Welcome to a new feature here at Marshall Art's. This is something I've been wanting to begin for some time, but just couldn't decide on the format. I vacillated between a variety of options. It was after I saw this video that I decided to just jump in and do it. As you can see by clicking the link, the video is entitled "Name the poison". Another way to say this is, "call evil by its name". It's what is so desperately needed in this country these days, lest we suffer the consequences that befall those where good men have done nothing. (The video itself does not relate to this new feature, but is worth a visit, as is the blog that posted it.)
So here it is and I intend to present as the Spirit so moves me the lies that are put forth to sway public opinion toward a far greater moral decline than our nation as thus far suffered. They will be presented in no particular order regarding importance or potential for damage, as I believe them to be equal in their insidious effects. Blatant lies or slight twists of the facts. There's no difference.
Some lies are sincerely held as truths, though claims of sincerity also raise suspicion. Some of these lies are simply what some so desperately want to believe that they then lie to themselves about just how sincerely they believe them.
So the agenda to which I refer in the title is that of the homosexual agenda. Therein lies the first lie I will cover in this series: "There is no agenda."
I could point to the book "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's" by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, but the liars will pretend that the opinions of two homosexuals does not an agenda make. But it's not as if they are the be all and end all of the agenda and the movement that seeks to implement it.
It's really far simpler than that. Every homosexual wishes their desires and behaviors would be tolerated and accepted as normal and equal to heterosexual behaviors. THAT constitutes an agenda.
Of course that would not include those homosexuals who do NOT put their urges above reason and righteousness. Not all men allow their desires to consume them to the point of demanding others accept them. I have no doubt some homosexuals insist on rising above letting their desires rule their sense of right and wrong. We call such people "MEN", or "MATURE ADULTS".
But to insist there is no agenda is an outright and obvious lie. It doesn't matter if a particular homosexual spends no time actively pursuing the goals of the agenda. But to pretend an agenda doesn't exist, or that that same particular homosexual dares to insist one doesn't exist is a lie. The danger of this lie is in the attitude it hopes to encourage. It is the same as saying there is no real danger of Islamofascism to our way of life. The level of danger and how that impact might be felt at any given moment is irrelevant. But as more people begin to believe that there is no danger, that there is no agenda, the easier it is for that danger/agenda to metastasize and become commonplace in our culture, to infect it and lower our standards of behavior and morality.
142 comments:
Well done!
Glad to hear of the new feature! I was just checking your blog earlier today and wishing you wrote more (no pressure, though!).
Not surprisingly, part of the agenda is for those with the agenda to pretend there is no agenda.
Real Christians need to warn people of false teachers in the same way that people deserved to be warned if sexual predators are released from prison. And, no, I didn't say all LGBTQX people are sexual predators -- the analogy is about those armed with the truth being obligated to share it with those who may be victimized.
In other words, we need to warn people inside and outside the church about spiritual predators.
P.S. I've read some good reviews on A Queer Thing Happened to America: And What a Long, Strange Trip It's Been -- http://tinyurl.com/4yx2hg9 that analyzes our society's slide.
Neil.. I've never heard of LGBTQX. What does that stand for?
LGBTQX: Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transgender and Questioning. Believe it or not, that alphabet soup is standard fare and many self-identify with it and don't use it as a pejorative (Google it and see what I mean).
I include the "X" as a placeholder for whatever perversion they decide to add to the list next. Years ago I would just use LGBTX, but they added the Q so I had to move the X out a space.
How is trend analysis not thoughtful? It started with G, then was LG, then LGB, then LGBT, then LGBTQ. Adding the X seems like an obvious thing to do.
Re. Jesus: He said plenty about the subject in his word.
"Every homosexual wishes their desires and behaviors would be tolerated and accepted as normal and equal to heterosexual behaviors."
I disagree. I'm guessing not one of them gives a crap what you think about their desires and behaviors. I'm positive they don't give a crap about yours.
You've given yourself away again. It's not about rights, privileges, commitment, family and love to you. It's all about desires and behaviors-it's about where they put their organs.
