whine about that, feel free to explain what the significant difference is there. Because "doesn't like you" isn't specific, obviously. Someone could not like an employee for any reason. Dispute that if you like, but I don't see how you can.

      Delete
    55. "If you really believed what you originally said, then that sentiment would apply to religion."

      Which is why I referred you to the "at will employment" link. What does IT say about when you can be fired? Does it say "for any reason, except religion"? Well, does it? Does it say for any reason, except for being gay? It looks to me like it says "for any reason OR just cause". You seem to make things up as you go, why don't you tell us what you see?

      "You said that in the context of people being fired for being gay, the thrust of your point being that you didn't care."

      Who's the mind reader, now? I said it in the context of anyone being fired. And asked what his point was. He never answered. In fact you could not give me a reasonable explanation of what was the point of his statement, either. Other than to whine about how much you love being gay. Ooops, how much you love gays. Is what I mean.

      "I was asking about your beliefs, and you knew it already."

      It looked to me like you were making a statement about your beliefs. Everyone knows you're an atheist, and it would only fit within your religion to hate people who care about real religion. So, why wouldn't you say something like that? And then I said those are harsh views for you to hold and you did not deny you held those views, but rather changed the subject again. Why is that?

      "I didn't put quotes around "for any reason", so it wasn't supposed to be quoting you."

      You obviously tried to say what my views were (after I had told you what my views were), by referring to "no other reason" and changing it to "for any reason". No other reason has a completely different meaning than for any reason. One limiting the reasons, the other un-limiting the reasons. That would be like me saying I don't like blue and you whine about me not liking colors of any kind.
      Again, I've proved that you mis-quoted and taken things out of context. Because "in context" there was never any mention of religion. The conversation was about gays being fired. And, religion has no bearing on this conversation, unless you are admitting that gays CHOOSE to be gay and not from any other reason. Is that what you're claiming now? That gays CHOOSE to be gay? Because you've denied saying that earlier. Are you admitting it now? That seems kind of hypocritical in your stated stances, doesn't it? Oh, yeah, you're a liberal. You people do that kind of thing.

      Delete
    56. "Which is why I referred you to the "at will employment" link."

      What does that have to do with your opinion of how things should be?

      "Who's the mind reader, now? I said it in the context of anyone being fired."

      So, you do care if someone is fired for being gay?

      "In fact you could not give me a reasonable explanation of what was the point of his statement, either."

      I think his point was that people shouldn't be fired for being gay, and it's not prevented on a federal level.

      "Other than to whine about how much you love being gay. Ooops, how much you love gays. Is what I mean."

      Or, people sometimes do just believe in other people's rights. You don't have to "love" people to support them. It's part of morality.

      "It looked to me like you were making a statement about your beliefs."

      Well, the problem with that claim is that you've already said that you didn't say anything about religion. So if I were to make a random argument about, say, the infield fly rule, I don't think you would ask if that was my belief. Obviously what I said reflected on your attitude, which is why you didn't want to address it.

      "Everyone knows you're an atheist, and it would only fit within your religion to hate people who care about real religion."

      It certainly wouldn't fit with my established pattern of behavior, though. Also, atheism is not a religion. That's two counts of ignorance on your part in one sentence.

      "And then I said those are harsh views for you to hold and you did not deny you held those views, but rather changed the subject again. Why is that?"

      Because I was talking about your views, as I said.

      "No other reason has a completely different meaning than for any reason. One limiting the reasons, the other un-limiting the reasons."

      What the hell are you talking about? "For no other reason than the boss doesn't like you" is the same as "for any reason". Because the boss may not like you for any reason. You're taking your own words out of context.

      "Because "in context" there was never any mention of religion."

      I never claimed there was.

      "And, religion has no bearing on this conversation, unless you are admitting that gays CHOOSE to be gay and not from any other reason."

      No, moron, the whole point is that you can't play the "choice" card because religion is a choice. I'm not admitting anything, I'm well aware of your bizarre views and made my point based on them. If you're going to claim that people should be able to be fired based on their choices, then you must think that people should be able to be fired due to their faith.

      Which is why I gave you the opportunity to explain otherwise, and have been noting your failure to answer the question ever since.

      Delete
    57. "So, you do care if someone is fired for being gay?"

      Why would I care about choices others make? Everyone else has to live with the choices we make. What makes them different? If I get fired for lying, then that was a choice I made. If I get fired because I screwed the boss's wife, that is a choice I made.

      "Or, people sometimes do just believe in other people's rights."

      What about the employers "right" to have a positive public image? Are you saying that he must hire gays because it is immoral not to? Because that is how the gay marriage thing is working out. You get "rights" to get married (that no one else has) then demand that others treat you more special. Instead of accepting that some just don't like that lifestyle and are not willing to follow YOUR gaym-plan. If you want to force your lifestyle down peoples throats go to a different country. In this country we should not be forced to accept beliefs that we do not hold. Kind of like your whines about religion on public land.

      Delete
    58. "Why would I care about choices others make?"

      Like religion? Game, set, match.

      "What about the employers "right" to have a positive public image?"

      So you would be fine with firing Christians for their faith, if it was a heavily Muslim area that worried about its public image. Tell me how that statement can possibly not be accurate, please.

      "You get "rights" to get married (that no one else has) then demand that others treat you more special."

      What would "more special" be? And straight people have the right to get married, obviously. You sound a little like "Anonymous" here, you know.

      "Instead of accepting that some just don't like that lifestyle and are not willing to follow YOUR gaym-plan."

      Or accepting that some people just don't like Christians. Right?

      "In this country we should not be forced to accept beliefs that we do not hold."

      Like Christianity. Right?

      "Kind of like your whines about religion on public land."

      That sounds even more like "Anonymous". Of course, the government shouldn't endorse any religion. But do you support mandated prayer in public schools? How about having the Ten Commandments on courthouse walls?

      Delete
    59. "Like religion? Game, set, match."

      Yes, like religion. People, like you, have forced religion out of the mainstream, and now you're whining about religion not being included in your hatred of the American way of life? Go figure, with your typical liberal views.

      "So you would be fine with firing Christians for their faith, "

      Yes. If you ran a company that was geared towards Atheists, would you hire Christians? And, if you did (by mistake) would you seek their quick removal .... any way possible?!? Believe me, I don't expect am honest answer to that question. You are, after all, a liberal. At least right-wingers will answer the question, you just keep whining about our answers. Another typical liberal action.

      "And straight people have the right to get married, obviously."

      They do? Prove that. Show me where they have the "right" to get married. I'll bet my bottom dollllar you can't bring that proof. You know why? Because you're a liberal .... and you people lie like a rug. Right winers may be bad, but you people take the cake. God, what a group you are.

      "Or accepting that some people just don't like Christians. Right?"

      Exact;ly. and that is your drive to have ANY type of religion removed from public exposure? You are the biggest hypocrite there is. And, I don't even have to call you names. You just simply are what you are. And that tells the whole story!

      "Like Christianity. Right?"

      Exactly. And here you are demanding rights for gay people who CHOOSE to be their way while demanding Christians not get their way. Go figure, you are a liberal after all.

      "Of course, the government shouldn't endorse any religion."

      But, you are demanding they endorse 'sexual preference'; Yet another liberal hypocritical stance.

      You people are too easy to toy with because you have so many illogical belies.


      Delete
    60. "Yes, like religion."

      And there you have it. You think...stress again, you think that people should be able to be fired for religious views. And you were (wrongly) condemning me for exactly that, using the terms "harsh" and "weird", as I recall.

      "People, like you, have forced religion out of the mainstream, and now you're whining about religion not being included in your hatred of the American way of life?"

      What rancid bullshit. If religion can't survive without being pushed in people's faces, then it doesn't deserve to exist. People have faith on their own, and liberals are committed to preserving everyone's right to their own religious views and practices. But that doesn't require the help of public schools, courthouses, etc. Do you actually think you can argue against that?

      "Yes. If you ran a company that was geared towards Atheists, would you hire Christians?"

      Why the hell wouldn't I? If someone can do the job they're hired to do, then of course I would hire and keep them. Your preconceived notion of liberals is atrocious. I'm curious, though, given your frothing at the mouth over anyone who doesn't view the world exactly as you do, would you fire an atheist for their lack of religion?

      "They do? Prove that."

      Loving v. Virginia, moron. Equal protection under the law. Since people were able to marry someone of their own race, equal protection stated that right applied to mixed-race couples as well. One right dictated another. I'm curious, do you think that people don't have the right to vote? If not, what's the difference?

      "and that is your drive to have ANY type of religion removed from public exposure?"

      I think "public exposure" is an odd term. You mean "government endorsement". My motives are Constitutional. Freedom of religion requires freedom from religion as well.

      "And here you are demanding rights for gay people who CHOOSE to be their way while demanding Christians not get their way."

      Gay marriage doesn't infringe on my rights. Mandated prayer in public school infringes on my rights. A slight difference you somehow overlooked.

      "But, you are demanding they endorse 'sexual preference'; Yet another liberal hypocritical stance."

      Where did "preference" come from? Is that wording used in law, or is that your bigoted terminology? I'm guessing the latter. In any event, it's not a matter of preference, moron. It's not as if straight people are being denied marriage licenses, while gay people are allowed to get married. It's not clear what you think is being endorsed by allowing people to marry someone of either gender.

      "You people are too easy to toy with because you have so many illogical belies."

      That's just your lack of comprehension at work. When you misrepresent everything I say, I'm not surprised that you don't grasp the logic of what I actually believe.

      Just for emphasis, I want to demonstrate your wild hypocrisy here:

      Me:"So you would be fine with firing Christians for their faith,"

      You:"Yes. If you ran a company that was geared towards Atheists, would you hire Christians? And, if you did (by mistake) would you seek their quick removal .... any way possible?!? Believe me, I don't expect am honest answer to that question. You are, after all, a liberal. At least right-wingers will answer the question, you just keep whining about our answers."

      So you would be fine with that. I asked, you said "yes". AND:

      Me:"So, you do care if someone is fired for being gay?"

      You:"Why would I care about choices others make?"

      Me:"Like religion? Game, set, match."

      You:"Yes, like religion."

      That seems kind of harsh, but I guess you have some weird beliefs.

      Anything else, or would you like to keep spotlighting your bigotry and irrationality for my amusement?

      Delete
    61. "I'm curious, though, given your frothing at the mouth over anyone who doesn't view the world exactly as you do, would you fire an atheist for their lack of religion?"

      No. I would fire them because they are liars. I wouldn't wan't a liar working for me.

      "Loving v. Virginia, moron. Equal protection under the law."

      Totally predictable. You're equalizing homosexuality to race relations. What a pity. I thought I would get more from you. But, my initial and constant feelings about liberals continue to stand true. There are no civil rights garnered from CHOOSING to be gay. When you can prove that you are born that way, then that will change. Until then your CHOICES do not equate to civil rights. Unless you got something that proves they are born gay. Well ... DO YA? No, all you got is abuse from parents as being the guiding light to cause gayness. So, back to an earlier question: are you gay? Is that why you support "gay rights" so heart-feltly? Remember, "don's ask, don't tell" is no longer a concern of yours. You can come out of that closet and still remain in the reserves. Because it is against the law for the U.S. to fire YOU for being gay in ANY STATE. Ooops ... game, set, match

      "Gay marriage doesn't infringe on my rights. Mandated prayer in public school infringes on my rights."

      When is the last time you stepped into a school to even know what they teach? Unless you're the one who is having the school forced to teach children about having sex before they are 12. Let me tell you something, you forcing homosexuality into the schools is affecting my RIGHTS too. I have a right to expect my children and grandchildren to be taught math/english/history not to be taught homosexuality. Get your gayness out of my schools and I'll get my religion out of yours. You have no right to teach that crap in my PUBLIC school any more than I have a right to teach religion in yours.

      "That seems kind of harsh, but I guess you have some weird beliefs."

      The difference between me and you, though, is that I am not afraid of telling you what my beliefs are. You, on the other hand, won't admit to your own failures even when they are posted for everyone to see. Which I've done several times. I am honest, you are not. That is the key difference between right and left-wingers.

      Delete
    62. "No. I would fire them because they are liars. I wouldn't wan't a liar working for me."

      What lies are you citing, here? You apparently have some storyline in your head already.

      "Totally predictable. You're equalizing homosexuality to race relations."

      No, I'm not. You asked about a right to marriage. You said there is none for straight people, and that's what I addressed.

      "There are no civil rights garnered from CHOOSING to be gay."

      What rights are you talking about, since you said there's no right to marriage? Sounds like you're contradicting yourself there.

      "No, all you got is abuse from parents as being the guiding light to cause gayness."

      I didn't say that.

      "So, back to an earlier question: are you gay? Is that why you support "gay rights" so heart-feltly[sic]?"

      No, I'm able to support people unlike me. Like people of faith. I know that blows your mind, but that's how it is.

      "You can come out of that closet and still remain in the reserves."

      I'm not in the reserves.

      "Because it is against the law for the U.S. to fire YOU for being gay in ANY STATE. Ooops ... game, set, match"

      What the hell are you babbling about? I never said that government policy was any different. People can still get fired for being gay in 29 states, because most people don't work for the government.

      "When is the last time you stepped into a school to even know what they teach?"

      What do you think the point of that question is?

      "Let me tell you something, you forcing homosexuality into the schools is affecting my RIGHTS too."

      Your complaint isn't very specific. Are you saying that people shouldn't be allowed to marry someone of their own gender because kids will know about it? What's the damage supposed to be?

      "The difference between me and you, though, is that I am not afraid of telling you what my beliefs are."

      Note that you're not denying it, while you wrongly criticized me for the same thing. Now look up "hypocrite" to see how you fit the term. Also note I haven't held back on telling you what my beliefs are, either. Meanwhile, when I originally asked you if you thought people should be allowed to be fired for their faith, you dodged the question. But I'm supposedly the scared one.

      Delete
    63. "What lies are you citing, here? You apparently have some storyline in your head already."

      See? That's the thing about "at will" employment. I don't NEED a reason, I can just fire you without reason or cause, if I please. Which is what I've tried to explain to you from the beginning.

      "No, I'm not. You asked about a right to marriage. You said there is none for straight people, and that's what I addressed."

      That case has nothing to do with homosexuality. You are comparing apples with oranges using that case. There is NO RIGHT to marriage for straight people. And you have not proven there is by using a race relations case that has no bearing on sexual preference.

      "I didn't say that."

      You imply it with all your talk about "environmental factors". What else are you talking about if it isn't abuse of some sort?

      "People can still get fired for being gay in 29 states, because most people don't work for the government."

      Not legally. It is STILL against the law to fire people for "being gay". Can you be fired for "being gay" (in the job you are in)?

      "What's the damage supposed to be?"

      I guess the same damage as is caused to you as you are walking past a public display of religion.

      "Now look up "hypocrite" to see how you fit the term."

      I see I do not fit the term. You, however, do. By claiming the government should not force religion onto you, but you demand the government force sexual immorality onto me.

      "Meanwhile, when I originally asked you if you thought people should be allowed to be fired for their faith, you dodged the question. But I'm supposedly the scared one."

      I answered your concern. Did you skip the part where I referred you to the "at will employment" link? How did that NOT answer your question? So, yes... you are the scared one.

      Delete
    64. "See? That's the thing about "at will" employment. I don't NEED a reason, I can just fire you without reason or cause, if I please."

      So your point is that you would lie in order not to appear as a bigot?

      "That case has nothing to do with homosexuality."

      Obviously, since the point was that straight people have a right to marriage.

      "There is NO RIGHT to marriage for straight people."

      Yes, there is. See Loving v. Virginia.

      "You imply it with all your talk about "environmental factors"."

      It's interesting that your mind leaps to "abuse" just from the word "environmental". It doesn't have to be negative at all, moron.

      "Not legally. It is STILL against the law to fire people for "being gay"."

      Only if you work for the government. Are you backing off of your supposed "gotcha" from earlier? You're actually saying Eddie was wrong, again?

      "I guess the same damage as is caused to you as you are walking past a public display of religion."

      There's no Constitutional violation from accepting homosexuality.

      "I see I do not fit the term."

      Really? By criticizing me (wrongly) for saying that people should be allowed to be fired for their faith, and then you admit to holding that view? Now you're just lying.

      "By claiming the government should not force religion onto you, but you demand the government force sexual immorality onto me."

      What's being forced onto you, precisely?

      "I answered your concern."

      No, you claimed the view I was asking you about was held by me. That was a dodge.

      "Did you skip the part where I referred you to the "at will employment" link? How did that NOT answer your question?"

      How was it supposed to answer it at all? It has nothing to do with your views.

      Delete
    65. "What's being forced onto you, precisely?"

      And, what is being forced onto you, precisely? From what I see, I have the "choice" not to accept homosexuality and you have the "choice" not to accept religion. But you want no government involvement in religion, but demand government involvement in homosexuality. That makes no sense.

      "Yes, there is. See Loving v. Virginia."

      Wrong again. That case is about white and blacks getting married. Was it a gay black/white person? No, it was simply black/white. So, that is unrelated to "rights" that you say are present for straight people to get married. ONLY blacks/whites. But, trust me, I hardly expect you to understand that.

      "There's no Constitutional violation from accepting homosexuality."

      And there is no Constitutional violation from accepting religion. What is the point you are trying to make? Because there is and never has been any National religion in the US and the US has never forced you to accept any religion.

      Delete
    66. "From what I see, I have the "choice" not to accept homosexuality and you have the "choice" not to accept religion."

      You're not being pressured to accept anything. You still have the right to your opinion.

      "But you want no government involvement in religion, but demand government involvement in homosexuality."