You ARE the Sex Nazi. If it's not done the way YOU think it should, then it is NOT to be done at all.
"No sex for you!"
Jim,
"I disagree. I'm guessing not one of them gives a crap what you think about their desires and behaviors. I'm positive they don't give a crap about yours."
But I didn't comment on whether or not any of them give a crap about what I think. Their position on my position isn't even a concern here.
But you say you disagree. Does that mean that you don't think every homosexual would prefer the rest of the word accepts their urges, desires and behaviors as normal and equal to those of the hetero? Really? You're saying you believe they are content with the rest of the world opposing their urges, desires and behaviors as abnormal? Then why the push for change in public policy and law? Obviously you spoke stupidly.
The fact is that by their agenda which seeks to equate their unions as equal to marriage, they damned well DO care what we think about their urges, desires and behaviors. By their push to have schools teach that their behavior is no different than hetero behavior, they damned well DO care about what we think.
You're absolutely right about one thing, Jimmy-boy:
"It's not about rights, privileges, commitment, family and love to you. It's all about desires and behaviors-it's about where they put their organs."
Everything flows from their desires and urges. It is the one true manner in which they are indeed "just like the rest of us". The sad part is that they wish to dictate right and wrong according to those desires and urges, rather than control their desires and urges according to the dictates of established codes right and wrong.
Kinda like you?
"But I didn't comment on whether or not any of them give a crap about what I think."
Yes you did by your assertion that "Every homosexual wishes their desires and behaviors would be tolerated and accepted as normal and equal to heterosexual behaviors."
None of them cares about whether you or anybody else "tolerates" their private desires and behavior. It's private. It has nothing to do with you and you need have nothing to do with it.
The homosexual agenda is not about sex. It's not about who puts what where. There is nothing a homosexual does with his or her partner that isn't done by a plurality of normal, healthy heterosexuals throughout this country.
It's about "rights, privileges, commitment, family and love."
You are the one with the agenda. "If you can't behave the way I think you should, no sex for you!"
"None of them cares about whether you or anybody else "tolerates" their private desires and behavior. It's private."
If this is actually true then why would we get this?
http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2011/04/27/christians-mock-gays-at-shocking-easter-service/2/
If this was just about what goes on in private (you know at the private pride parades) we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Neil,
Personally I go with GLBTXYZPDQ because I want to be inclusive an allow for any possible permutation of any alternative lifestyle. I applaud your restraint.
"None of them cares about whether you or anybody else "tolerates" their private desires and behavior."
First, let's differentiate between what I think and what the majority of the country thinks. Homos indeed care about what the country thinks or they wouldn't be trying to force their agenda upon us. They indeed care about how we view their desires and behaviors or they wouldn't be trying to force schools to teach that their desires and behaviors are morally equal to those of the heterosexual.
"There is nothing a homosexual does with his or her partner that isn't done by a plurality of normal, healthy heterosexuals throughout this country."
What you do with your buddies is not my concern. I don't know of any heteros that have sex with members of the same sex, so I don't know why you'd say that heteros are doing the same things. That would make them homos, too. (Don't give me any "bi" crap. As Andrew Dice Clay has said, you either...or you don't.)
If you're referring to specific sexual acts that heteros might perform with their partners of the opposite sex, note that their partners are of the opposite sex. But those specific acts are NOT the point at all, but with whom one engages in them. THAT is the only point around which this debate is centered.
"If this is actually true then why would we get this?"
I looked at the pictures really hard and I didn't see anybody engaged in any sexual behavior nor asking anybody to tolerate their personal behaviors. I saw people dressing weird, but then I've seen people dressing weird at Tea Party events. Did you go?
Have you attended a parade such as this? I don't think you were required to attend. If you are uncomfortable with these pictures, why do you look at them? Better yet, why do you pass them on?
Jim,
Now that you've gotten your "entertainment" from looking at the pictures maybe you could address the point.
First, if what they wanted was to engage in certain acts in privacy, we wouldn't see this publicly.
Second, I actually thought the point of the article was far more enlightening than the pics. Were MA and some friends to stage the same kind of thing taking shots at homos. then y'all would be all over with you homophobe and hater crap.