      That doesn't even make sense. "Involvement in homosexuality"? Maybe you should rephrase yourself.

      "Wrong again. That case is about white and blacks getting married."

      Yes, straight people. Who have the right to get married, according to the SCOTUS.

      "So, that is unrelated to "rights" that you say are present for straight people to get married."

      It's related to your idiotic assertion that straight people don't have the right to get married.

      "And there is no Constitutional violation from accepting religion."

      In a public school classroom, religion has no place. Teaching faith as fact is not the same as understanding that homosexuality exists.

      "Because there is and never has been any National religion in the US and the US has never forced you to accept any religion."

      Could you move that bar any lower? You're not being forced at gunpoint to have gay sex, so I guess you don't have any complaint, either.

      Delete
    67. "Yes, straight people. Who have the right to get married, according to the SCOTUS."

      And, you have the transcript of the trial where "straight" was the issue being discussed and used for determining whether the relationship involved was legal in that state? I'd be interested to read that. Can you bring that, please. Since you say it is part of the case, I'm sure you already have the transcript in front of you. So, just type in the wording as it is in the transcript and prove your statement.

      "Teaching faith as fact is not the same as understanding that homosexuality exists."

      It exists ONLY because of choice. Are you saying public schools should teach about rape and murder and thievery and incest and lying and ect...? Because ALL of those are choices that EXIST and should be understood. Are you making those demands, too?

      "You're not being forced at gunpoint to have gay sex, so I guess you don't have any complaint, either."

      But, you are forcing private business's to go against their beliefs and force them to do business with gays or risk great financial punishment. I understand you would prefer to have all religions just go away, but the great majority (billions and billions and billions of people) still prefer religion to be part of their lives. There will come a time when your petty demands will be ignored for the benefit of the greater good of the masses. Your crying about religion will be ignored soon. Because you can't even show what harm it does to you to have religious displays on public land or in public schools.

      Delete
    68. "And, you have the transcript of the trial where "straight" was the issue being discussed and used for determining whether the relationship involved was legal in that state?"

      Gay marriage wasn't legal at all, so "straight" is inherent. Why would it have to be specified when it was the only legal option?

      "It exists ONLY because of choice."

      That's your article of faith, not mine.

      "Are you saying public schools should teach about rape and murder and thievery and incest and lying and ect...?"

      Homosexuality is not like any of those things.

      "But, you are forcing private business's to go against their beliefs and force them to do business with gays or risk great financial punishment."

      See, your stupidity lies in the fact that we have a system of judgment. It goes beyond your prejudices. A business could say that it's against their values to pay overtime, or to adhere to environmental regulations. But, and this is where it all comes together, so pay attention - we have a system of judgment that determines what beliefs are reasonable and which ones are not. I can't go out and beat someone up and then claim it's because he was Catholic and I think Catholics are evil (and I don't, to cut off your intended perversion of my words). So, when it's determined that discrimination of homosexuals is unwarranted, then it's no longer tolerated. That's what's happened. You are in the minority.

      "I understand you would prefer to have all religions just go away, but the great majority (billions and billions and billions of people) still prefer religion to be part of their lives."

      And yet, most people support gay rights. Also, I don't care about religions going away. It's great for those that enjoy it, and use it properly. You're not one of those people, of course.

      "There will come a time when your petty demands will be ignored for the benefit of the greater good of the masses."

      That is what's happening to you, right now. Your demands are becoming increasingly ignored.

      "Your crying about religion will be ignored soon. Because you can't even show what harm it does to you to have religious displays on public land or in public schools."

      It's wrong for government to endorse one religion over others, because it creates discord. You're essentially telling people of other faiths that they're wrong, that they're inferior, that they're second-class citizens. And, you don't need your faith to be propped up. You have enough members. You can go to church and do whatever you want to do without pushing it on other people. So the only logical reason for your demands is to try to push your faith onto other people.

      Delete
    69. "Gay marriage wasn't legal at all, so "straight" is inherent. "

      Does that mean you don't have proof of your claim? I guess you cannot make that claim, since you cannot prove it after so vehemently demanding that heterosexual was part of the case.

      "Homosexuality is not like any of those things."

      Your opinion.

      "And yet, most people support gay rights."

      That's your opinion.

      "It's wrong for government to endorse one religion over others, because it creates discord."

      That's why the US has never done that. But, the question was "what HARM", please explain what "harm" comes from religion in public settings? Just using generic words like 'discord' isn't going to work. You need to fully explain your pathetic fear of what "harm" will come to anyone walking past a religious display on public land or what "harm" occurs by having the 10 Commandments hanging on a court house wall.

      Delete
    70. "Does that mean you don't have proof of your claim?"

      No, it means your demand is irrational. It was determined that straight people had the right to get married when mixed-race couples were granted those rights. It would make no sense for anyone to talk about sexual orientation during those proceedings. In fact, you said yourself it had nothing to do with homosexuality, yet you expect that distinction to be explicitly stated, somehow. I'd like for you to post a hypothetical quote as to how "straight" would have been used in Loving v. Virginia. Seriously.

      "Your opinion."

      It's not objectively wrong. You can't show how it is. The things you list have objective arguments against them.

      "That's your opinion."

      No, that's quite broadly known.

      "That's why the US has never done that."

      On the contrary, stating that there is a "God" endorses your faith.

      "But, the question was "what HARM", please explain what "harm" comes from religion in public settings?"

      What part of my answer was unclear? It's government endorsement.

      "Just using generic words like 'discord' isn't going to work."

      The word has a meaning. It's not clear how you need that specified further.

      "You need to fully explain your pathetic fear of what "harm" will come to anyone walking past a religious display on public land or what "harm" occurs by having the 10 Commandments hanging on a court house wall."

      Already explained. The courthouse one, especially, since it states that no deity shall be worshiped except God. That is not an appropriate reflection on a secular entity such as a courtroom. What's next, using Leviticus as legal precedent?

      Delete
    71. " It was determined that straight people had the right to get married when mixed-race couples were granted those rights."

      Ok, and all I'm asking is that you bring the proof of what was "determined". You claim a fact, but rely on opinion to support it. I thought you didn't like me doing that, yet ... here you are doing just that.

      "The things you list have objective arguments against them."

      So does homosexuality. First and foremost, there is inherent physical harm caused by male on male sex. One of your great concerns of the things I listed is "harm" caused to people. Is that changing, now?

      "No, that's quite broadly known."

      Well, you won't have any problem proving that, right?

      "On the contrary, stating that there is a "God" endorses your faith."

      How so? You can prove they are endorsing "Born again Christianity"? Because that is my faith. And that is the faith required of those who want to enter the Kingdom of Heaven by my God.

      "It's government endorsement."

      I guess the whole thing is unclear. Since there is NO endorsement of ANY religion by the government. Never has been and never will be. So, what "HARM" occurs?? Answer the question.

      "What's next, using Leviticus as legal precedent?"

      We already DO: Having sex with your mother (18:7) , Having sex with your sister (18:9) {also many more covering other relatives} , Having sex with an animal (18:23) , Stealing (19:11) , Lying (19:11) , Swearing falsely on God’s name (19:12) , Defrauding your neighbour (19:13) , Cursing the deaf or abusing the blind (19:14) , Spreading slander (19:16) , Perverting justice, showing partiality to either the poor or the rich (19:15) , Doing anything to endanger a neighbour’s life (19:16) , Making your daughter prostitute herself (19:29) , Using dishonest weights and scales (19:35-36) , Inflicting an injury; killing someone else’s animal; (24:17-22) and Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you’ve witnessed (5:1)

      Name which one of those that ISN'T against the law in the United States.

      Delete
    72. "Ok, and all I'm asking is that you bring the proof of what was "determined". You claim a fact, but rely on opinion to support it."

      There's no "opinion" involved. Those that gained equal protection were heterosexual couples. Ergo, straight people have the right to marry.

      "So does homosexuality. First and foremost, there is inherent physical harm caused by male on male sex."

      Not every gay couple has anal intercourse, moron. It's also a consensual act between adults, so what they do is up to them. It also severely damages your "CHOICE" argument to claim that people choose to be harmed, and somehow that should not be allowed. If it's really "harm", then people would simply change their minds, right?

      "Well, you won't have any problem proving that, right?"

      No, I can try to fix your ignorance:

      http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/07/01/poll-supreme-court-gay-marriage-affirmative-action-voting-rights/2479541/

      "How so?"

      Because it states that God exists, idiot. Note the capitalization.

      "Since there is NO endorsement of ANY religion by the government. Never has been and never will be. So, what "HARM" occurs??"

      You mean what harm would occur? It doesn't really make any sense for you to say something has never happened and then ask what the current results of it happening are, you know. And, again, any recognition of religious concepts by the government is an endorsement. Prayer in schools, ten commandments in courthouses, etc. It's divisive and tells citizens that they are not conforming to the faith that the legal authority recognizes.

      "We already DO"

      Oh, really? http://uglicoyote.wordpress.com/2012/05/27/76-things-banned-in-leviticus/

      Lying isn't generally illegal. Cursing the deaf is not illegal. Showing partiality to the poor or rich is not illegal. Failing to testify against wrongdoing you've witnessed? Ah, no. That would be insanely difficult to prove, obviously. Note the follow-up on the link I gave you, where you have to testify about a crime you've heard about. No, we don't do that. Again, you seem to think that anything that actually has an objective basis means everything that goes with it is law. Wrong. Two of the ten commandments, plus lying under very specific circumstances are reflected in law. That doesn't make the whole thing valid. Some of Leviticus is reasonable, that doesn't mean we could possibly use the book as a legal reference. You are insane.

      Delete
    73. "No, I can try to fix your ignorance:"

      You said: "And yet, most people support gay rights.". Now prove "most people support gay rights". You bring an article that is limited to just the US. You said "most people". Now prove it. Or change your statement to fit your claim (after I question your accuracy).

      "Because it states that God exists, idiot. Note the capitalization."

      How does that force you to believe in that God? Where is the implied endorsement by the government of that God? Which God is it? And, what HARM is caused by the use of that word?

      "Oh, really?"

      Taking things out of context again? It said "or abusing the blind". You seemed to have left that part out. Lying IS illegal, though. Another lack of context: perverting justice IS illegal.

      "You are insane."

      But, the FACTS are that we already follow Leviticus Laws. As much as you whine about religion being in American law, the FACTS show they are being followed and they serve a purpose to protect society. So much for your 'we don't need religion' whine. And, of all those laws that I brought from Leviticus, you could only find ONE that isn't actually a law as I posted it. However, it is against the law to refuse to testify against wrongdoing if you are called to the witness stand (unless you incriminate yourself). So, in actuality ALL the laws I posted are in American law. Even the ones you took out of context.

      "You mean what harm would occur?"

      Wait a minute, now. Your ilk had prayer in school removed. You had religious displays removed from public land. Obviously there was harm being caused that made your ilk have religion removed from those instances. So, the question stands as asked. What HARM occurs from those incidences?

      "Prayer in schools, ten commandments in courthouses, etc. It's divisive and tells citizens that they are not conforming to the faith that the legal authority recognizes."

      Which faith is being recognized by the government and being forced onto the general public? How can it be "divisive" if the majority of the American public adheres to religion? Are all your concerns only based on the wants and needs of the small minority (which causes divisiveness) and ignoring the wants and needs of the majority which causes the betterment of society?

      Delete
    74. "Now prove "most people support gay rights". You bring an article that is limited to just the US. You said "most people"."

      So, you're talking about gay marriage...worldwide?

      "How does that force you to believe in that God?"

      Where did I say anything about "force"?

      "Where is the implied endorsement by the government of that God?"

      By stating that He exists. How would that not be an endorsement, considering we're talking about a higher power? Whatever you believe in, you're supporting.

      "It said "or abusing the blind"."

      Then why didn't you just leave it as "abusing the blind"? I'm not responsible for the claims you make.

      "Lying IS illegal, though."

      Not generally, no. Only in very specific instances.

      "But, the FACTS are that we already follow Leviticus Laws."

      No, the fact is that there is a small amount of common ground. For instance, if I'm a vegetarian, you can't use "Hitler was a vegetarian" as a meaningful criticism. One common aspect is not relevant to anything. Just because some of the things in Leviticus have an objective basis don't mean we follow Leviticus laws.

      "So much for your 'we don't need religion' whine."

      We don't need religion for that. I can determine it's wrong to steal without a Biblical reference. I paid for my things, it does me financial harm to have to replace them, therefore it's wrong to steal. See that? No deity involved whatsoever. No element of faith in sight there. Amazing, huh?

      "And, of all those laws that I brought from Leviticus, you could only find ONE that isn't actually a law as I posted it."

      I found more than that, but more importantly, I found a list of things that are not law that are also in Leviticus. Check the link again.

      "However, it is against the law to refuse to testify against wrongdoing if you are called to the witness stand (unless you incriminate yourself)."

      You didn't say "refusing" to testify, you said "failing" to testify. Obviously it's not provable that a witness saw anything with any accuracy. So if someone denies seeing the crime in question, even if they did, there's not much that can be done about that. Even though they "failed to testify" about a crime they witnessed.

      "Wait a minute, now. Your ilk had prayer in school removed."

      Well, that would be government endorsement of faith. I thought you said that never occurred at all.

      "What HARM occurs from those incidences?"

      You mean, besides indoctrination? A clear violation of freedom of religion? Great argument you have going, there.

      "Which faith is being recognized by the government and being forced onto the general public?"

      Any and all faiths that believe in God. Again, note the capitalization.

      "How can it be "divisive" if the majority of the American public adheres to religion?"

      Three incredibly obvious reasons:First, the minority exists, has rights, and can not be a victim of tyranny by the majority;second, not all Christians agree with you;third, there are other faiths that don't believe in your God.

      "Are all your concerns only based on the wants and needs of the small minority (which causes divisiveness) and ignoring the wants and needs of the majority which causes the betterment of society?"

      What "wants and needs" does the majority have? Do you really think that pushing your faith on others is "betterment"? How so? Oh, if only everyone would just conform to your religious views, how wonderful it would be, right? Except they don't. And they don't have to. And in the meantime, they have the same rights to their faith as you do, minority or not.

      You're blaming the minority for being different. That's deplorable.

      Delete
    75. "So, you're talking about gay marriage...worldwide?"

      You implied nothing else.

      "By stating that He exists."

      There's nothing that says God is a "He" in your fears. See? You can't even explain what God is being talked about. Heck, you can't even say for sure what sex that God is. How can a government be endorsing a God when you can't pinpoint the religion or sex of that God?

      "We don't need religion for that. I can determine it's wrong to steal without a Biblical reference."

      How do you decide it is wrong to have sex with relatives? Especially considering you're highly supportive of gay rights. Which is a perversion of sex. How would that compare to having sex with relatives? What makes one right and the other wrong? (in your world)

      "You didn't say "refusing" to testify, you said "failing" to testify."

      Same thing.

      "Well, that would be government endorsement of faith."

      How is individual prayer a government endorsement?

      "You mean, besides indoctrination? "

      What do you mean by indoctrination? And how is having a freedom of religion being harmful?

      "Three incredibly obvious reasons"

      Who said anything about Christianity? I said religion.

      Delete
    76. "You implied nothing else."

      No, that wasn't the question. You were talking about the whole world? When? See, if you were talking about the USA, then I was obviously using your frame of discussion. I don't have to specify that any longer. Do you understand that concept now, or would you possibly like to explain exactly how you disagree with it? Otherwise, either show where you were referring to worldwide issues, or quit playing petty little games.

      "There's nothing that says God is a "He" in your fears."

      You refer to God as "Him". I'm being respectful by following suit. This is a complaint, all of a sudden?

      "Heck, you can't even say for sure what sex that God is."

      Can you? Why do you say "Him"?

      "How can a government be endorsing a God when you can't pinpoint the religion or sex of that God?"

      The capitalized "God" is the Christian god, moron. It's not "In a God we trust, or "One nation, under a God". It's specific. Besides that, why would any government statement about any higher power be acceptable?

      "How do you decide it is wrong to have sex with relatives?"

      It's psychologically unhealthy, as it blurs the line between different relationship types and their dynamics. And that's even without taking genetics into account. Super easy.

      "Especially considering you're highly supportive of gay rights."

      Dumb comparison, as always. Cutting off gay people from having any healthy relationship isn't the same as telling people that the handful of people they're related to is off-limits. There's plenty of other reasonable options out there that aren't in the family.

      "What makes one right and the other wrong? (in your world)"

      There's no confusion of dynamics in gay relationships, and no genetic issues.

      "Same thing."

      No, the words have different meanings. Look them up.

      "How is individual prayer a government endorsement?"

      Group prayer is an endorsement. That was removed from schools.

      "What do you mean by indoctrination?"

      Look up the word. It's not complicated.

      "And how is having a freedom of religion being harmful?"

      It's not, until you push your religion on others. That's when you violate their freedom of religion.

      "Who said anything about Christianity? I said religion."

      I know, moron, and I addressed that. Do Hindus view the Ten Commandments as a tenet of their faith? I already pointed out that not all religions believe in your God, so why are you acting as if your Christian-specific articles of faith are supposed to be accepted by people of any religion?

      Or do Hindus not matter to you, since they're a minority? I noticed you failed (note:"refused" would mean you deliberately ignored the question, much more specific than "failed") to say what the "wants and needs" of the majority are. Did you have a little moral revelation, maybe? I'd like to think I helped you on your path to being a better, more Christ-like person.

      Delete
    77. "Can you? Why do you say "Him"?"

      Oh, yeah, I can say He is a Man. You, however, don't know and rely on "being respectful" of how I refer to God for you to make your decision.