But, they just do this stuff for fun, there's no agenda, no, never, not them they're just too nice to have an agenda.
Parkie,
There you go with your name calling again. Perhaps you should show some tolerance for those who think differently from you.
Also, it's interesting that according to spell check homophobe isn't a word.
But thanks for making my point.
Oh my, how special, parkie can nitpick typo's. No wonder we don't get anything more substantive than made up pejoratives. Oooooh, I'm scared.
Maybe you should try something a little more related to the post than simply name calling for a change.
Oh my, the witty repartee from parike is just devastating.
Again, perhaps a comment on the subject at hand might be more valuable.
Or is this just how you roll, you show up drool all over yourself attempt to hijack the thread with your blithering instead of actually having the balls to try to voice an actual thought, comment or opinion.
Well played sir well played, I guess you'll be getting moderated soon.
"First, if what they wanted was to engage in certain acts in privacy, we wouldn't see this publicly."
See what publicly? People dressed different from you? I see no acts in these pictures other than acts in a play.
"They indeed care about how we view their desires and behaviors or they wouldn't be trying to force schools to teach that their desires and behaviors are morally equal to those of the heterosexual."
I've never heard of any school teaching about desires and behaviors, much less being forced to do so. I think what you mean is some schools take the opportunity to teach that not all families are alike. Nothing about desires and behavior. It's nobody's business what their desires and behaviors are. They teach that homosexuals exist, that they often have families and they want to be treated like any other person. And there is no reason for them not to be.
Here is some of the love from the "tolerant" heterophobes -- http://tinyurl.com/3rkwmoh . Just imagine if the situations had been reversed and Christians were demanding government lists of gays who had signed a petition and then had made threatening hate speech towards the gays. You would have heard about that in the mainstream media, but never this.
And here's California, drowning in red ink, but plenty of time to force the LGBTQX agenda down the throats of little kids -- http://tinyurl.com/42xmuf8 -- of course, with no parent opt-out!
"force the LGBTQX agenda down the throats of little kids"
You mean to teach that homosexuals have made contributions to American society and culture? Horrors!
Jim,
"I looked at the pictures really hard and I didn't see anybody engaged in any sexual behavior nor asking anybody to tolerate their personal behaviors."
Now you're just being an idiot, Jim. I wish you wouldn't do that, as we've already got Parkie to fill that role.
The event depicted is of homos mocking the Christian faith in order to demonize them for the sake of elevating themselves to the level of moral behavior. It's part of their agenda to spread such lies. The agenda is based on lies, and that Christians are somehow wrong to believe as they do is merely one of them.
To depict detractors in a negative manner, and in doing so elevate themselves, they are putting forth the notion that what they do privately is not something that others can judge as abnormal, wicked, sick, perverted or whatever. If they truly didn't care what others thought, they wouldn't be holding such events to mock those who understand just how abnormal, wicked and perverted their behaviors truly are. And they certainly wouldn't be doing so in such a public manner so that others can witness their propaganda.
"I've never heard of any school teaching about desires and behaviors, much less being forced to do so."
Then you're either not paying attention, or you're a chump for the agenda. To expect that what homosexuals do, that is, what makes them homosexuals, is not discussed in schools is naive. If a school is going to say that, for example, speaking against homosexual behavior is a bad thing, it would have to explain something about homosexual behavior and make the case that it is NOT a bad thing. If it is going to teach little kids that there are families with two daddies, for example, it would have to touch on why that ISN'T abnormal to all those kids who know intrinsically that a kid is supposed to have a mother and a father. At some point, if we assume a lib heavy school district promotes pro-homo "teachings" from the earliest grades to the highest, there has to be some mention of the desires and behaviors for any of it to be of any sense.
But even if we assume that they leave those explanations to the parents, then we must also assume that there are those within that school district that is in total disagreement with the sentiment and is likely without any alternatives, such as opt outs for their kids. Those who wrongly believe there is no harm in the promotion of homosex as "just another lifestyle" do not give a flying rat's ass about the opinions of others and forcing the issue is all part of the agenda that doesn't exist.