      "The capitalized "God" is the Christian god, moron."

      That would be an interesting thing for you to prove. Do it!

      "It's psychologically unhealthy, as it blurs the line between different relationship types and their dynamics. And that's even without taking genetics into account."

      What "genetic" factors play a role in a couple deciding they want to have sex together? You DO know about birth control don't you? Why will "genetics" play a role?
      "psychologically unhealthy"? You call people who enter gay marriages as being in a life-long period of un-happiness, Is that the same as un-healthy?

      "Do Hindus view the Ten Commandments as a tenet of their faith?"

      I'm sure they have 10 similar commandments. Do you think they think it is ok to have sex with their mother? You can't explain why that would be wrong, so apparently atheists do. God doesn't. Oh, wait, which God am I talking about? Ah ha ha ... you really have no clue, do you?

      Delete
    78. "Oh, yeah, I can say He is a Man. You, however, don't know and rely on "being respectful" of how I refer to God for you to make your decision."

      Obviously, "don't know" doesn't apply to atheists, moron. I don't believe in God, so there's nothing to "know" as far as I'm concerned. I would also add that the Bible suggests God is male. And, of course, it has to be the ultimate stretch of hatefulness to criticize someone for being respectful. It must really bother you when people don't follow your bigoted, bizarre, and deeply-ingrained stereotypes.

      "That would be an interesting thing for you to prove. Do it!"

      What are you contesting? To use the word "god" as in a non-specific deity, it's not capitalized. To use "God", capitalized, is a proper noun, referring to the Christian God. When you specify how you think otherwise, I can address your confusion further.

      "What "genetic" factors play a role in a couple deciding they want to have sex together? You DO know about birth control don't you?"

      No birth control is 100% effective, which you would know if you ever took a sex ed class. I also don't know how you would expect people who think incest is fine and dandy to use protection regularly. We're not talking about the most well-balanced people here.

      ""psychologically unhealthy"? You call people who enter gay marriages as being in a life-long period of un-happiness, Is that the same as un-healthy?"

      No, you said that. I asked you why you believed that. I even added "be specific". And you recognized that it was a question regarding your beliefs when you admitted you didn't know the answer.

      "I'm sure they have 10 similar commandments."

      Prove it.

      "Do you think they think it is ok to have sex with their mother?"

      Do you think that's one of your own Commandments? Maybe you should review your reading material, because it's not in there.

      "You can't explain why that would be wrong, so apparently atheists do."

      I did explain why it would be wrong. You didn't even contest "psychologically unhealthy", and your blind faith in birth control doesn't cover concerns about recessive genes.

      "God doesn't. Oh, wait, which God am I talking about?"

      You didn't say "a god", you said "God". That's a proper noun, therefore the Christian god. It's not complicated, to adults at least.

      Delete
    79. "It must really bother you when people don't follow your bigoted, bizarre, and deeply-ingrained stereotypes."

      No, not at all. I pray for you people all the time.

      " I also don't know how you would expect people who think incest is fine and dandy to use protection regularly."

      The problem, here, is that you claim that morals are easily figured out. I asked you a simple question related to sex with "un-natural" partners and you cannot explain the dangers involved. I oppose homosexuality because of the "un-natural" aspect of it and you have no problem with homosexuality. Explain the difference without using religion as your reason. What harm is possible from "un-natural" sex as I just asked you? You better bring a good reason that won't include homosexuality or you will be quickly called a hypocrite.

      "Prove it."

      I don't need to. You're the one who fears religion being forced onto you without actually having a clue as to what different religions teach.

      "I did explain why it would be wrong."

      No, you didn't. Try to do it this time.

      Delete
    80. "No, not at all."

      Then don't criticize me for being respectful.

      "The problem, here, is that you claim that morals are easily figured out. I asked you a simple question related to sex with "un-natural" [sic] partners and you cannot explain the dangers involved."

      Where did you say "un-natural" [sic] before right now? It doesn't show up in a search. And even if you had asked me that, when did "dangers" become the standard. As opposed to, say, "problems"?

      "I oppose homosexuality because of the "un-natural" [sic] aspect of it and you have no problem with homosexuality. Explain the difference without using religion as your reason."

      Because I don't see how it's unnatural. It occurs in nature. You can't even attempt to give a clear and consistent explanation of a choice you claim you made. It's existed throughout history, even as people were at risk of death for it. People could supposedly be just as happy finding someone of the opposite gender, but they face danger and discord by "choosing" to be gay? It doesn't pass the smell test. You would also have to believe that there's a vast, vast conspiracy among gay people to all tell the same lie that they've always known they were different, that it wasn't a choice. By all accounts, observations and logical processes, it IS natural.

      "What harm is possible from "un-natural" [sic] sex as I just asked you?"

      It depends on what you're talking about. Incest is psychologically unhealthy. That doesn't carry over to anything else just because you lump all "un-natural" [sic] things together. Note; that's what you define as unnatural, not me.

      "You better bring a good reason that won't include homosexuality or you will be quickly called a hypocrite."

      Oh, no! Anything but you calling me something! Considering how you ran away from your charges of "racist", I'm not particularly worried about any labels you recklessly slap on me.

      "I don't need to. You're the one who fears religion being forced onto you without actually having a clue as to what different religions teach."

      Yes, you do have to prove it, moron. If you want to claim that the Ten Commandments are relevant to people of all faiths, you have to support that argument. Otherwise, it's Christianity displaying dominance over other religions, a notion which you obviously support.

      "No, you didn't. Try to do it this time."

      Try to explain what you're disputing, exactly. Otherwise, my argument stands. Are you saying that incest is psychologically healthy? How do you figure that?

      No comment on the capitalized "God"? Really? I was really curious what the hell you were planning to pull on that one.

      Delete
    81. "Then don't criticize me for being respectful."

      The skin-head is thin-skinned too?

      "Because I don't see how it's unnatural. It occurs in nature."

      That doesn't make it natural.

      "Incest is psychologically unhealthy."

      And, homosexuals being under the threat of death IS psychologically healthy? You said gay live under the threat of death for their entire lives. How is that psychologically healthy?

      " If you want to claim that the Ten Commandments are relevant to people of all faiths, you have to support that argument."

      I didn't say they were "relevant to people of all faiths".

      "No comment on the capitalized "God"?"

      You got to be kidding! If I am a Buddhist I will capitalize God as I am talking about Buddha being a God. If I am a Muslim I will capitalize God as I am talking about Muhammad. This isn't rocket science, you know.
      So, which God are our founding fathers talking about when they mention "Creator"? They didn't seem to specify and many of the founding fathers were atheist and non-religious type. Since it is capitalized are they talking about ONLY the Christian God? Or the Buddhist God? Or the Muslim God? Or the Indian God? Or the African God?

      Delete
    82. "The skin-head is thin-skinned too?"

      Not at all (and not a skin-head). I'm pointing out that your behavior is contemptible, that's all. Obviously you think that you are thin-skinned, since you spent half a post whining about name-calling.

      "That doesn't make it natural."

      Because you think animals make choices? Do feel free to expand on your comment.

      "And, homosexuals being under the threat of death IS psychologically healthy?"

      That would be the responsibility of those making the threats. Incest would be the responsibility of those committing the act. Huge difference. In fact, you said that people were stoned to death for being the wrong religion, so obviously you think sticking to your own faith is psychologically unhealthy. Nice job, moron.

      "You said gay live under the threat of death for their entire lives. How is that psychologically healthy?"

      I didn't say that. You're exaggerating.

      "I didn't say they were "relevant to people of all faiths"."

      Then why did you say "religion" instead of "Christianity"? Why would you not understand the term "divisive" when the symbols you want the government to endorse don't apply to people of all faiths? You asked how it can be divisive when so many people adhere to "religion". Did you forget that?

      "If I am a Muslim I will capitalize God as I am talking about Muhammad."

      WOW! First off, Mohammed was not and is not a god. He is a prophet in that faith. Secondly, if you were talking about Allah, you would write "Allah". Muslims don't refer to Allah as "God". Your ignorance is staggering. When you say "a god", it is not capitalized. Only when you're referring to a specific deity do you capitalize it. That doesn't apply to Islam, Buddhism, etc, as they have their own proper nouns.

      "So, which God are our founding fathers talking about when they mention "Creator"?"

      To start, you don't capitalize "god" in "which god". Check the dictionary for substantiation. The identity is not specified, because the intent was for people in this country to have full religious freedom. Contrary to your attitude, of course.

      "Since it is capitalized are they talking about ONLY the Christian God?"

      They weren't talking about a specific god. It's capitalized because it allows for anyone's belief in a deity. It's a generic term.

      Delete
    83. "They weren't talking about a specific god. It's capitalized because it allows for anyone's belief in a deity. It's a generic term."

      Thank you for that admission. Anyone's use of "God" will be capitalized depending on their use within their own generic religion.

      "That would be the responsibility of those making the threats. Incest would be the responsibility of those committing the act. Huge difference. "

      No difference for within the context of our conversation. If you want to change the context of this conversation then you go right ahead and do that. Since that is the only way you will be able to win this discussion and it seems to be the way you liberals do things when you can't make an honest point for your own stances.

      "You're exaggerating."

      I am not. Perhaps you want to explain what you mean by your question about why gays would choose to be gay when they are threatened even to the point of death throughout their lives?

      "Your ignorance is staggering"

      Yeah, I guess I'm not an expert on a religion that murders gays because they are gay and the religion that kills women because they don't cover their body's sufficiently or the religion that kills and maims thousands of innocent men/women/children because they want to force you into their religion at any cost. It's a good thing we have an expert on that religion, present. But, I didn't think Islam let skin-heads into their fold. Well, I guess you have the same mission statement, so perhaps they like your ilk because of your ability to kill innocent people.

      Delete
    84. "Thank you for that admission. Anyone's use of "God" will be capitalized depending on their use within their own generic religion."

      No. Nobody uses the term "God" except Christians. The non-capitalized "god" refers to any deity. When capitalized, it's a specific deity. Not applicable to Islam, Buddhism, etc.

      "No difference for within the context of our conversation."

      Explain how.

      "Perhaps you want to explain what you mean by your question about why gays would choose to be gay when they are threatened even to the point of death throughout their lives?"

      I never said it applied to all gay people, nor did I say "throughout their lives".

      "Yeah, I guess I'm not an expert on a religion that murders gays because they are gay and the religion that kills women because they don't cover their body's sufficiently or the religion that kills and maims thousands of innocent men/women/children because they want to force you into their religion at any cost."

      You don't have to be an expert to know that Mohammed is a prophet, not a god. That is extremely basic knowledge.

      But, if you really want to talk about killing people over religion:http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm Note Deuteronomy 13:13-19 and 13:7-12 especially. And Romans 1:24-32. This should be a lot of fun.

      Delete
    85. "When capitalized, it's a specific deity. Not applicable to Islam, Buddhism, etc."

      So, Creator is referring only to the Christian God, since it is capitalized? Make up your mind ... generic use or specific.

      "But, if you really want to talk about killing people over religion"

      What can you possibly know about Born Again Christians that I don't already know? You see, you can't even tell me the difference between "Born Again" and "Christian", huh? How you gonna teach me about "murders" in the Bible?

      "Explain how."

      I've done that, and now you are deflecting. Wow, I didn't see that one coming ;)

      Delete
    86. "So, Creator is referring only to the Christian God, since it is capitalized?"

      No, I said "god". Not "Creator".

      "What can you possibly know about Born Again Christians that I don't already know?"

      Where did I say anything about that?

      "I've done that, and now you are deflecting."

      No, you didn't. You made an unsupported assertion, simply saying there was no difference.

      Delete
    87. "Where did I say anything about that?"

      You are talking about MY religion, aren't you? Or are you changing the subject/deflecting again to get out of answering for what you say?

      " simply saying there was no difference."

      Which is enough, unless you can show otherwise.

      Delete
    88. "You are talking about MY religion, aren't you?"

      I don't give a damn about your specifics. I cited the Bible. What would "born-again" have to do with OT books, since the OT takes place before Jesus?

      "Which is enough, unless you can show otherwise."

      I already did. Your rebuttal to that is what was insufficient, so I'm not obligated to say it again. You should, instead, make an actual argument for once in your life.

      Delete
    89. "What would "born-again" have to do with OT books, since the OT takes place before Jesus?"

      And, therefor your lack of religious knowledge counters your ability to honestly discuss religion. So, no further conversing is really possible.

      Delete
    90. "And, therefor your lack of religious knowledge counters your ability to honestly discuss religion. So, no further conversing is really possible."

      Would you care to be more specific? Are you claiming Deuteronomy is New Testament?

      Also, the moron who thinks Mohammed is the Islam "God" has no room to talk about anyone else's religious knowledge. Ever. Obviously you don't feel comfortable defending the atrocities advocated by the Bible, while you have no trouble condemning someone else's religion for similar views.

      Delete
    91. "Obviously you don't feel comfortable defending the atrocities advocated by the Bible"

      You mean the actions DESCRIBED IN the Bible? "Advocated by" is just your small little mind at work. What Born Again Christian committed ANY of the "atrocities" you mention? Jesus said: Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born again. Are you saying Jesus doesn't know what He (note the capitalization) talks about? To you it doesn't matter, you will find all kinds of evil under the sun. That's the way you people are.
      If you want to be an expert at Islam, you go right ahead and be one. As for me and my family we follow the ways of Jesus Christ our Lord.

      BTW, got any examples of Christians (current day) slaughtering thousands of people per year? And, then, when you bring those examples ... do you have the example of the one country that stood up to them and then be denounced by it's own population for standing up to them? Having it's soldiers be called criminals for fighting the evil that IS today? I'd be really curious if you can find any "atrocities" caused by Christians (currently) to the extent that Islam does it IN CURRENT WORLD SETTINGS. Try not to use millions of years ago, or however long ago you think man started being around. Let's try to compare apples to apples, not the apples to oranges you are so familiar with doing.

      Delete
    92. "You mean the actions DESCRIBED IN the Bible? "Advocated by" is just your small little mind at work."

      No, it says what to do. "Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you." That's instructional, not an account of events.

      "What Born Again Christian committed ANY of the "atrocities" you mention?"

      So your point is that religion is more liberal now than in Biblical days.

      "Jesus said: Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born again."

      Relevance?

      "To you it doesn't matter, you will find all kinds of evil under the sun. That's the way you people are."

      Really? Because you think that homosexuality is a sin, and I don't. Seems to me you're the one who's looking.

      "If you want to be an expert at Islam, you go right ahead and be one. As for me and my family we follow the ways of Jesus Christ our Lord."

      You can do both, moron. There's a difference between worship and knowledge.

      "BTW, got any examples of Christians (current day) slaughtering thousands of people per year?"

      Never claimed to, so why would you ask? Again, Christianity is more liberal than it used to be. Isn't that wonderful?

      Delete
    93. "Relevance?"

      None to you, apparently.

      "There's a difference between worship and knowledge."

      It seems, not in your world. You are the ones fearing "knowledge" of a religion and use "worship" as a reason to eliminate religion.

      "Never claimed to,"

      Didn't think so.

      Delete
    94. "None to you, apparently."

      None to the conversation at hand, apparently. You want to talk about your kids' orthodontist bills, while you're at it?

      "You are the ones fearing "knowledge" of a religion and use "worship" as a reason to eliminate religion."

      Where did I say anything about fearing knowledge? You thought the Bible "DESCRIBED" killing people for differing beliefs, so obviously you're the one who can't handle the truth. I also haven't said anything to suggest eliminating any religion. Prove otherwise.

      "Didn't think so."

      Then there was no need to ask the question, moron.

      Delete
    95. "Then there was no need to ask the question"

      There was after you posted this: "But, if you really want to talk about killing people over religion: ... "
      Look at the little boy run away after he is called on his "evil bible" link. Come-on, Mr you-know-so-much-about-Islam, give me some examples of how Christianity is murdering thousands upon thousands of innocent human lives in today's age. Wipe that smug off your face and answer the question!
      You just got punk-ass bitch-slapped for your lack of standing up for your own comments. Come out from behind your momma's apron and defend you own comments like a man would.

      Delete
    96. "There was after you posted this: "But, if you really want to talk about killing people over religion: ... "
      Look at the little boy run away after he is called on his "evil bible" link."

      Who's running away? I challenged you, moron.

      "Come-on, Mr you-know-so-much-about-Islam, give me some examples of how Christianity is murdering thousands upon thousands of innocent human lives in today's age."

      I didn't say that was happening. I don't need to claim it, either. Here's a hint:Leviticus and its laws. Twirl that around in your mind for a couple of minutes and see if you get a spark.

      Thanks for abandoning your charge of wanting to "eliminate" religion. Smartest thing you've done yet. It does make you a hypocrite, though, for talking about "lack of standing up" for comments. Moron.

      Delete
    97. "Here's a hint:Leviticus and its laws. Twirl that around in your mind for a couple of minutes and see if you get a spark."

      You mean the laws that are half used to keep society from breaking down into lawlessness? Hell you can't even answer to why it is wrong to have sex with your mother, but ok to have sex with your own gender. Come on mr my-morals-are-better-than-yours, answer the question.

      "Who's running away? I challenged you,"

      You are. For bringing up the same old shit over and over. Never have you got anything new. Come on, bring evidence of those current day murders.

      Delete
    98. "You mean the laws that are half used to keep society from breaking down into lawlessness?"

      "Half used"? So, you pick and choose from the Bible now?

      "Hell you can't even answer to why it is wrong to have sex with your mother, but ok to have sex with your own gender."

      I've answered it multiple times. Incest is psychologically unhealthy in and of itself. Homosexuality is not. Interracial relationships are the cause of threats as well, but they aren't psychologically unhealthy in and of themselves. And before you go off on "CHOICE" again, an interracial relationship is a choice.

      "You are. For bringing up the same old shit over and over."

      Excuse me, you are talking about bringing up things over and over? And what happened to criticizing me for cursing? Apparently, it's no problem for you.

      "Come on, bring evidence of those current day murders."

      I never said there were any. And, again, I don't need to.

      Delete
    99. ""Half used"? So, you pick and choose from the Bible now?"

      I don't pick and choose. Those are the ones that your government uses. Remember the list you wanted about Leviticus?

      "Incest is psychologically unhealthy in and of itself."

      What are you talking about .... it's as simple as homosexuality: 2 people in love and want to share their love with each other. Both are a perversion of sex, and both are equal in their sin.
      How is one healthy and the other not?

      "Apparently, it's no problem for you."

      No, it's not. Have I called you moron or idiot yet?

      "I never said there were any. And, again, I don't need to."

      Of course not, you were trying to make a point you didn't think you'd get called on. But you did and now you back-track. Typical liberal

      Delete
    100. "I don't pick and choose. Those are the ones that your government uses."

      The government doesn't use those laws at all. There were laws against murder, theft and assault before the Bible, you know.

      "Both are a perversion of sex, and both are equal in their sin.
      How is one healthy and the other not?"

      Incest blurs the lines between and confuses the dynamics of familial and sexual relationships. Homosexuality does not. Your definitions of "perversion" and "sin" have no bearing on anything, since you could use those terms for literally anything based on your subjective viewpoint. It has nothing to do with the actual nature and ramifications of the relationship itself.

      "No, it's not. Have I called you moron or idiot yet?"

      Neither of those constitutes profanity, moron. Read the sentence before the one you posted.

      "Of course not, you were trying to make a point you didn't think you'd get called on."

      No, because it's not relevant to my point. I'm not targeting Christianity as a whole.

      "But you did and now you back-track."

      Correcting your extrapolation is not a fault on my part, moron. I stand by my argument, I simply won't let you assert I meant something else. You want to give credence to Biblical laws, so obviously you would have no problem with a society that enacted all of those laws. Now compare that scenario to your criticism of Islam (see the lightbulb yet?). If that's not the case, then you're picking and choosing what to believe...but you've denied that already. But if you do want to flip-flop on that, why would God mean some of what he said, but not the rest? How would you know what He really meant to be law and what he was just kidding about?

      Still think I'm back-tracking, jackass?

      Delete
    101. "Still think I'm back-tracking, jackass?"

      Yes, absolutely you are. None of your excuses show otherwise.

      "The government doesn't use those laws at all."

      I've already gone through this. I gave you a short list of LAWS from Leviticus that the US Government uses to protect society from lawlessness. You are backtracking, now, trying to insinuate that all we talked about was the 10 Commandments.
      http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-radical-gay-agenda.html?showComment=1376835410408#c7103531621368454058

      "Incest blurs the lines between and confuses the dynamics of familial and sexual relationships."

      With that in mind, why didn't you give any reasons why homosexuality is different? Yet, (again) you support homosexuality and not incest. Tell me: what "familial and sexual relationships" dynamics have not been blurred by homosexuality? One of your favorite lines for supporting homosexuality is that it happens in nature so it must be natural. Well so does incest, yet you have a reason not to like that sexual perversion. Isn't that just a tiny bit hypocritical? I thought so, too.

      "No, because it's not relevant to my point. I'm not targeting Christianity as a whole."

      Liar! You were absolutely targeting only Christianity when you brought that link 'Bible Lies'. What OTHER religion uses the Bible if not "Christianity as a whole"?

      get ready for some more back-tracking. You seem to be getting a lot of practice at that, lately.

      Delete
    102. "Yes, absolutely you are. None of your excuses show otherwise."

      The only excuse I see is from you, avoiding my questions.

      "I gave you a short list of LAWS from Leviticus that the US Government uses to protect society from lawlessness. You are backtracking, now, trying to insinuate that all we talked about was the 10 Commandments."

      The government doesn't use those laws. And I'm talking about Leviticus. Note "assault". Feel free to look for that concept in the Ten Commandments.

      "Tell me: what "familial and sexual relationships" dynamics have not been blurred by homosexuality?"

      Do you know the meaning of "familial"? What familial lines are being crossed in a gay relationship?

      "Well so does incest, yet you have a reason not to like that sexual perversion."

      Because incest is harmful, homosexuality is not.

      "Liar! You were absolutely targeting only Christianity when you brought that link 'Bible Lies'."

      I wasn't talking about an entire religion at all. I was talking about your words. No religion should be tarred with your insane beliefs.

      Delete
    103. "The government doesn't use those laws. And I'm talking about Leviticus."

      Yes, the government DOES use those laws. All the ones that I pointed out. You can't give me any reason why, either. Is it because they make sense? Or did scientists say screwing you mom was wrong ... way back then? Because from I remember, the (old time) Romans didn't care anything about "familial" rules that you seem to think are important to consenting adults seeking happiness. Of course the Romans also thought homosexuality was normal too.

      "Do you know the meaning of "familial"? What familial lines are being crossed in a gay relationship?"

      The same lines as you seem to think are being crossed in your use of the word. This isn't rocket science, pal. If you have no answer, then just stay on the sidelines and let adults converse. What "familial" concerns could you possibly have if a daughter wishes to have a sexual relationship with her mother?? What "familial" aspects are even remotely related when a son has sexual relations with his dad? What possible "familial" rules are broken when a son wants to be with his mother?
      What I think is you are being hypocritical and will make shit up to support your love of homosexuality when it is compared to other immoral and un-natural sexual relations. You got no reason to support one and not the other except the FACT you are a hypocrite.

      "Because incest is harmful, homosexuality is not."

      You haven't proven how incest is harmful, other than your opinion. And, the last I looked, YOUR OPINION is not used to decide morality in THIS NATION.

      "I wasn't talking about an entire religion at all. I was talking about your words.

      Backtracking.

      Delete
    104. "Yes, the government DOES use those laws. All the ones that I pointed out."

      No, lying is not generally illegal, and there's no law against cursing the deaf. Again, there were laws about things like theft and murder before the Bible, so there's no basis for claiming that the Bible is the source for any law. It's not as if we would think murder was fine and dandy if the Bible had never been written, moron.

      "Or did scientists say screwing you mom was wrong ... way back then?"

      Why does it rely on scientists? It could still be determined to be unacceptable on a psychological basis. And the Bible isn't exactly dead-set against incest, if you read about Lot and his daughters. Or think about the world after the flood for a moment.

      "The same lines as you seem to think are being crossed in your use of the word."

      In other words, you don't know what the word means.

      "What "familial" concerns could you possibly have if a daughter wishes to have a sexual relationship with her mother??"

      Because it confuses roles that separate people hold. Your caretaker is not your sexual partner. It's not just genetics.

      "You haven't proven how incest is harmful, other than your opinion."

      Then you think it's psychologically healthy. Got it.

      "And, the last I looked, YOUR OPINION is not used to decide morality in THIS NATION."

      Yours isn't either. Mine's not based on an old book, though, and I can justify my arguments.

      "Backtracking."

      No, fact. I explained it, but you can't address it. Because you're weak.

      Delete
    105. "Why does it rely on scientists?"

      What else do you have to support your opinion on sexual immorality?

      "In other words, you don't know what the word means."

      In other words, I hit the nail head-on and you don't have an answer.

      "Because it confuses roles that separate people hold."

      And homosexuality is different in WHAT way, hypocrite?

      "and I can justify my arguments."

      With what? Opinion? You got nothing and I'm making you look bad trying to justify homosexuality while you oppose familial relations without reason.

      Delete
    106. "What else do you have to support your opinion on sexual immorality?"

      Psychology, interpersonal dynamics. Why is this still unclear to you?

      "In other words, I hit the nail head-on and you don't have an answer."

      No, you don't seem to understand the word. If you did, you wouldn't be asking the questions you have been.

      "And homosexuality is different in WHAT way, hypocrite?"

      What roles are being confused in homosexuality, moron?

      "With what? Opinion?"

      Reason and logic.

      "You got nothing and I'm making you look bad trying to justify homosexuality while you oppose familial relations without reason."

      So, without the Bible, you wouldn't see a problem with incest? And since incest is actually in the Bible, why don't you support it?

      Delete
    107. "Psychology, interpersonal dynamics. Why is this still unclear to you?"

      It's not unclear to me. I'm just waiting for your explanation as to why homosexuality is ok, in light of your opposition to incest based on those qualifiers. Can you bring that explanation? Or you gonna go off in another direction .... again?

      "What roles are being confused in homosexuality, moron?"

      familial. traditional, biological, moral. Pretty much the exact same "roles" that you oppose incest for. You hypocrite.

      "And since incest is actually in the Bible, why don't you support it?"

      Show me where Jesus said incest is OK.

      Delete
    108. "It's not unclear to me. I'm just waiting for your explanation as to why homosexuality is ok, in light of your opposition to incest based on those qualifiers."

      Because homosexuality is not psychologically harmful.

      "familial."

      How?

      "traditional, biological, moral."

      Slavery was traditional, as was male dominance over women. Immediate fail on your part. Biological? It happens in nature, so obviously biology is not on your side. Morality is subjective. Again, slavery used to be legal and accepted. Now it's immoral.

      "Show me where Jesus said incest is OK."

      I don't have to. Are you picking and choosing what parts of the Bible to believe? If you don't recognize the OT at all, then why do you think it should be the basis for our laws?

      Delete
    109. I'll add on to point out that "roles" means things like caretaker, sexual partner, dependent, sibling...etc. Those are roles that people play in each other's lives. If you think it's fine for the person who's you gives birth to you, raises you and teaches you what's right and wrong to perform fellatio on you, stand by that. I say it's not psychologically healthy, and I await your argument to the contrary. Or, you can explain how sex between two non-related people carries the same psychological ramifications.

      Delete
    110. "Because homosexuality is not psychologically harmful."

      Being under the "threat of death" (your claim) isn't psychologically harmful? Try again. You've failed several times now. Bring something .... show us how smart you are. You ain't gonna let a right-winger outsmart you on this subject are you?

      " It happens in nature, so obviously biology is not on your side."

      So does incest. Ooops, there goes your defense.

      "Now it's immoral."

      Only where it is illegal.

      "I don't have to. Are you picking and choosing what parts of the Bible to believe?"

      You'd better bring that or you show what a dolt you are for even attempting to make that argument. And, no, I'm not picking and choosing. Where in the Bible does It TEACH me to have incest or that it is ok?

      Delete
    111. "Being under the "threat of death" (your claim) isn't psychologically harmful?"

      Being religious is psychologically harmful? You said people were under threat if they were the wrong religion, remember? No, outside influences don't count, moron. By your logic, you could make left-handedness illegal as long as psychopaths were going around killing left-handed people.

      "So does incest. Ooops, there goes your defense."

      I didn't claim incest didn't happen in nature. It's still harmful, so we don't accept it.

      "Only where it is illegal."

      Oh, really? So you think slavery is moral, as long as the law allows it?

      "You'd better bring that or you show what a dolt you are for even attempting to make that argument."

      Bring what?

      "And, no, I'm not picking and choosing. Where in the Bible does It TEACH me to have incest or that it is ok?"

      Why does it have to "TEACH" you? Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt for looking the wrong way, but you think that the lack of punishment for incest doesn't mean anything? You think God was taking a nap, or what?

      Delete
    112. And that's not the only one, of course:http://listverse.com/2008/05/26/top-6-incestuous-relationships-in-the-bible/

      Delete
    113. "It's still harmful, so we don't accept it."

      And, I'm waiting for your explanation as for WHY we don't accept it. So far, the reasons you have brought would include not accepting homosexuality also. Give me reasons that won't include that or you are a hypocrite. Plain and simple.

      "So you think slavery is moral, as long as the law allows it?"

      No, I don't. Are you reading into something I didn't say in order to promote your hatred?

      "Why does it have to "TEACH" you?"

      The Bible mentions homosexuality, too. Am I supposed to agree with it since it mentions it? Get a grip on reality, here. Please. Do you even know what you're arguing for? I don't think you do.

      Delete
    114. "And, I'm waiting for your explanation as for WHY we don't accept it. So far, the reasons you have brought would include not accepting homosexuality also."

      There are no familial roles involved in homosexual relationships.

      "No, I don't. Are you reading into something I didn't say in order to promote your hatred?"

      No, I'm reading exactly what you said:
      Me:"Again, slavery used to be legal and accepted. Now it's immoral."
      You:"Only where it is illegal."
      It's only immoral where it's illegal, according to you. So you think where it's not illegal, it's moral. Did you mean to say something else? Like what, if so?

      "Am I supposed to agree with it since it mentions it?"

      It specifies what you're supposed to think about homosexuality. Where does it speak against incest? And incidentally, since you seem to have a knee-jerk "Jesus" reaction, what did Jesus ever say against homosexuality? If that's your standard, then you have no moral objection.

      Delete
    115. "There are no familial roles involved in homosexual relationships."

      There can be just as easily. They already seek an abnormal sex life, what would stop them from seeking family members? You need a better reason that "familial". That does not suffice.

      "So you think where it's not illegal, it's moral. "

      Did I say that? Or are you saying that for me?

      " what did Jesus ever say against homosexuality?"

      That it's an abomination.

      Delete
    116. "There can be just as easily. They already seek an abnormal sex life, what would stop them from seeking family members?"

      So now you're claiming something is currently true based on some wild conjecture of the future?

      "Did I say that? Or are you saying that for me?"

      It's the meaning of your comment. Like if you were to say "I only eat sitting down", that means you don't eat standing up. Feel free to explain what else you think the word "only" means. Also, review the threads to read your insane extrapolations, and then take "did I say that" and stick it where the sun doesn't shine. You don't get to establish that standard after asserting my meaning so many times. Also note I asked you to explain yourself. If you could defend yourself, I think you would.

      "That it's an abomination."

      Chapter and verse, please.

      Delete
    117. " what did Jesus ever say against homosexuality?"

      He also said sexual immorality defiles you. Homosexuality is sexual immorality and lewdness.
      "What comes out of you is what defiles you. For from within, out of your hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile you." (TNIV, Mark 7:20-23)

      And your favorite book: Leviticus, has a lot to say on homosexuality, calling it "detestable" and Romans calls it "unnatural". 1 Timothy calls it "contrary to sound teaching". Don't forget Genesis (where we get the word "sodomy" from. Ooops, another LAW that our government gets from the Bible.

      Delete
    118. "Chapter and verse, please."

      "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." (NKJ, Leviticus 18:22)
      "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." (NKJ, Leviticus 20:13)

      Delete
    119. "He also said sexual immorality defiles you. Homosexuality is sexual immorality and lewdness."

      According to you. What shows that Jesus believed that?

      "And your favorite book: Leviticus, has a lot to say on homosexuality, calling it "detestable" and Romans calls it "unnatural"."

      Jesus doesn't say anything in Leviticus. That book also dictates death as a punishment for homosexuality. Do you think that punishment is reasonable? You should, if you think our laws should be based on it.

      "Don't forget Genesis (where we get the word "sodomy" from. Ooops, another LAW that our government gets from the Bible."

      Sodomy laws are disappearing. Have you wondered why?

      "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination."

      Jesus said that? In Leviticus? No, he sure didn't.

      Delete
    120. "Sodomy laws are disappearing. Have you wondered why?"

      I know why. Because liberals are making our nation less moral and more immoral. Thanks for achieving your goals.

      "Jesus said that? In Leviticus? No, he sure didn't."

      You were there?!? Wow, you must be very old. However, you obviously don't believe Jesus is God. That is why I cannot have an adult conversation with you.

      "What shows that Jesus believed that?"

      The Bible. I thought you've read it. You sure have versus's handy for almost any occasion.

      Delete
    121. "I know why. Because liberals are making our nation less moral and more immoral."

      No, because you aren't the judge of morals, jackass. You do know that sodomy is not just anal sex, right? Please, for the love of all you think is holy, tell me you knew that. It includes oral sex, and is not even restricted to homosexuality. So, if your wife ever performed fellatio on you, that would be criminal. Now, someone could very easily say that you and your wife were being immoral for that, and deserved to face criminal charges. The vast, vast majority of people would disagree. What consenting adults do in private is not a legal concern, period.

      And that's exactly what I've been saying about an objective basis for law. Your morality isn't objective, so it can't be justified. I think people shouldn't have extramarital affairs, but that's not law, and for a damn good reason.

      "You were there?!?"

      No, I've read the Bible.

      "However, you obviously don't believe Jesus is God."

      No, I don't. And your belief doesn't mean you can substitute one name for the other. Besides that:"Show me where Jesus said incest is OK." Obviously, since neither Lot nor his daughters were struck down for the act, God thought it was fine. And if "Jesus is God", then Jesus said incest was acceptable. So why the hell did you ask for evidence you knew existed? And what's your basis for opposing incest, considering that?

      "The Bible. I thought you've read it. You sure have versus's [sic] handy for almost any occasion."

      Only Jesus's words can be attributed to Jesus, moron. The views of other people do not apply (like the concept of "an eye for an eye", most obviously). So, again, what did Jesus say about homosexuality?

      And again, do you think gay people should be executed simply for their sexual orientation?

      Delete
    122. "No, I don't. And your belief doesn't mean you can substitute one name for the other."

      Yes, it does.

      "No, because you aren't the judge of morals, jackass."