"They teach that homosexuals exist, that they often have families and they want to be treated like any other person. And there is no reason for them not to be."
Another lie for another post, but briefly, they are NOT like any other people because most people are hetero. But beyond their demand to have their sexual desires accepted as normal, they have little to worry about regarding being treated like any other person. If they kept their sexual idiosyncrasies to themselves, in a manner similar to those men who wish to have sex with every woman they see keep THAT to themselves, they'd have less about which to whine.
"You mean to teach that homosexuals have made contributions to American society and culture?"
So have others with kinky sexual desires. So what? And there have been others guilty of other bad behaviors that have made contributions. Should we elevate all bad behavior if practitioners also contribute to society? The only reason to teach that homos may have made contributions is to push the notion that there is nothing wrong with homosexual behavior. Another lie for another post.
In short, Jim, don't be so eager. I'll get to the many other lies of the agenda soon enough. The lie at issue here is the lie that there is no agenda. It's too obvious a lie for there to be much disagreement, so you'll have to wait until I post on the particular lies you want to support.
Did you go to see the mocking performance? Did you look at the pictures? Why? If it offends you so, why do you look?
Sure there is an agenda. The agenda is to have the same rights as every other American.
You are losing. More and more people are understanding that the person with whom they work is a person who works, loves, has a family and prays just like anybody else.
You don't have to change your mind. You will pass on and new generations who are already accepting of their fellow men and women will take your place. State after state is granting homosexuals full marital rights. Even Republicans are getting with the program. OMG!
Once the entire nation is converted then the homos can work on converting all the children to homos before they finish 3rd grade.
"Did you go to see the mocking performance? Did you look at the pictures? Why? If it offends you so, why do you look?"
I've seen both pics and vids of this event, Jim. Does it offend? Of course it does. Anyone with a shred of moral decency will be offended. Being offended proves one understands morality.
But why look? To look directly at evil, one can then assess what to do about it. One has a true perspective of the level and degree of that evil. It is offensive to view images of the Holocaust or of aborted babies or of the extremely impoverished. But to do so motivates and compels action. It serves the perpetrators and those who benefit by such evil that those that might be offended never look upon it.
"Sure there is an agenda. The agenda is to have the same rights as every other American."
They have them already. That they don't is just another lie for another post.
"You are losing. More and more people are understanding that the person with whom they work is a person who works, loves, has a family and prays just like anybody else."
That's not the issue, though, is it? The issue is not that those who gratify their personal perversions might work, love and have a family, or even pray as if they are not engaging in sinfulness, but that they insist they have some right to have their personal perversion sanctioned by law as normal and equal to REAL MORAL behavior.
"You don't have to change your mind. You will pass on and new generations who are already accepting of their fellow men and women will take your place."
You're being a Parkie. I'm already accepting of all people. I even accept Parkie and those who insist on being as idiotic as him. But there's a real problem for our culture with accepting all behaviors as equal or equally beneficial, especially those for which the facts show are not beneficial in any way.
"State after state is granting homosexuals full marital rights. Even Republicans are getting with the program. OMG!"
This qualifies as another lie of the agenda. But the fact is that in every state that has put the vote in the hands of the people, this lame imitation of marriage has been soundly rejected. State courts and legislators are granting rights that the people do not necessarily wish to grant. And I defy you to show how many Republicans who worked to pass such terrible laws ran on that belief to get elected. I think you'll find that most, if not all of them, never campaigned as being pro-homo marriage. They've betrayed those who elected them.
"Once the entire nation is converted then the homos can work on converting all the children to homos before they finish 3rd grade."
This smarmy and condescending crack isn't far from the truth. When the entire nation is converted, there will indeed be more homos as there will be fewer people expressing the truth about the behavior. Thus, those who are impressionable, such as the children going through puberty, will experiment and begin engaging in all sorts of self-destructive sexual behaviors. You must be so proud to be a part of that.
"the children going through puberty, will experiment and begin engaging in all sorts of self-destructive sexual behaviors."
Wow! That's a totally new concept!
From Webster's Dictionary:
Definition of DEVIANT: deviating especially from an accepted norm
— deviant noun
Examples of DEVIANT
a study of deviant behavior among criminals
First Known Use of DEVIANT
15th century
Related to DEVIANT
Synonyms: aberrant, aberrational, abnormal, anomalous, atypical, deviate, devious, irregular, unnatural, untypical
Antonyms: natural, normal, regular, standard, typical
Homosexuality is deviant behavior.
Even the most liberal estimates say only about 3% of the population is homosexual. That means, heterosexuality is normal, and homosexuality is deviant. Deviancy, as Mr. Webster says, is abnormal. Therefore, any effort to teach homosexual behavior as normal and natural is an attempt to legitimize abnormal behavior.
That is what's on the homosexual lobby's agenda.
"Even the most liberal estimates say only about 3% of the population is homosexual."
Hmmm, let me see, that would be about 9 million people, right? And the NRA says it has just under 4 million members. I'd say owneing or shooting a gun is deviant behavior. Better stop them pre-verts.
40 states in the US have populations of under 9 million. There are fewer than 9 million people in Minnesota. Living in Missesota is deviant behavior, obviously. Pre-verts.
"No sex for you!"
Your obsession with the private "behaviors" of other people is amusing.
Gays in 6 states can now legally marry. Do you believe that your marriage is devalued by this? Does your marriage have less value to you and your spouse than it did, say, 20 years ago?
Everybody knows that gays have sex. You are part of a dying (literally) segment of the population that cares.
Why don't you just worry about whether your sexual behaviors are deviant or not. I don't care one way or the other. It's strictly your business.
If it were mine, then I could be a sex Nazi, too! I could write blogs and say "No sex for you!"
Apparently, Jim is one of those people for whom stupidity is a virtue. Parkie has company.
""the children going through puberty, will experiment and begin engaging in all sorts of self-destructive sexual behaviors."
Wow! That's a totally new concept!"
There was a time not so long ago that this was not as commonplace as it is today. The reason was the overall culture valued virtue more than it does today. The Jims of the world have devalued values and have abdicated any responsibility toward instilling and support high moral standards of behavior. Spinelessness at its finest. Sure, there were always those who experimented earlier than others, but at the same time, you could swing a dead cat and be assured of hitting a virgin. Much harder to do nowadays.
Exacerbating this sad development is the more modern Jims of the world who pretend that there is some benefit to sanctioning abnormal sexual behaviors like homosexual unions.
You see, Jim, you sad excuse for an adult (you ARE over 18, aren't you?), giving in to sexual desires, whether natural or not, has not served society well at all. Your pathetic attitude that it is something that happens so why fight it has led to millions of abortions, younger sufferers of STDs, more suicides and emotional problems related to affairs gone bad. People like yourself and the childish attitudes you have regarding sex has harmed our culture enormously and now you want to further damage society by supporting the normalizing of abnormal behaviors as if doing so will have zero effect. This is worse than stupid. So is the following:
"Hmmm, let me see, that would be about 9 million people, right? And the NRA says it has just under 4 million members. I'd say owneing or shooting a gun is deviant behavior."
and
"40 states in the US have populations of under 9 million. There are fewer than 9 million people in Minnesota. Living in Missesota is deviant behavior, obviously."
No need to elaborate on just how stupid these "arguments" are. Just read and be amazed that anyone could even dare.
"Your obsession with the private "behaviors" of other people is amusing."
That it is us who is obsessed is just another lie that will be addressed soon. Stay tuned.
Jim's idiocy continues:
"Gays in 6 states can now legally marry. Do you believe that your marriage is devalued by this?"
When you can find someone who actually argues that his own marriage will be affected by homo marriage, let me know. Until then, know that such a thing has NEVER been put forth as a concern by opponents of homo marriage. Get a clue.
"Everybody knows that gays have sex. You are part of a dying (literally) segment of the population that cares."
Do you even know what the issue is, Jim? Who the hell is concerned about homos having sex, except for good Christian people who understand the clear implications of willfully engaging in sinful behavior? Even such people aren't looking to prohibit by law what pervs do in private. Get a clue.