      No, I am not. Jesus IS. And HE tells you what is moral and isn't. You choose not to listen to Him. That makes you and your ilk the ones who are lowering the morals in this nation and world-wide.

      "No, I've read the Bible."

      Didn't seem to do any good, you immoral atheist.

      "God thought it was fine."

      And that is the incredible stupidity that comes from haters of all things good.

      Delete
    123. "Yes, it does."

      Sorry, it does not. I can't call Lady Gaga "Nefertiti" if I happen to think that she's the reincarnation of her, and expect anyone else to conform to that nonsense. Jesus is Jesus, God is God. Jesus didn't commit mass murder, and God didn't give the Sermon on the Mount.

      "No, I am not. Jesus IS."

      You can't prove Jesus even existed. It's a matter of opinion. Even beyond that, you are attributing an attitude to him that has no basis whatsoever, so you are pretending to be the judge of morals. If you want Jesus to speak for himself, stop putting words in his mouth.

      "Didn't seem to do any good, you immoral atheist."

      I don't need it to have better morals than you.

      "And that is the incredible stupidity that comes from haters of all things good."

      If it's stupid, make an argument against it. You seem incapable to do so.

      Or to answer simple questions, as to whether you think people should be executed simply for being gay or not, and what your basis for opposing incest is. With all the strength you have from the holy spirit, etc, you shouldn't have any problems standing up for what you say.

      Delete
    124. "Sorry, it does not."

      Yes it does. You may not like my belief, but that is exactly what we are taught ... by Jesus that He is God and God is He. And THAT is what you asked for: "your belief".

      "You can't prove Jesus even existed."

      I don't think that is my job. My job is not to prove anyone live/died ... only believe.

      "I don't need it to have better morals than you."

      You need to if you want to end up in the Kingdom Of Heaven. But you are given the choice as to which path you wish to follow. Good luck with your choices.

      You still haven't asked a pertinent question. I'm not going to answer for stupid questions.

      Delete
    125. "You may not like my belief, but that is exactly what we are taught ... by Jesus that He is God and God is He. And THAT is what you asked for: "your belief"."

      I'd pay good money for any evidence that you were taught that God was crucified. Or any other bizarre conflation, in the specific wording. Again, you believe what you want, but it doesn't carry over for conversational purposes. Like the way I don't believe in any of the Bible, but I adapt by using "Him". Be more flexible. Also, it wasn't smart of you to insult me for what you admit is simply your belief. That's awfully egocentric on your part, hardly respectable and absolutely out of line with the teachings of Jesus.

      "My job is not to prove anyone live/died ... only believe."

      Then you can't expect to get anywhere in your pursuit of public policy goals based off of your beliefs. Did you forget, already, that the context for this was sodomy laws? People are really supposed to face prison time because you believe in an old book, and no other reason? That's not compelling in the slightest, nor is your sweeping condemnation for anyone who doesn't see things your way.

      "You need to if you want to end up in the Kingdom Of Heaven."

      If Heaven is full of people who think slavery is moral under any circumstances, never mind based on legality, then you can have it.

      "I'm not going to answer for stupid questions."

      You haven't shown how any question I've asked is stupid, though. And now you've made them even more pertinent. If you believe that Jesus dictated that gay people should be executed simply for being gay, and that your views are what laws should be based on, and that the government bases its laws off of the Bible anyway, then you should have no problem saying you think gay people should be legally executed. If you believe it, what the hell are you scared of? How do you expect to get into Heaven when you can't even agree with God, as you claim Him to be?

      Delete
    126. "If Heaven is full of people who think slavery is moral under any circumstances, never mind based on legality, then you can have it."

      If that's the extent of your binary thinking capabilities, then who'd expect you there.

      Delete
    127. "I'd pay good money for any evidence that you were taught that God was crucified."

      No, you wouldn't. Because the evidence is predicted and proven in the Bible. Which is considered a history book, too.

      "Again, you believe what you want, but it doesn't carry over for conversational purposes. Like the way I don't believe in any of the Bible, but I adapt by using "Him". Be more flexible."

      You want me to lower my moral standards, like you do, just because you don't believe in the Bible? Sorry pal, I'll keep my moral standards and leave lowering them to people like you.

      "You haven't shown how any question I've asked is stupid, though."

      That is as self-evident as how your questions are racist based with cowardly intentions.

      Delete
    128. "If that's the extent of your binary thinking capabilities, then who'd expect you there."

      I already know you can't explain how that's "binary thinking".

      "Because the evidence is predicted and proven in the Bible."

      What is that supposed to mean, and how does it address my point?

      "You want me to lower my moral standards, like you do, just because you don't believe in the Bible?"

      Why would it lower your moral standards to distinguish between Jesus and God? It doesn't say "God/Jesus" in the Bible. If your book can make the distinction between the two, so can you.

      "That is as self-evident as how your questions are racist based with cowardly intentions."

      There's another thing you never explained. You're not very good at this whole thinking thing, obviously.

      After enough chances to answer, I can safely conclude you think people should be executed for being gay. You're quite the radical.

      Delete
    129. "Why would it lower your moral standards to distinguish between Jesus and God?"

      Really? Do you not know that Jesus says He is God. Why would I call Him a liar? Perhaps, lying isn't immoral in your world, but it is in mine.

      Delete
    130. "Do you not know that Jesus says He is God."

      Funny, every other Christian I've ever conversed with was able to separate the two names. Are you the only moral person in the world, in your mind, or what? That has nothing to do with morality.

      "Why would I call Him a liar?"

      It wouldn't be a lie if he believed it.

      "Perhaps, lying isn't immoral in your world, but it is in mine."

      Is that why you lied about there being a federal law against firing people simply for being gay?

      What is the established dogma or doctrine that teaches you to call God "Jesus"? How is this supposed to be mainstream at all, seriously? I'm deeply curious who the hell taught you to behave that way.

      Delete
    131. "Is that why you lied about there being a federal law against firing people simply for being gay?"

      I didn't lie about that. There IS a federal law against being fired "simply for being gay". You admitted that yourself. How can I be a liar when you (personally) told me it is against federal law to fire federal employees "simply for being gay". Does that make it against federal law to fire people "simply for being gay"????

      "I'm deeply curious who the hell taught you to behave that way."

      If that was the truth, then you would have learned by now. But, Jesus/God is the answer to your question.

      Delete
    132. "I didn't lie about that. There IS a federal law against being fired "simply for being gay"."

      Not according to you (emphasis mine):"This is your chance to prove that being gay is a genetic issue. Since you can't prove that, then when you admit you can't prove that, we'll advance farther. The key is WHEN you prove they are born that way, then federal law prohibits any of that type of discrimination. But, since you are afraid to go to that effort (since there is none of that proof) we are stuck with you asking inane questions based on ASSUMPTIONS and OPINIONS that you have and believe." And:"Is there a federal law against firing you for what color you dye your hair? Choices, buddy, choices." And:"Yes, I do. To fool your stupid ass. And it worked like a charm.", which was in response to me pointing out that you made up a federal law. Your response "to fool your stupid ass" confirmed that you lied.

      "You admitted that yourself. How can I be a liar when you (personally) told me it is against federal law to fire federal employees "simply for being gay"."

      Federal hiring and firing policy is not federal law, moron. Federal law would apply to everyone. Note the minor difference between "everyone" and "federal employees". If you're really that stupid, you definitely owe Eddie an apology. You were wrong.

      "If that was the truth, then you would have learned by now."

      No, because nobody else makes that conflation, as far as I've seen. I maintain you use that as an excuse to suggest that Jesus wants gay people to be executed, while nobody else has a problem with calling each entity by their appropriate name. Prove me wrong by showing the doctrine. Otherwise, you can't very well criticize anyone for not agreeing with your behavior.

      Delete
    133. "Prove me wrong by showing the doctrine. Otherwise, you can't very well criticize anyone for not agreeing with your behavior."

      I can criticize you all I want. It is easy and you give me reason to every time you post. Where does Jesus say He wants to execute gay people? For you to get anything close to that out of anything I've said is just simply 'liberal'. That's the way you people roll, so I should expect no less from you.

      Delete
    134. "I can criticize you all I want."

      Not fairly, if you're creating your own belief system for the convenience of your arguments.

      Where does Jesus say He wants to execute gay people?

      If you want to attribute everything in the Bible to Jesus because Jesus=God, then it's in Leviticus: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh3.htm#

      And you yourself cited that book when asked what Jesus said about homosexuality: http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-radical-gay-agenda.html?showComment=1377451931342#c2399415996937147652

      Also note I didn't say Jesus said he personally wanted to execute gay people, as was your wording. I said you think he wanted gay people to be executed. Just in case you're trying to fool me again or whatever.

      Delete
    135. "they shall surely be put to death". How does that equate to Jesus "WANTING to execute gays"? You really don't have a clue, do you?


      "Also note I didn't say Jesus said he personally wanted to execute gay people, as was your wording."

      Perhaps you should just shut up now and try to avoid further embarrassment concerning subjects you don't know anything about.

      Delete
    136. "How does that equate to Jesus "WANTING to execute gays"?"

      I didn't use the phrase in quotes. I said "...to suggest that Jesus wants gay people to be executed..." which would mean other people committing that act. Just like "shall surely be put to death" would be other people performing said execution.

      "Perhaps you should just shut up now and try to avoid further embarrassment concerning subjects you don't know anything about."

      Now that is funny. I preemptively called out your bullshit of "wants to", you repeat your bullshit, then when you note my foresight, you blather about nothing.

      I obviously know more about the Bible than you do. You weren't even aware it called for the murder of homosexuals. So, do you still want to play the Jesus=God game, or admit that Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality?

      Delete
    137. "I didn't use the phrase in quotes."

      It doesn't need to be in quotes. You said Jesus wanted gays executed. Explain how Jesus WANTED gays EXECUTED before I can answer any question related to that. Since you're the expert at the Bible, you should bring the verse that says Jesus WANTS homosexuals EXECUTED.

      "You weren't even aware it called for the murder of homosexuals."

      Where did the Bible call for the MURDER of homosexuals? Do you know what MURDER means?

      "So, do you still want to play the Jesus=God game, or admit that Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality?"

      Yes, No. It is fun watching you flounder while playing this game. And Jesus has a lot to say about homosexuality (as a lifestyle). He didn't approve of it then, and He doesn't approve of it now. Sorry, but God doesn't change His mind about morals. It is immoral then, it stays immoral today. Those who CHOOSE a different path (besides being born again) should expect to get what they deserve. Sorry, I don't make up the rules, I simply follow them the best I can. But, not the rules you say I should follow, because you know nothing about religion and could never teach any religious person anything concerning religion.

      Hell, you can't even explain the difference between having sex with your step-mother or a same-sex partner. Where is the familial guidelines within that? Because the Bible teaches not to have sex with either. You, however, feel sexual perversion is OK as long as you can be a hypocrite concerning sexual perversions.

      Delete
    138. "It doesn't need to be in quotes. You said Jesus wanted gays executed. Explain how Jesus WANTED gays EXECUTED before I can answer any question related to that."

      It does need to be in quotes, because you twisted what I said to make it a personal action by Jesus. You put quotes around something I didn't write as if I did. You were wrong. As to how Jesus wanted gay people to be executed, it's in Leviticus. You said Jesus is God, right? If you're going to claim that Jesus thinks homosexuality is an abomination because of what it says in Leviticus, then the order to kill homosexuals would also be attributed to Jesus.

      Do you think gay people deserve to die for being gay? If not, why does the usage of the term "murder" bother you?

      "He didn't approve of it then, and He doesn't approve of it now."

      Because of what he said in Leviticus?

      "Sorry, but God doesn't change His mind about morals. It is immoral then, it stays immoral today."

      So slavery is moral? It's clearly permitted in the Bible. How about murdering a woman for not being a virgin on her wedding night? Is that moral?

      "Hell, you can't even explain the difference between having sex with your step-mother or a same-sex partner."

      You already gave up on this. You were stuck asserting that gay people might want to have incest, which was supposedly the same as currently committing incest.

      "Because the Bible teaches not to have sex with either."

      The Bible has nothing to do with "familial".

      "You, however, feel sexual perversion is OK as long as you can be a hypocrite concerning sexual perversions."

      Was that supposed to make sense? It reads like you had two different thoughts and mixed them together.

      Delete
    139. "then the order to kill homosexuals would also be attributed to Jesus."

      Where is the "order to kill" in Leviticus?

      "So slavery is moral? It's clearly permitted in the Bible."

      How does the word "permitted" fit in what you say about Jesus? Do you mean it happened? Or that Jesus ordered slavery?

      "You already gave up on this."

      Fact is that you could not explain how it is immoral (by your standards), when it is according to the Bible. You didn't want to use the Bible as a reason, so you failed to bring a reason why that would not be moral.

      "The Bible has nothing to do with "familial"."

      Neither do step-parents (which is just as immoral in the Bible today as it was then). Can you explain why it would be immoral according to your standards when compared with homosexuality?

      Delete
    140. "Where is the "order to kill" in Leviticus?"

      I linked to it above.

      "How does the word "permitted" fit in what you say about Jesus? Do you mean it happened? Or that Jesus ordered slavery?"

      It means it was permitted. According to you, Jesus ordered people not to covet, but allowed slavery as long as slaves were treated a certain way.

      "Fact is that you could not explain how it is immoral (by your standards), when it is according to the Bible."

      I explained why it was unacceptable. You kept trying to apply "familial" to homosexuality, then painted yourself into a corner. Did you forget?

      "You didn't want to use the Bible as a reason, so you failed to bring a reason why that would not be moral."

      So, I have to reference the Bible in order to explain why I don't approve of something? Why is this, again?

      "Neither do step-parents (which is just as immoral in the Bible today as it was then)."

      If the Bible isn't relevant to "familial", why did you talk about the Bible in that context?:"Where is the familial guidelines within that? Because the Bible teaches not to have sex with either." And what do "step-parents" have to do with anything, and why is the concept of "step-parents" immoral? What the hell are you on about now?

      Delete
    141. "I linked to it above."

      Do you mean this verse?: "If a man lies with a male, as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

      Well, where does it say Jesus WANTS them executed. Where does it say ANYONE has to execute them? Where does it say any of what you claim? It looks to me like Jesus is explaining the penalty for being immoral. Does He say WHO will execute them? Does he say WHEN they will be executed? Does He even use the word EXECUTE? No, No and No. You don't have facts on your side during this discussion. Fortunately, you're a liberal and facts don't matter to you.

      "I explained why it was unacceptable."

      You tried to explain one version of the circumstances (not very successfully). But, you can't answer the current question and are now whining about corner painting. You gave NO acceptable reason why homosexuality is moral but having sex with your parents is not. You are a hypocrite for that reasoning. You accept immorality because YOU'VE decided it is OK, then denounce immorality because YOU'VE decided it is NOT OK with NO acceptable differentiating reasons between the two.

      "So, I have to reference the Bible in order to explain why I don't approve of something?"

      You have to reference something besides your 'gut feeling'. Otherwise you are being the same kind of bigot you claim I am. Bring something, liberal. Or stay on the sidelines and whine about life like the rest of you do.

      "If the Bible isn't relevant to "familial", why did you talk about the Bible in that context?"

      It is relevant. The Bible allows re-marriage. Which would make some parents "step-parents". The morality taught by the Bible does not differentiate between 'step' and 'natural' parents, does it? You've claimed to have read the Bible ... does it make a difference? And, since it does NOT make a difference, explain how "familial" rules apply to deciding morality of having sex with a step-parent and having homosexual sex. Since you went off whining, before, I'll give you another chance to explain how one is moral (in your opinion) and the other is not. And what do you use to decide what IS and what IS NOT moral regarding personal/private/consenting sex choices.

      "What the hell are you on about now?"

      Something that you will be afraid to address. Since your morality only extends so far, I expect you to deflect this latest question and whine about something ... anything else to keep you from answering.

      BTW: simply saying "familial" status makes sex within family members immoral doesn't cut it. WHY does it matter? What harm is occurring, to anyone, for their own personal choice for sex partner? Other than your gut feeling that it is icky? Since you are making a morality decision based on personal opinion, I think you are being the same kind of bigot you say I am.

      Delete
    142. "Well, where does it say Jesus WANTS them executed. Where does it say ANYONE has to execute them?"

      What does "put to death" mean, if not executed?

      "It looks to me like Jesus is explaining the penalty for being immoral. Does He say WHO will execute them? Does he say WHEN they will be executed? Does He even use the word EXECUTE?"

      What difference does it make? Do you think people should be executed by anyone at any time simply for being gay? And when you adequately explain the difference between "execute" and "put to death", then we'll explore whether the Bible ever contains the word "execute" at all. But not until then.

      "But, you can't answer the current question and are now whining about corner painting."

      No, I'm saying you painted yourself into a corner. That's not a complaint at all.

      "You gave NO acceptable reason why homosexuality is moral but having sex with your parents is not."

      So are you on record as saying that having sex with your parents is psychologically healthy?

      "You have to reference something besides your 'gut feeling'"

      I'm not talking about gut feelings. I'm talking about the conflation of roles and how it's not healthy. You have yet to explain how incest is healthy.

      "It is relevant."

      Then why did you accept my point about "familial" having nothing to do with the Bible? You said "Neither do...", remember?

      "And, since it does NOT make a difference, explain how "familial" rules apply to deciding morality of having sex with a step-parent and having homosexual sex."

      Because a step-parent is still family, moron. Do you mean "having homosexual sex with a step-parent"? Because otherwise, familial boundaries have nothing to do with homosexual relations.

      "BTW: simply saying "familial" status makes sex within family members immoral doesn't cut it. WHY does it matter?"

      Because it's not psychologically healthy, as I've said many times already.

      Delete
    143. "What does "put to death" mean, if not executed?"

      Jesus often refers to 'spiritual death'. Do you have anything that insinuates He isn't talking about 'spiritual death' during this time?

      "What difference does it make? "

      It would make a big difference (notice the use of the word "would"). If He is talking about 'spiritual death' then the complete mis-understanding of the Bible by you anti-religious folks would (notice the use of the word "would") be the reason for your complete lack of knowledge when it comes to God and Jesus and His expectations of His people during a time that you wouldn't understand.

      "So are you on record as saying that having sex with your parents is psychologically healthy?"

      No, I'm on record saying that homosexuality is NOT "psychologically healthy", just like incest. But you can't explain why that would make a difference when 2 consenting adults who CHOOSE to get into a sexually immoral relationship. Because HOW could it possibly be unhealthy if BOTH adults CONSENT to the relationship? Talk about painting yourself into a corner!

      "You have yet to explain how incest is healthy."

      I will never do that. It is you who needs to show that homosexuality is healthy within the same criteria you use to say incest is not healthy. Because YOU say incest is unhealthy, yet homosexuality is healthy. Both have the same psychological health dangers, both have the familial dangers ... yet you support homosexuality as a CHOICE between two consenting adults then refuse to accept that CONSENTING adults CHOOSE incest. You are a hypocrite for that stance ... and the many other ones you (as a liberal) hold.

      "Because a step-parent is still family, moron. Do you mean "having homosexual sex with a step-parent"? Because otherwise, familial boundaries have nothing to do with homosexual relations."

      Having sex with a step-parent is not affected by "familial" bounds either. But, yeah, answer your idea of gay sex with step-parent. How is that affected scientifically by your "familial" standards? How is that psychologically unhealthy if CONSENTING ADULTS are involved??

      "Because it's not psychologically healthy, as I've said many times already."

      So is homosexuality ... as YOU'VE said many times. (life-long threat of death, disowned by family, teased and denigrated at work, ect ... ). Painting yourself into yet another corner?

      Delete
    144. "Jesus often refers to 'spiritual death'."

      Well, the verse in question also uses the word "blood". So that might just be an indicator that he's not talking about being "put to (spiritual) death".

      "It would make a big difference (notice the use of the word "would")."

      No need for "would", since you're actually claiming it does make a difference.

      "If He is talking about 'spiritual death' then the complete mis-understanding of the Bible by you anti-religious folks would (notice the use of the word "would") be the reason for your complete lack of knowledge when it comes to God and Jesus and His expectations of His people during a time that you wouldn't understand."

      How is someone "put" to "spiritual death", exactly? It didn't say they would suffer from death, it involves a distinct action which includes bloodshed. You yourself said it was a "penalty". Is there someone besides God/Jesus that would enforce that penalty?

      "No, I'm on record saying that homosexuality is NOT "psychologically healthy", just like incest."

      If you think incest isn't psychologically healthy, then you've accepted my reason for opposing it.

      "Because HOW could it possibly be unhealthy if BOTH adults CONSENT to the relationship?"

      Moron, you just said incest is unhealthy. So now you're saying incest is fine as long as it's two consenting adults?

      "It is you who needs to show that homosexuality is healthy within the same criteria you use to say incest is not healthy. Because YOU say incest is unhealthy, yet homosexuality is healthy."

      Because homosexuality doesn't involve any conflation of roles. There is no "father" or "mother" being a sexual partner with their offspring. Homosexuality has the exact same psychological dynamic as heterosexuality.

      "Having sex with a step-parent is not affected by "familial" bounds either."

      Of course it is. A step-parent is part of your family, hence "familial".

      "But, yeah, answer your idea of gay sex with step-parent. How is that affected scientifically by your "familial" standards?"

      It's not my idea, you're the one you said it. And what does "scientifically" have to do with anything here?

      "How is that psychologically unhealthy if CONSENTING ADULTS are involved??"

      Because you're conflating roles. Step-parents have the same role as parents.

      "So is homosexuality ... as YOU'VE said many times. (life-long threat of death, disowned by family, teased and denigrated at work, ect ... )."

      No, moron, I've pointed out more than once that outside influences don't count. Try to keep up.

      Delete
    145. "Well, the verse in question also uses the word "blood". So that might just be an indicator that he's not talking about being "put to (spiritual) death"."

      That might be a possibility. Not a likely one, though. So, why don't you do a complete investigation into the meanings of each word in that verse and give a complete report on what you find to be the correct interpretation for that verse. You are so intelligent when it comes to religion, so I'm sure you will have no problem completing that project.

      "How is someone "put" to "spiritual death", exactly?"

      You tell me. You seem to have unlimited knowledge about religion and it's artifacts.

      "Moron, you just said incest is unhealthy."

      Ummm, did you notice I asked a question? Maybe you didn't notice the question mark at the end of the question. But, it still reads as a question and for you to take it as a statement shows a serious lack of reading comprehension abilities on your part. Which I've noticed throughout our conversations.

      "Because homosexuality doesn't involve any conflation of roles. "

      Father and father sex or mother and mother sex isn't a "conflation of roles"? Wow, you have some serious sex issues you need to address.

      "Of course it is. A step-parent is part of your family, hence "familial"."

      Funny, when you asked me if I knew what that word meant, I didn't think you were asking because you didn't. Do you want me to look it up for you? Since you obviously don't know what "familial" means in the way you are using it.

      "And what does "scientifically" have to do with anything here?"

      Exactly. Since you have no logical reason to oppose sex within that family unit, then your support of father on father sex and mother on mother sex (as moral) is completely illogical when you denounce sibling on sibling sex as immoral.

      "Because you're conflating roles. Step-parents have the same role as parents."

      And, again, how is father on father sex or mother on mother sex NOT conflating roles within the familial structure as you see it?

      "No, moron, I've pointed out more than once that outside influences don't count."

      Oh? Does that mean that outside influences, such as "familial" standards, don't apply to father on father sex or mother on mother sex?

      Delete
    146. "That might be a possibility. Not a likely one, though."

      Why not?

      "You tell me. You seem to have unlimited knowledge about religion and it's artifacts."

      No, it's your argument. Do your own work.

      "But, it still reads as a question and for you to take it as a statement shows a serious lack of reading comprehension abilities on your part."

      The question implied that incest between adults is acceptable. Otherwise, there's no reason to ask how I could not find it acceptable.

      "Father and father sex or mother and mother sex isn't a "conflation of roles"?"

      No, because both would be parents in the same family unit. What roles do you think are being conflated?

      "Since you obviously don't know what "familial" means in the way you are using it."

      By all means, show what you imagine you're talking about.

      "Since you have no logical reason to oppose sex within that family unit, then your support of father on father sex and mother on mother sex (as moral) is completely illogical when you denounce sibling on sibling sex as immoral."

      No, I've talked about "psychological" aspects multiple times. You pulling "scientific" out of your ass doesn't have any bearing on the logic of my argument.

      "Oh? Does that mean that outside influences, such as "familial" standards, don't apply to father on father sex or mother on mother sex?"

      Your arbitrary standards have nothing to do with the functioning of same-sex couples. So, yes, your standards are not relevant. If you have something more specific to cite, do so.

      Delete
    147. "No, it's your argument. Do your own work."

      I've done that work, and I am correct with my explanation. If you have something that shows differently, please feel free to expound on your claims as you've made them.

      "No, because both would be parents in the same family unit. What roles do you think are being conflated?"

      Father, mother roles. Which is designated which in your gay scenario? One male gets to be assigned to be the mother, while the other is assigned to be the father? How is that NOT conflating ROLES of the family unit? Does the child call both of them Father or both of them Mother?

      "No, I've talked about "psychological" aspects multiple times. You pulling "scientific" out of your ass doesn't have any bearing on the logic of my argument."

      Umm, psychology IS a science. So I'm not pulling anything out of my ass, I'm asking you direct questions for what YOU say is logical.

      "Your arbitrary standards have nothing to do with the functioning of same-sex couples."

      I see. Are you saying that your "arbitrary standards" have everything to do with incest relationships, but not same-sex relationships, but mine have nothing to do with either?

      Incest: 1. Sexual relations between persons who are so closely related that their marriage is illegal or forbidden by custom.

      Notice there is NO reason to oppose incest except for LAW and/or CUSTOM (the same for gay relations). Is there any psychological reasons listed? I see none. ONLY law and custom when it applies to "marriage". What if they CHOOSE not to marry, is the incestual relationship between those 2 consenting adults allowed, in your opinion? How would that affect "familial" aspect if they don't marry?

      Delete
    148. "I've done that work, and I am correct with my explanation."

      What "explanation"? You theorized that people were supposed to be put to "spiritual death", involving bloodshed, without explaining how the hell it was supposed to make a bit of sense.

      "Father, mother roles. Which is designated which in your gay scenario?"

      Why would that be significant? Do you have a problem with women working and men staying at home because they switch "Father, mother roles"?

      "Umm, psychology IS a science."

      Oh, so instead of answering my question as to what "scientifically" had to do with anything, you instead persisted with your secret substitution as if I was using the same terminology. We can safely flush your "no logical reason" claim down the toilet, then.

      "I see. Are you saying that your "arbitrary standards" have everything to do with incest relationships, but not same-sex relationships, but mine have nothing to do with either?"

      My standards aren't arbitrary.

      "Notice there is NO reason to oppose incest except for LAW and/or CUSTOM (the same for gay relations)."

      Moron, just because the definition doesn't go into a treatise as to why it's not accepted, that doesn't mean there isn't a reason to reject it.

      "Is there any psychological reasons listed? I see none."

      So, you're back to suggesting that incest is psychologically healthy.

      "ONLY law and custom when it applies to "marriage"."

      No, it uses legality of marriage as the criterion for determining incest. It has nothing to do with whether they get married, especially since that marriage is already prohibited.

      Delete
    149. "Do you have a problem with women working and men staying at home because they switch "Father, mother roles"?"

      Obviously, you don't have a clue to what we're talking about. You don't think that having 2 mothers or 2 fathers (from a gay relationship) is different than the normal 1 mother/ 1 father familial unit?

      "My standards aren't arbitrary."

      What DO you call them, then? You can't bring any reason why one sexual deviance is normal but the other is not, so what in the hell is your hypocritical standard that you are using to determine immorality?

      "Moron, just because the definition doesn't go into a treatise as to why it's not accepted, that doesn't mean there isn't a reason to reject it."

      You're being a bigot for rejecting a sexual deviance without reason. Wow, hypocrite and bigot all in one post. You're getting good at this ... are you a closet right-winger? Or a standard liberal?

      "So, you're back to suggesting that incest is psychologically healthy."

      No, you're back to having no logical reason to support homosexuality and denounce incest without showing what a bigoted hypocrite you are.

      "It has nothing to do with whether they get married, especially since that marriage is already prohibited."

      Based on CUSTOM. Which is what keeps gay marriage illegal ... CUSTOM. Now you whine about gay marriage being acceptable and moral, yet you think incest is illegal and immoral without being able to give a logical explanation of the difference between the 2 sexual deviances.

      Delete
    150. "Obviously, you don't have a clue to what we're talking about. You don't think that having 2 mothers or 2 fathers (from a gay relationship) is different than the normal 1 mother/ 1 father familial unit?"

      You don't think that having a working mother and stay-at-home father isn't a conflation of "Father, mother roles"? Do you or do you not object to working mothers and stay-at-home fathers?

      "What DO you call them, then?"

      Reasonable. Even you said incest isn't psychologically healthy.

      "You're being a bigot for rejecting a sexual deviance without reason."

      Again, even you said incest isn't psychologically healthy. That's a reason.

      "Based on CUSTOM. Which is what keeps gay marriage illegal ... CUSTOM."

      False equivalence. There's a good reason to reject incest, but none to reject homosexuality.

      Delete
    151. "There's a good reason to reject incest, but none to reject homosexuality."

      You've yet to bring that "good reason". I think you can't.

      "Even you said incest isn't psychologically healthy."

      I also said homosexuality isn't psychologically healthy, what's your point? You support one but not the other ... that makes you a hypocrite and a bigot concerning sexual deviances.

      Delete
    152. "You've yet to bring that "good reason". I think you can't."

      It's the same reason as you, that it's not psychologically healthy. Do you think that your own reason is not acceptable?

      "I also said homosexuality isn't psychologically healthy, what's your point?"

      My point is that it is beyond stupid for you to keep insisting that I don't have a reason to oppose incest when you have admitted that it's psychologically unhealthy.

      "You support one but not the other ... that makes you a hypocrite and a bigot concerning sexual deviances."

      No, your mere opinion that all "sexual deviances" are equal doesn't make me a hypocrite. Sorry.

      Delete
    153. "It's the same reason as you, that it's not psychologically healthy. Do you think that your own reason is not acceptable?"

      I think that reason is perfectly acceptable. I don't think you're applying the standards consistently, which makes you a hypocrite. But nothing that wasn't expected from you, to begin with.

      "No, your mere opinion that all "sexual deviances" are equal doesn't make me a hypocrite. Sorry."

      Well, it's good to see you are admitting homosexuality is a sexual deviance. I'll bet you back-track on that one super quick.

      Delete
    154. "I think that reason is perfectly acceptable."

      Then stop questioning my position on incest, moron.

      "I don't think you're applying the standards consistently, which makes you a hypocrite."

      By all means, continue trying to figure out how homosexuality is at all similar. If you want to argue about father and mother roles, then tell me why you don't have a problem with breadwinner mothers and caretaker fathers. If you want to claim that sexual roles have anything to do with it, explain how. It seems that all you have is your gut instinct that a "sexual deviance" is "immoral", and you're twisting yourself into a knot trying to make that emotional view translate into logic. I invite you to make your case that there's any relevant conflation of roles in homosexuality, as there is in incest. Otherwise, my position stands unscathed.

      "Well, it's good to see you are admitting homosexuality is a sexual deviance."

      I used your phrase in quotes, moron. If I was agreeing with your usage, I would have left the quotes off. You're obviously new at this whole "English" thing.

      Delete
    155. "Then stop questioning my position on incest, moron."

      Obviously, I'm questioning your position on homosexuality. This isn't rocket science to most. Any 3rd grader can figure out that if a family has 2 mothers or 2 fathers then that is obviously NOT the same familial structure as the NORMAL 1 mother / 1 father. Even asking for help trying to understand that is an admission that you aren't able to distinguish obvious differences and are simply relying on your bigoted hatreds and prejudices to decide which sexual deviance to like and which one not to like. Your morality limits are all over the board without any consistency. It's as if you decide what is moral depending on how you feel any given day. Almost like your morals will change over time and eventually you will determine something to be moral that you didn't think was earlier. It's as if you wait for others to decide what is moral for you, then you hop in the boat and decide to agree with them.
      You know what? That way of deciding what is moral is just fine if that's the way you do things, but I will trust a guide that doesn't change from day to day. I will trust something that stays constant and doesn't rely on public opinion to determine what is moral any given day. I stand up for my beliefs, you let others tell you what you should believe. You follow the class curve, I follow the standard. I'm sure your way works fine for your kind of people, but it doesn't work at all for those of us who wish to remain true to what God teaches.

      So, there's the explanation you wanted. Your morals are grounded in nothing and you change your standards depending on public opinion, which gives you the impression you can decide that homosexuality is ok while incest is not, without having a single good reason to accept either while denouncing either when both have the same problems within the "familial unit" (that you use as a guide to determine goodness).

      Delete
    156. "Obviously, I'm questioning your position on homosexuality."

      Wrong, moron:
      Me:"There's a good reason to reject incest, but none to reject homosexuality."
      You:"You've yet to bring that "good reason". I think you can't."

      That was yesterday. You said I don't have a "good reason" to reject incest, quite plainly.

      "Any 3rd grader can figure out that if a family has 2 mothers or 2 fathers then that is obviously NOT the same familial structure as the NORMAL 1 mother / 1 father."

      So why is "NOT the same" a problem?

      "It's as if you decide what is moral depending on how you feel any given day."

      Where have you seen me change my stance?

      "It's as if you wait for others to decide what is moral for you, then you hop in the boat and decide to agree with them."

      Actually, most of society as caught up with me as far as gay rights are concerned. But by all means, continue your ignorant blathering.

      "That way of deciding what is moral is just fine if that's the way you do things, but I will trust a guide that doesn't change from day to day."

      Like the Bible, which favors male domination and accepts slavery? That's the "guide" you follow?

      "So, there's the explanation you wanted."

      So, your opinion is supposed to trump mine because you think you're righteous? No, sorry. You wanted to come up with some rationale as to how homosexuality is like incest, now you're falling back on your piousness.

      You lose.

      Delete
    157. "Wrong, moron:"

      All leading up to the issue you won't address.

      "Where have you seen me change my stance?"

      I haven't seen you change your stance. That is a straw-man argument. What I haven't seen you do is clarify your stance on the familial roles in relation to homosexual and incestual relations as related to the "familial" structure. You seem to claim that homosexuality does not change the "familial" roles that a normal family has. And that seems kind of hypocritical as related to your reason for denouncing incest.

      Man up

      Delete
    158. "All leading up to the issue you won't address."

      I've addressed everything you've said.

      "I haven't seen you change your stance. That is a straw-man argument."

      No, it isn't. You said:"It's as if you decide what is moral depending on how you feel any given day." I asked a question designed to test your assertion. Obviously, you can't stand by what you said, so it was an effective and perfectly justified question.

      "What I haven't seen you do is clarify your stance on the familial roles in relation to homosexual and incestual relations as related to the "familial" structure."