"Why don't you just worry about whether your sexual behaviors are deviant or not. I don't care one way or the other. It's strictly your business."
Assuming any of us actually favors a peculiar sexual behavior, the issue (and you really need to pay attention here, Jim) is in regards to which group of people is trying to have their own peculiarities legally sanctioned and taught in schools as normal and equal to truly normal behaviors.
"Hmmm, let me see, that would be about 9 million people, right? And the NRA says it has just under 4 million members. I'd say owneing or shooting a gun is deviant behavior."
and
"40 states in the US have populations of under 9 million. There are fewer than 9 million people in Minnesota. Living in Missesota is deviant behavior, obviously."
and.. 6 million Jewish people in the US.. But, Ma already thinks this is deviant behavior.
"The reason was the overall culture valued virtue more than it does today."
In the good ol' days our culture valued things like racial segregation and lynchings.
... virtue?
Ma.. check out Loving v. Virginia.. you may (or may not) learn something.
"The Jims of the world.."
Ma, do you interact with, in real life, anybody on a regular basis that thinks differently than you?
"and.. 6 million Jewish people in the US.. But, Ma already thinks this is deviant behavior."
See, Jim? Parkie won't be outdone! He'll trump any idiotic statement of yours with one of his own.
For the benefit of both of you, because normal people know this intrinsically, numbers alone do not determine normal. One must look at what is being done, what behavior is at play. Being Jewish is not a behavior. Living in Minnesota is not a behavior. Eating poop is a behavior. Having sex with produce is a behavior.
Having a belief system, such as Judaism, might guide one's behavior, but it isn't a behavior in itself. The same with belief in the 2nd Amendment's protection of the right of self-defense. It is idiotic to try to make such comparisons.
Parkie likes to lie as he says stupid things such as my opinion of Judaism. "Deviant behavior"? He hasn't the stones to defend such crap nor the ability to try. He'll just throw out nonsense because clinical idiots who troll blogs do that sort of thing.
"In the good ol' days our culture valued things like racial segregation and lynchings."
That wasn't even widespread in the 1700's, idiot-boy. And as we're discussing sexual morality, it is totally irrelevant, but less so that you are. And the Loving case does not touch on the subject of virtue in sexual relations. Remove the racial component, and my position stands strongly. Virtue was demanded, not merely supported. That some in our nation had issues with race does not mitigate that fact, you idiot. If you'd like to try to run with stupidity like that, you'll have to exert a bit more effort in order to make it work. I doubt you possess the capability.
"my opinion of Judaism."
Umm.. Ma.. you called Judaism worthless. And the behavior is going to anything but your church or reading anything but your narrow minded interpretation of the bible.
"That wasn't even widespread in the 1700's"
wow.. just passed my usual feigned outrage.
"we're discussing sexual morality"
My bad.. thought this included us trying to define what "normal" is. Ma, the begining is a very good place to start. This, in fact, may be your biggest hurdle.
"some in our nation had issues with race does"
Some? Oh no.. best not dive down that rabbit hole.
"Virtue was demanded"
Not to pick appart your entire argument or anything. But do you know what virtue means?
"try to run with stupidity"
?
If anybody needs a run..
"the issue ... is in regards to which group of people is trying to have their own peculiarities legally sanctioned and taught in schools as normal and equal to truly normal behaviors."
So what you are saying is if gays promise not to have sex you don't have any problem with their committing to each other in a legally recognized marriage. Right? So you'd be OK with two impotent 80 year-old gay men getting legally married, since they wouldn't be engaging in the behaviors you abhor. They'd only be loving each other and have the full legal rights of marriage.
Because it's the "desires and behaviors", right? That's what you said. So no desires and behaviors, no prolemo, right?
So it comes down to, dare I say it, "No sex for you!"
"Umm.. Ma.. you called Judaism worthless."
Did I now. Please provide a link to the conversation in which I made that statement. I'm sure you are missing something substantial. What a surprise.
"And the behavior is going to anything but your church or reading anything but your narrow minded interpretation of the bible."