      What would that have to do with supposedly changing my views on a whim? And I've asked you to explain what the hell you're talking about. Homosexuality does not conflate familial roles, as incest does. I asked you to explain your views on "father, mother roles" and to explain what sexual activity would have to do with familial roles.

      You have failed to make your argument, both times. My view is clear. Yours is not.

      Delete
    159. "Homosexuality does not conflate familial roles, as incest does. "

      Yes it does and I've explained how. Why are you ignorant to that fact? Explain your hypocrisy!

      Delete
    160. "Yes it does and I've explained how."

      No, all you've done is express your opinion that "father on father sex" and the like is a similar conflation, or that not having strict designations as to who is the "father" and who is the "mother" is in some way harmful. You have yet to explain how, for both claims. If you're going to charge me with hypocrisy, you have to give some reason as to why I'm supposed to conform to your views.

      See, you could just as easily berate me for wearing clothing made of mixed fibers, because you're holier-than-me and you declare what's immoral based on your supposedly immovable Biblical standards. I'm not impressed by that, to put it mildly. If you can't justify some universally acceptable standard (like psychologically unhealthy), then your argument is completely arbitrary and utterly useless.

      So, try doing that. Explain why your concerns are valid, instead of simply asserting that your opinion is automatically valid. That's how this works.

      Delete
    161. "No, all you've done is express your opinion that "father on father sex" and the like is a similar conflation, or that not having strict designations as to who is the "father" and who is the "mother" is in some way harmful." + "If you can't justify some universally acceptable standard (like psychologically unhealthy), then your argument is completely arbitrary and utterly useless."

      Factually, I brought scientific evidence proven through years of research. Here's the link (again) that gets you to that proof: http://www.google.com Use it this time, I'm getting tired of doing everything for you.

      "Explain why your concerns are valid, instead of simply asserting that your opinion is automatically valid. That's how this works."

      Yes, I know how it works. I've been following those rules since the beginning. You, on the other hand, have refused to prove any of your concerns are valid and you simply assert your opinion as automatically valid. I guess it only works that way for you liberals and the rest of us have to actually prove what we say?

      Man up

      Delete
    162. "Factually, I brought scientific evidence proven through years of research."

      No, you didn't.

      "Yes, I know how it works. I've been following those rules since the beginning."

      No, you haven't. You assert things, but don't justify them.

      "You, on the other hand, have refused to prove any of your concerns are valid and you simply assert your opinion as automatically valid."

      Wrong again. I explain my position fully, every time. Note that I'm asking you to explain your views, so that I can counter them. I'm not the one scared of the discussion here. You're the one giving out empty web searches while refusing to read the links given to you.

      Delete
    163. "You assert things, but don't justify them."

      That's the only requirement that you adhere to. Am I under different rules in this discussion?

      " I explain my position fully, every time."

      Liar. You rely solely on your opinion and have brought no proof of any of your insinuations. Simply linking to google does not qualify as "fully explaining" your position.

      "You're the one giving out empty web searches while refusing to read the links given to you."

      What?!? Are you too lazy to simply hit the search button? You seem to be doing a lot of whining about me not searching for what you SAY is there, now I'm supposed to bring links from completed searches while you bring nothing of the sort?

      Delete
  6. "That's the only requirement that you adhere to."

    Care to show any examples of where I haven't justified my arguments?

    "Simply linking to google does not qualify as "fully explaining" your position."

    I didn't link to google. I gave you the search for the decision you wouldn't look up yourself.

    "You seem to be doing a lot of whining about me not searching for what you SAY is there, now I'm supposed to bring links from completed searches while you bring nothing of the sort?"

    I didn't give you an empty google search.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Care to show any examples of where I haven't justified my arguments?"

      Yeah, in your support of homosexuality and non-support of incest based on the same criteria, yet you support one and don't the other. Same criteria: they change the familial role. Yet different morality ... based on your class curve of morality.

      "I didn't give you an empty google search."

      You didn't give me the link to your quotes, either.

      Delete
    2. "Yeah, in your support of homosexuality and non-support of incest based on the same criteria, yet you support one and don't the other."

      No, "same criteria" is your view, not mine. You haven't shown how homosexuality has anything to do with any familial role.

      "You didn't give me the link to your quotes, either."

      So, first off, you admit that your equating what I provided to an empty search was bullshit. Good. And the search was to the decision, which contained the quotes. Remember, you asked afterwards for me to put my quoted text into the google search, without explaining how the hell you would expect to get a different result. Moron.

      Delete
    3. "No, "same criteria" is your view, not mine."

      Same criteria is fact, not just my view. Your opinion is hypocritical and illogical. I've already explained how several times, you simply choose to ignore what I've said. But, the sad thing is that scientific FACTS support my stance and nothing supports yours except your opinion. You even made the claim that homosexuals face difficult psychological dangers while being homosexual, but you refuse to admit that homosexuality is psychologically traumatic. How illogical of you.

      "So, first off, you admit that your equating what I provided to an empty search was bullshit."

      I admit nothing of the kind. Your straw-man argument doesn't work.

      "Remember, you asked afterwards for me to put my quoted text into the google search, without explaining how the hell you would expect to get a different result. Moron."

      Your straw-man arguments do not work. Bring some proof of what you claim. If I ask you for a pie, are you going to give me flour/eggs/milk/salt/butter/apples and say here's your pie, all you have to do is all the work to get the finished product? Well, that's what you are doing with the links you have failed to bring. All you have brought is a link to google. I did the same thing and you didn't like it, did you? Aha ha ha, well stupid is as stupid does. That lays all the stupidity on your front door step because YOU cannot bring evidence to FACTS that YOU say are present. I've only asked for that evidence since the beginning of our discussion on the FREEDOM to marry. You claim it to be a right, but have never brought any evidence of that. And the evidence you tried to bring OBVIOUSLY says marriage is a FREEDOM not a "right".

      Delete
    4. "Same criteria is fact, not just my view."

      No, you projected that "criteria" into my viewpoint. Since I don't blindly accept your argument that homosexuality has any effect on the family unit, you cannot attribute that viewpoint to me.

      "I've already explained how several times, you simply choose to ignore what I've said."

      Show me where. I've asked you to explain the supposed effect on the family unit, and you have said nothing about it.

      "You even made the claim that homosexuals face difficult psychological dangers while being homosexual, but you refuse to admit that homosexuality is psychologically traumatic."

      Because outside influences don't count. By the same standard, again, it would be "traumatic" to be left-handed if people persecuted those who were left-handed.

      "I admit nothing of the kind."

      Sorry, but you did. Instead of saying "you DID give me an empty google search", you said "You didn't give me the link to your quotes, either." That conceded what I said was true, but that you had a rebuttal (?) anyway.

      "Bring some proof of what you claim."

      Easily:http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/07/another-old-friend.html?showComment=1378296558950#c5767772526984986521

      "Because you supposedly used quotes from the decision. If those quotes (in their entirety) are in the search field you could have a point. If they are not then you have not provided any quotes from any decision that has been verified as from the decision you claim you are using to make your argument."

      "All you have brought is a link to google."

      No, I gave you a link to a completed search.

      "And the evidence you tried to bring OBVIOUSLY says marriage is a FREEDOM not a "right"."

      Wrong, the quotes I brought, which I verified, also said marriage is a right. Your refusal to accept that verification is your problem, not mine.

      Delete
    5. "Because outside influences don't count."

      Then how can you claim that incest is psychologically unhealthy? The only thing involved in that relationship is "outside influences" also. Yet you support homosexuality but not incest. That is hypocritical and bigoted and ignorant.

      "Easily:http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/07/another-old-friend.html?showComment=1378296558950#c5767772526984986521"

      Wow, your brilliant logic at work. Here's what I said: "If those quotes (in their entirety) are in the search field you could have a point.". How is that asking you to put the quotes in the search field? I didn't even ask anything of you, I merely said you "could have a point" if you actually provided us with the decision. But you have failed to bring that proof, so the statements you used are not actually from the decision, are they? Man up .... oooo ... wait, you won't man up because you have 'little man syndrome' huh? Are you a short guy? I'll bet you are.

      "No, I gave you a link to a completed search."

      A link to google is what you brought.

      "Wrong, the quotes I brought, which I verified, also said marriage is a right. "

      You have not verified that yet. Man up and actually bring the courts decision. Yet, you will continue to NOT bring that proof because you know you are in the wrong and don't want everyone else (who visits Eddie's site) to see what a lame-brain you are for not proving what you claim.

      Delete
    6. "Then how can you claim that incest is psychologically unhealthy?"

      Because that's intrinsic to the family unit. Even if people outside that house aren't aware of what's going on, the family dynamics within are clearly dysfunctional. Do you disagree?

      "How is that asking you to put the quotes in the search field?"

      Because you said that's the only way I could have a point, moron.

      "But you have failed to bring that proof, so the statements you used are not actually from the decision, are they? Man up .... oooo ... wait, you won't man up because you have 'little man syndrome' huh? Are you a short guy? I'll bet you are."

      Wow, so in the same paragraph as asserting that you weren't demanding for me to provide the only search that "could" make my point, you go off on another "man up" bender. You have zero self-awareness.

      "A link to google is what you brought."

      No, to a completed search. It wasn't the same as what you did.

      "You have not verified that yet."

      I have, and you've claimed to have read the decision. So, you know the word "rights" appears in the decision, twice.

      Delete
    7. "No, to a completed search. It wasn't the same as what you did."

      Was your link to google or not?

      "So, you know the word "rights" appears in the decision, twice."

      A ten thousand word decision and you claim "rights" are given because they were "mentioned" twice? Sorry, you fail on that, little man.

      "Even if people outside that house aren't aware of what's going on, the family dynamics within are clearly dysfunctional."

      And that is different than homosexuality in what way?? The "family dynamics" are clearly dysfunctional in the homosexual home. As I showed with the several links to psychological harm caused from homosexuality that I provided (in the other article). So you continue to be hypocritical.

      Delete
    8. "Was your link to google or not?"

      Was it completed or not?

      "A ten thousand word decision and you claim "rights" are given because they were "mentioned" twice?"

      Yes. There's no way to claim that any number of mentions of the word are needed.

      "The "family dynamics" are clearly dysfunctional in the homosexual home."

      How so? Because the Bible says it's a sin?

      "As I showed with the several links to psychological harm caused from homosexuality that I provided (in the other article)."

      No, the article made it quite clear that it was taking discrimination into account. What does that have to do with a self-contained family unit? What would that have to do with any two gay people having a relationship?

      Delete
    9. "How so? Because the Bible says it's a sin?"

      I've already explained that, little man. The change is from 2 fathers or 2 mothers. That is COMPLETELY different than a normal family unit of ONE FATHER and ONE MOTHER. That change causes psychological harm to the children as proven by one of the many links I provided on harm caused by homosexual lifestyle. Which is the reason you oppose incest, BTW. You don't oppose homosexuality because of the same harm. That makes the little man a hypocrite.

      "What does that have to do with a self-contained family unit?"

      If it is a "self contained family unit" then you have NO reason to oppose incest. Since it would not be any of your business what 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home. Hypocritical little man.

      Delete
    10. "That is COMPLETELY different than a normal family unit of ONE FATHER and ONE MOTHER."

      No, what you have to demonstrate is how "different" qualifies as dysfunctional. Again, working mothers was "different" at one point in time, but you have trouble explaining how you could have a problem with that concept.

      "If it is a "self contained family unit" then you have NO reason to oppose incest."

      Sure I do, because it's still dysfunctional. Do you disagree with that? Without the Bible, you would have no qualms about having sex with your own mother, apparently. That seems pretty twisted to me, that you rely on an old book to stop you from screwing members of your own family.

      Either you think incest is dysfunctional or you don't. I would suggest you stick with the former, because the latter is not working very well for you.

      Delete
    11. "Sure I do, because it's still dysfunctional."

      You have not demonstrated how it is dysfunctional. You have only given your opinion that it is wrong. Bring some proof that it is "dysfunctional" or STFU, little man. Are you ever going to man up?

      Delete
    12. "You have not demonstrated how it is dysfunctional."

      I think the better question is how it is not dysfunctional. Do you need an explanation of how rape is wrong? Where is the boundary for you understanding this sort of thing, seriously?

      And also waiting for your views on working mothers, since they were once considered "different". Why do you have so much trouble standing up for your own arguments?

      Delete
    13. "I think the better question is how it is not dysfunctional. Do you need an explanation of how rape is wrong?"

      Are you changing the subject again to avoid answering for your own words?

      "And also waiting for your views on working mothers,"

      Of course you are. I'm not going off-topic with your illogical requests.

      Delete
    14. "Are you changing the subject again to avoid answering for your own words?"

      No. I'm trying to figure out how you think incest is not dysfunctional. Does it seem like something you could do, without the Bible telling you otherwise? Or, if you read about Lot and his daughters, something you could do?

      "I'm not going off-topic with your illogical requests."

      I'm pointing out that "different" is woefully insufficient. It's directly relevant to your comment about same-sex couples being "different".

      Delete
    15. Did you accidentally delete your comment? Here, I'll post it for you again;

      In response to "I'm trying to figure out how you think incest is not dysfunctional":"I don't think that. It is just another one of your chances to tell me what I think without actually knowing anything."

      So, if you think it's dysfunctional, then you can quit asking about my views on incest. It's not even a point of contention.

      "And, please, for God's sake, don't try to mention anything in the Bible again. Ignorance may be your forte, but showing it to the world isn't always a good idea. Obviously, you know nothing of the Bible or you wouldn't be an atheist."

      Are you saying Lot did not have sex with his daughters? Are you sure about that? Also, atheists in general know more about the Bible than Christians: do:http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0928/In-US-atheists-know-religion-better-than-believers.-Is-that-bad So, your assertion that one can't be an atheist and familiar with the Bible is just plain wrong. So sorry.

      "Atheism is for people who don't want to follow rules on morality and they think they can decide better what is moral and what isn't than the God who created everything. Obviously, the Creator is way smarter than you or me and I will certainly agree with what the Creator tells me."

      So you think slavery is fine, as long as certain rules are followed? Or that a woman should, under any circumstances, have to marry a man who raped her? ("28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.")

      "You ... get to pick and choose what you think is moral without any consistency or logic. Just pick and choose. Good method if you have no guidance."

      I explain my consistency and logic in full detail. You just want to cry about it because I don't rely on your holy book.

      In response to "I'm pointing out that "different" is woefully insufficient.":

      "You're changing the subject because you must think you've lost and need to distract me in some way."

      No, you need to explain how "different" is a problem in and of itself, as you based your argument on that.

      "Which "mother" is the "working mother" in a male/male household?? I guess the difference is enough where you can't answer that question, huh? Or can you, little man?"

      I'm not talking about male/male households. That concept wouldn't even apply there, moron.

      Delete
    16. "Did you accidentally delete your comment? Here, I'll post it for you again;"

      No. I don't have that option. It is probably someone who runs the web site doing it. I won't venture a guess. Thank you for reprinting it.

      "So, if you think it's dysfunctional, then you can quit asking about my views on incest. It's not even a point of contention."

      It is a point of contention, because you can't explain why you think homosexual families are ok, but not incest families. Both create unhealthy changes to the familial unit and both are self contained and both include 2 consenting adults and both are none of your damn business as to how they run their family since neither affect you directly. You hold a very hypocritical belief, there.

      "So, your assertion that one can't be an atheist and familiar with the Bible is just plain wrong. So sorry."

      No, I am not wrong. You cannot understand what the Bible is telling you (obviously from the questions you ask about what's in it). You only read it and assume so many incorrect assumptions. Just saying you people know how to read is not sufficient to say YOU know more about the Bible than me. You still think the many laws that the US follows did not come from Leviticus. You think someone just made those laws up for all to follow and it had nothing to do with the Bible. YOU obviously know very little about the Bible and YOU cannot even attempt to discuss it with me.

      "I explain my consistency and logic in full detail."

      What is the logic again for supporting a marriage that unhealthily changes the familial unit, while you denounce a different marriage that unhealthily changes the familial unit, while ignoring that both marriages include 2 consenting adults, neither affect your life in the least and both are self contained and lastly neither require your (or mine) moral approval to exist? Please explain that logic.

      "I'm not talking about male/male households. That concept wouldn't even apply there, moron."

      Well, I AM. Can't you read? Now, answer the question about your supposed healthy familial unit as you whine about working mothers. That is what I asked you when you tried changing the subject to 'working mothers' to begin with (remember?). You ARE trying to change the subject because this is the area that actually shows how hypocritical you are in your belief that homosexuality is healthy for the familial unit.
      reference for your change of subject: http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-radical-gay-agenda.html?showComment=1378155487116#c1113737093007280549

      Delete
    17. "Both create unhealthy changes to the familial unit and both are self contained and both include 2 consenting adults and both are none of your damn business as to how they run their family since neither affect you directly."

      There's nothing unhealthy about gay relationships. You have no basis for that assertion.

      "You cannot understand what the Bible is telling you (obviously from the questions you ask about what's in it)."

      If you understand the Bible, you should be able to answer my questions. Instead you just bark "atheist" and run off.

      "You still think the many laws that the US follows did not come from Leviticus. You think someone just made those laws up for all to follow and it had nothing to do with the Bible."

      I know that they didn't come from Leviticus. We don't have a penalty for cursing the deaf, for instance.

      "What is the logic again for supporting a marriage that unhealthily changes the familial unit..."

      Because there is no unhealthy change for gay marriage. Your presupposition fails right at the start.

      "Well, I AM."