Though I know it is far better for folks to attend a proper Christian church, to adhere to any mainstream religion is not a behavior of the type to which I refer when speaking of deviant sexual behavior. There is good behavior and bad behavior. Being religious, even if it means being Jewish, is a good behavior because of the uplifting qualities of high character that being religious tends to provoke. If your head wasn't so far up your ass, you would be so confused about such things. And to call me narrow minded in my interpretation is like calling someone narrow minded in their interpretation of traffic laws when they understand what a speed limit is and what a stop sign means.
""That wasn't even widespread in the 1700's"
wow.. just passed my usual feigned outrage."
Apparently you believe that at any given time in American history, EVERYONE was racist and eager to lynch black people. You're such a history buff.
""we're discussing sexual morality"
My bad.. thought this included us trying to define what "normal" is. Ma, the begining is a very good place to start. This, in fact, may be your biggest hurdle."
Your "bad" is exposed in every comment you make. I DID start at the beginning. I started at the beginning of my post. If you want to jump in midpoint and pretend you're being clever, it would help if you were. And BTW, if you have to "try" to define what "normal" is, you're hopeless. The truth is, you want to redefine that term as well so as to include those who engage in deviant sexual behavior.
""some in our nation had issues with race does"
Some? Oh no.. best not dive down that rabbit hole."
Yes. "Some". You want to try and prove it was ever "All"? Good luck with that.
"Not to pick appart your entire argument or anything." as if you could "But do you know what virtue means?"
Of course I know what it means. I also know that you don't. It's as foreign to you as real wit and intelligence.
It's been fun mocking your stupidity, Parkie, but merely allowing your comments to stand is enough to do that.
Jim,
"So what you are saying is if gays promise not to have sex you don't have any problem with their committing to each other in a legally recognized marriage. Right?"
Not only "not right", Jim, but not even close to anything I've ever even implied accidentally. From what rancid opening did you pull this turd? What part of "marriage is a union between one man and one woman" don't you understand?
"Because it's the "desires and behaviors", right? That's what you said. So no desires and behaviors, no prolemo, right?"
So it comes down to: What part of "marriage is a union between one man and one woman" don't you understand?
Are you purposely trying to be stupid and supplant Parkie as the #1 blog troll? Please tell me you are, because despite how often you say things that aren't very bright, I am amazed at how stupid your recent comments are.
"What part of "marriage is a union between one man and one woman" don't you understand?"
This whole thread has been about "desires and behaviors." That's obviously what it's all about for you. Only when I caught you on that have you turned it into the "one man, one woman" thing.
You always revert to the "marriage" thing. So if it was only civil and we called it something besides marriage, that OK?
Jim,
If you re-read the post, you'll easily note (well, maybe not so easily for you) that it is about two things: 1) The new feature called "Agenda Lies", and 2) The first lie covered, which is that there is no agenda. You keyed in on one statement
"Every homosexual wishes their desires and behaviors would be tolerated and accepted as normal and equal to heterosexual behaviors."
and wish to make some point with which you can twist things so as to continue to support homo marriage. Further, you disagreed with the statement based on only your own opinion, which does not reflect reality in the least.
To disconnect the desire to have desires and behaviors approved by all from the push to redefine marriage to include those with the desire to engage in those behaviors is Parkie-like in its idiocy.
"You always revert to the "marriage" thing."
It is the driving issue of the homo lobby by which they will then be able to force other deviancies upon the populace, as well as open up an avenue by which other sexually twisted individuals must then also be granted the same considerations. The "marriage thing" is no small matter so I will continue to highlight the dangers and stupidity of supporting this abomination.
"So if it was only civil and we called it something besides marriage, that OK?"
A turd by any other name would still smell like Parkie...I mean, shit. But civil unions would actually be worse. It would allow benefits meant to encourage proper unions of one man and one woman to be bestowed upon those who just want to shack up without the commitment of actually saying "I do". It would allow benefits to platonic unions and others to the point of rendering marital unions meaningless, which for some is the point.
Traditional marriage is a unique arrangement with unique benefits to society that no lame imitation can offer.