      Well, I wasn't, so don't change the subject to get out of answering the question. Isn't that what you criticized me for? "Different" is not a problem in and of itself, period. You have to provide more than "different" to show how anything is unhealthy or dysfunctional.

      Delete
    18. "I know that they didn't come from Leviticus. We don't have a penalty for cursing the deaf, for instance."

      But there IS a law for EVERY other item I listed from Leviticus. Do you have another source we could possibly have gotten all those rules (that I listed) from? Do you think people just suddenly made those rules up without any guidance? I thought it was quite funny watching you squirm around trying to account for all the laws that the US got from Leviticus. So much fun that the ONLY law you could find that isn't part of the US legal system is "cursing the deaf". And, even that one was part of a law that forbids dangerous treatment of the handicapped. Do you feel mistreating the handicapped should be legal?

      "Well, I wasn't, so don't change the subject to get out of answering the question."

      When you answer my question first. The one I linked to ... the one where you changed the subject to an unrelated thing that you now demand answers for. Man up, little man
      BTW, homosexual relations IS THE SUBJECT. That means male/male households IS THE SUBJECT.

      Delete
    19. "But there IS a law for EVERY other item I listed from Leviticus."

      Actually, there wasn't. You claimed the very general concept of "lying", as well as failing to testify about a crime you've witnessed. Those are not laws.

      "Do you have another source we could possibly have gotten all those rules (that I listed) from?"

      Common sense. Why would there not be a law against stealing, if the Bible didn't exist? Explain that, please.

      "Do you think people just suddenly made those rules up without any guidance?"

      I think when someone does something that causes harm, people figure out how to make a rule against that behavior.

      "Do you feel mistreating the handicapped should be legal?"

      Sorry, "cursing"? What practical application can that possibly have?

      "When you answer my question first."

      I asked you why that would be significant. I have absolutely no idea what makes you think that "father, mother roles" are in any way important. That's why I asked you about working mothers, to figure out what the hell you are thinking.

      "BTW, homosexual relations IS THE SUBJECT. That means male/male households IS THE SUBJECT."

      Not when I'm testing your views, moron. I have a clear purpose for my question, so you don't get to dictate what I say. Get the hell over yourself.

      Delete
    20. "You claimed the very general concept of "lying", as well as failing to testify about a crime you've witnessed. Those are not laws."

      Yes, both are laws. You must tell the truth (so help you God) while in court. And, you must tell all you know about a crime while in court (unless you plead the 5th amendment protections). So, yes, ALL others are laws within the US.

      "Why would there not be a law against stealing, if the Bible didn't exist? Explain that, please."

      Because your liberal views on morality would probably permit someone like OJ Simpson to steal his own property back from someone else who possessed it. OJ is in jail for stealing his own property. How would your morals assert stealing your own property be illegal? What common sense are you using to say incest is immoral? What common sense are you using to say homosexuality is moral?

      "I think when someone does something that causes harm, people figure out how to make a rule against that behavior."

      What "HARM" is caused by incest? WHY do you think that is immoral, but not homosexuality? Which one harms you in any way? Which one affects you in any way? Which one has consenting adults involved? Which one is different than the normal male/female parented household?

      "I have absolutely no idea what makes you think that "father, mother roles" are in any way important."

      Because YOU used those roles to support your stance on gay marriage and how it does not change the familial roles. That's why discussing with you is so difficult. YOU HAVE NO IDEA what is being discussed at any given time. Your short memory span precludes you from having an honest discussion like adults. I linked to your initial statement and my reply is below it. Answer the question.

      "I have a clear purpose for my question, so you don't get to dictate what I say. "

      Yes, I know you do. And that's why I told you not to change the subject after I asked a question you are afraid to answer. Answer the question that I asked since there is no problem with working mothers and/or stay at home fathers. You need to account for your assertion that there is no change to the familial unit when there are 2 fathers or 2 mothers: which role does which one play?


      Delete
    21. "You must tell the truth (so help you God) while in court."

      That's specific. You said "lying" by itself. Besides, you also said "Swearing falsely on God’s name (19:12)". The only possible application of that would be perjury, so obviously "lying" would be redundant to that. And if that doesn't apply to perjury, then there's no law about swearing falsely on God's name.

      "And, you must tell all you know about a crime while in court (unless you plead the 5th amendment protections)."

      It can't be a law if you're Constitutionally protected against it, moron. Wow. And again, that would be utterly useless as law, because you can't ever prove that someone saw and/or remembered anything they saw. Remember, Leviticus also said you had to testify about a crime you hear about. That's ludicrous in the extreme.

      "Because your liberal views on morality would probably permit someone like OJ Simpson to steal his own property back from someone else who possessed it. OJ is in jail for stealing his own property."

      That's obviously not the only situation for stealing, so why are you bringing it up? The Code of Hammurabi prohibited stealing, and I'm pretty sure O.J. Simpson wasn't around for that.

      "What common sense are you using to say incest is immoral?"

      Because it's harmful.

      "What common sense are you using to say homosexuality is moral?"

      Because it's not harmful. Damn, these questions are easy.

      "What "HARM" is caused by incest?"

      It's not psychologically healthy. Do you disagree? Are you really going to put yourself in this position yet again?

      "Because YOU used those roles to support your stance on gay marriage and how it does not change the familial roles."

      No, you brought that up as an example of how gay marriage is supposedly psychologically unhealthy. I'm asking how those roles make any significant difference to family functionality.

      "Answer the question that I asked since there is no problem with working mothers and/or stay at home fathers."

      Then what is your problem with "different" regarding father/mother roles? Why does it make a difference "which role" anyone takes if you have no problem with a straight couple switching traditional roles?

      Have you figured this out, yet? There's a difference between conflating roles such as "mother/son" and "sexual partners" and changing which parent does the laundry. It's not "change" by itself, with no other factors involved.

      Delete
    22. "That's specific."

      And, it's the LAW.

      "It can't be a law if you're Constitutionally protected against it, moron."

      But it IS the law. Give it a try sometime and refuse to testify about a crime that you didn't commit but witnessed.

      "Remember, Leviticus also said you had to testify about a crime you hear about. That's ludicrous in the extreme."

      Very possible in today's day and age of internet snooping by the government. Someone may very well be FORCED to testify about something they "heard" would happen or did happen. BTW, did I say that rule from Leviticus was included in the laws that the US already follows?

      "The Code of Hammurabi prohibited stealing,"

      Oh, you're using some old book to determine your morals? I thought you said you decide for yourself, now you rely on an old book? Are you lying or just plain stupid? Either way, that isn't a very good deflection from answering the question about YOUR moral standards.

      "Why does it make a difference "which role" anyone takes if you have no problem with a straight couple switching traditional roles?"

      Because it is psychologically unhealthy to the child not knowing which parent is 'the father' and which is 'the mother' and constantly changing those roles will further damage the psychological well being of the child. Which disputes your assertion that gay marriage is healthy.

      "Because it's harmful."

      Too bad you have no examples of how it is harmful. Too bad the only reason you have to say that is your bigoted viewpoint of a sexual perversion. Too bad you're not man enough to prove what you say or back it up with scientific proof ... like you demand of all others who are involved in this discussion. Too bad, you lose again, hypocrite

      "Then what is your problem with "different" regarding father/mother roles?"

      I've already explained that several times. It is time for you to answer the question, little man.

      Delete
    23. "And, it's the LAW."

      There is no law against "lying" all by itself, which is what you cited from Leviticus.

      "Give it a try sometime and refuse to testify about a crime that you didn't commit but witnessed."

      People say they forget all the time. Nobody can prove it isn't true.

      "Very possible in today's day and age of internet snooping by the government."

      Assuming the information was conveyed that way, are you?

      "BTW, did I say that rule from Leviticus was included in the laws that the US already follows?"

      Are you saying that Leviticus was wrong in some of its laws? Why would the US follow some examples and not others?

      "Oh, you're using some old book to determine your morals?"

      No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that such laws existed before the Bible, never mind a football player.

      "Because it is psychologically unhealthy to the child not knowing which parent is 'the father' and which is 'the mother' and constantly changing those roles will further damage the psychological well being of the child."

      No, actually, it isn't. Do you imagine that children have some inborn expectation of certain roles taken by its parents, or what?

      "Too bad you have no examples of how it is harmful."

      Do you disagree? You think having sex with your mother would be acceptable if the Bible didn't say not to?

      "I've already explained that several times."

      No, you haven't. If a straight couple can switch traditional roles, then you can't very well complain about children not knowing which parent is the mother and which is the father.

      Delete
    24. "There is no law against "lying" all by itself, which is what you cited from Leviticus."

      Did Leviticus differentiate between "in court" and "outside of court"? So, there IS a law against lying in the US, isn't there?

      "People say they forget all the time. Nobody can prove it isn't true."

      Very good. You just admitted that it IS against the law. And in order to be punished for that law, someone must PROVE it. But, the point is you admitted it is against the law. Thank you.

      "Assuming the information was conveyed that way, are you?"

      Well, yes, of course. That would be how it would work.

      "Are you saying that Leviticus was wrong in some of its laws? Why would the US follow some examples and not others?"

      I take it I did not include that advise from Leviticus since you did not answer with a 'yes'. And, then, I don't know why the US chooses to follow some advise and not others. Does the US follow any laws given from the old book that you rely on to set your morals? Why don't you bring some of those examples so you can show everyone how moral you are. I'm sure bragging is moral in your world.

      "I'm pointing out that such laws existed before the Bible, never mind a football player."

      I never said they didn't exist before the Bible. I said that the US follows MANY laws that are in Leviticus, after you said the US did NOT follow any laws from the Bible.
      As for the football player reference. OJ is not a football player. He is a man like any other man. Now answer the question about the morality involved in stealing your own property.

      "No, actually, it isn't. "

      Prove it.


      "Do you imagine that children have some inborn expectation of certain roles taken by its parents, or what?"

      No, I don't. But I do imagine those kids see how other (normal) kids are raised and see and experience the difference of interaction from BOTH parents of opposite sex as opposed to the type of attention given from same sex parents. Unless of course your idea is to raise gay parented kids exclusively without interaction with normally raised kids.

      "Do you disagree?"

      Do YOU have examples of harm caused? Do you think having sex with your neighbors adult son is acceptable if your code of Hammurabi didn't prohibit it?

      Delete
    25. "Did Leviticus differentiate between "in court" and "outside of court"?"

      Not according to your verse. So, where is the law against "lying" as in "do not lie"? It's only illegal in very specific circumstances, contrary to your claim.

      "Very good. You just admitted that it IS against the law."

      No, I didn't. The law would not be enforceable:"If anyone sins because they do not speak up when they hear a public charge to testify regarding something they have seen or learned about, they will be held responsible." Remember, you said fail to testify, meaning not coming forward on one's own. That is absolutely not the law, sorry.

      "Well, yes, of course. That would be how it would work."

      But there are plenty of other ways to learn about something. And it makes very little sense for you to claim that Biblical laws apply, while citing something that didn't come into effect until the internet.

      "And, then, I don't know why the US chooses to follow some advise and not others."

      Maybe you should try to figure that out, if you think laws are valid simply because they're in the Bible.

      "Does the US follow any laws given from the old book that you rely on to set your morals?"

      There is no old book that I rely on for my morals, moron.

      "I said that the US follows MANY laws that are in Leviticus, after you said the US did NOT follow any laws from the Bible."

      No, you said that legal precedent was based off of Leviticus. That means that Leviticus would be the source of the law, not just something that happened to come up with the same idea later on.

      "As for the football player reference. OJ is not a football player. He is a man like any other man."

      O.J. Simpson was a football player. Did you not know that?

      "No, I don't."

      Then your claim makes no sense.

      "But I do imagine those kids see how other (normal) kids are raised and see and experience the difference of interaction from BOTH parents of opposite sex as opposed to the type of attention given from same sex parents."

      And why would that type of attention not be sufficient, exactly?

      "Do you think having sex with your neighbors adult son is acceptable if your code of Hammurabi didn't prohibit it?"

      How did neighbors come into this? That's not incest, moron.

      Delete
    26. "How did neighbors come into this? That's not incest, moron."

      No, that's homosexuality. So, answer the question.

      "O.J. Simpson was a football player."

      "was" is the key word. Answer the question.

      "There is no old book that I rely on for my morals, moron."

      You said you use that book to determine if stealing is moral. Remember this: "The Code of Hammurabi prohibited stealing,"

      "No, I didn't."

      Ah ha ha.... yes you did.

      Delete
    27. "No, that's homosexuality. So, answer the question."

      So there's no problem with that, as I've said any number of times.

      ""was" is the key word. Answer the question."

      Yes, "was", hence my use of the term "football player". So what?

      "You said you use that book to determine if stealing is moral."

      No, I said that it prohibited stealing. That does not say anything about my views on the book whatsoever.

      "Ah ha ha.... yes you did."

      No, I didn't. You can't be prosecuted for not coming forward, which is your claim. Read the Bible if you're confused as to what your law actually says.

      Delete
    28. "That does not say anything about my views on the book whatsoever."

      It is obvious you think that code is very important to setting all moral guidelines. Just by the way you've used it in this discussion shows that (as you claim of me with the Bible). You seem to hold the Code of Hammurabi as a very important morality and law giving article. You also seem to have a problem with slavery in the Bible. You do know that your code allows and promotes slavery to the point that the wife can become the husbands slave if he deems her to be a "bad wife". You also know that to hide or help a slave escape is punishable by death. I also see that the code only talks about male/female households ... no homosexuality.

      So, why is it you use this code to determine you morals and not the Bible? I guess it is more hypocrisy on your part.

      BTW, you've still forgotten to answer the question about morality concerning someone "stealing" their own property. What is your opinion on that?

      "No, I didn't. You can't be prosecuted for not coming forward, which is your claim. "

      I didn't say "not coming forward". You really have a liberal problem with reading comprehension, little man.

      Here's one from your code that describes the penalty for lying in court: "Parties and witnesses were put on oath. The penalty for the false witness was usually that which would have been awarded the convicted criminal."
      Notice WITNESSES had to tell what they saw or face a penalty. Wow, your code sure has a lot in common with the Bible, only you refuse to use the Bible as moral guidance and instead use the Hammurabi code. You are very hypocritical. I'll bet that is covered by your code. Probably punishable with death. It seems most of the crimes in your code are punishable by death. Isn't that one of your big problems with the Bible?

      Delete
    29. "It is obvious you think that code is very important to setting all moral guidelines. Just by the way you've used it in this discussion shows that (as you claim of me with the Bible)."

      No, all I did was point out that theft was illegal before the Bible. You've advocated for the 10 Commandments on courthouse walls. I haven't advocated for anything regarding the Code of Hammurabi.

      "You also seem to have a problem with slavery in the Bible. You do know that your code allows and promotes slavery to the point that the wife can become the husbands slave if he deems her to be a "bad wife"."

      That would be a problem for me, if only I gave a damn about following the Code of Hammurabi. On the other hand, you certainly can't complain, because slavery is immoral "only where it is illegal", according to you. Since it was legal then, it must not have been immoral, as far as your views go.

      "So, why is it you use this code to determine you morals and not the Bible?"

      I don't. But thanks for playing.

      "BTW, you've still forgotten to answer the question about morality concerning someone "stealing" their own property."

      You forgot to explain its relevance. I don't care about the morality as much as legality. We have a legal system for a reason. If someone stole his property, he should use the system. If that doesn't work, then taking the law into his own hands is criminal behavior.

      "I didn't say "not coming forward"."

      I know you didn't, which means you misrepresented the Bible ("If anyone sins because they do not speak up when they hear a public charge to testify..."). Shame on you.

      "Notice WITNESSES had to tell what they saw or face a penalty."

      Notice that people are put on oath. That's not the same as saying people need to speak up when they hear of charges.

      "It seems most of the crimes in your code are punishable by death. Isn't that one of your big problems with the Bible?"

      Again, that would be a great point, if only I said anything advocating adherence to the Code of Hammurabi. Unfortunately for you, I didn't.

      And I eagerly await your sad, impotent attempts to prove otherwise.

      Delete
    30. "because slavery is immoral "only where it is illegal", according to you."

      Unfortunately, that's just another of your 'made up' theories you apply to me when you don't get an answer to stupid questions.

      "I don't care about the morality "

      Which is another indicator that your morals shift according to the wind.

      "I know you didn't, which means you misrepresented the Bible"

      Another example of your inability to comprehend the written English language.

      "Notice that people are put on oath. That's not the same as saying people need to speak up when they hear of charges."

      That was never a concern (hear of charges). Another straw-man argument by you after you've lost your ass in this discussion. You've reduced yourself to deflecting and diverting without answering one question for the past 10-15 posts.

      "Again, that would be a great point, if only I said anything advocating adherence to the Code of Hammurabi."

      Too bad you have advocated that code as a moral guideline. Now you're simply lying to try to save face. You sound like every other liberal.

      Delete
    31. "Unfortunately, that's just another of your 'made up' theories you apply to me when you don't get an answer to stupid questions."

      No, those were your exact words. Want to challenge me on that?

      "Which is another indicator that your morals shift according to the wind."

      You cropped my sentence. You wanted an answer to your question, now you're not going to comment on that except to misrepresent my answer?

      "Another example of your inability to comprehend the written English language."

      No, it's your inability to adhere to your holy book. I quoted the Bible accurately. You did not. There may be a commandment about that.

      "That was never a concern (hear of charges)."

      What the hell is that even supposed to mean? It's part of the very same law.

      "Too bad you have advocated that code as a moral guideline."

      Except I haven't. You can say it until you're blue in the face, but you will never be able to substantiate it. Of course, you don't care about making an honest argument.

      Delete