"Traditional marriage is a unique arrangement with unique benefits to society"
And these unique benefits are...?
"those who just want to shack up without the commitment of actually saying "I do"."
That's absurd. These people ARE committed and actually WANT to say "I do."
"And these unique benefits are...?"
Not that I truly believe you're honest enough to give it true consideration, but in response to your question, I offer this, wherein you will find a plethora of support for my position. There are a number of links therein for further edification, if you are truly concerned about what is best for the country and its people, including those who driven by desires and urges, rather than truth and virtue.
"That's absurd. These people ARE committed and actually WANT to say "I do.""
What's absurd, Jim, is your penchant for ignoring what I wrote in full. Read it again and you'll see that the quote to which your response is aimed referred to those that would abuse legalization of "civil unions" for the purpose of exacting privileges meant to encourage marriage. That is, two womanizers, for example, looking to take advantage of tax breaks and the like while maintaining their lifestyles. Or two platonic women friends in their old age looking to save money any way they can. Civil unions can and will be abused because it has no real meaning that can be enforced by law. That is, no law can force people to be "in love" when taking advantage of civil union benefits. Civil unions puts the emphasis on the benefits married people are granted by law, not the reason for committing to each other by such bonding.
"referred to those that would abuse legalization of "civil unions" for the purpose of exacting privileges meant to encourage marriage."
You have no proof that homosexuals would abuse civil unions any more than heterosexuals abuse marriage. You've even provided examples heterosexuals getting married simply to gain financial advantages, citizenship, healthcare, company benefits.
"Civil unions puts the emphasis on the benefits married people are granted by law, not the reason for committing to each other by such bonding."
So marriage should only be allowed within the church. No marriage license and ceremony by the justice of peace. All couples should submit an essay detailing exactly what their reason is for getting married and verifying that they are committing to each other for approved reasons. That it?
"I offer this, wherein you will find a plethora of support for my position."
Based on this article we should also ban divorce, dissolve all families where one parent dies or leaves, adoption and many other family situations in which both biological are not present. Because none of these meet the criteria for what is "best" for the country.
There are a lot of subjects wherein an ideal exists. That doesn't mean that where the ideal isn't met all else should be disallowed.
If this is your argument, that gay marriage should be disallowed because it supposedly cannot provide the "best" circumstances for raising children, then you have failed miserably. Otherwise, all marriages should be dissolved after the children have left the home.
Once again, Jim, you force me to ask: Are you being stupid on purpose, or do you suffer from the same mental deficiency as does Parklife?
""referred to those that would abuse legalization of "civil unions" for the purpose of exacting privileges meant to encourage marriage."
You have no proof that homosexuals would abuse civil unions any more than heterosexuals abuse marriage."
My point was that civil unions, being focused on the benefits bestowed upon married couples, would lead to heteros abusing the "right" civil unions would provide. I don't need to prove homos would "abuse marriage" since they already abuse it by pretending two people of the same sex can be married. They can't, law or no law. They can only pretend. They may be able to commit to each other (though in truth they need to be committed), but they'll never be married, because their union can't fit the definition.
""Civil unions puts the emphasis on the benefits married people are granted by law, not the reason for committing to each other by such bonding."
So marriage should only be allowed within the church. No marriage license and ceremony by the justice of peace. All couples should submit an essay detailing exactly what their reason is for getting married and verifying that they are committing to each other for approved reasons. That it?"
Just incredible, Jim. Is missing the point something liberals have to do in order to be liberal?
Once again, civil unions put the emphasis for getting married on the benefits married couples are granted by government. What asshole seeks marriage for tax bennies? Aside from yourself, no one I know except for the homosexual lobby.
"Based on this article we should also ban divorce, dissolve all families where one parent dies or leaves, adoption and many other family situations in which both biological are not present. Because none of these meet the criteria for what is "best" for the country."
Please, Jim. At least put a little effort into being stupid. Banning divorce is a stupid idea, because there are legitimate reasons for getting one, even in Christ's opinion. But "no-fault" divorce laws were indeed a bad idea for the institution of marriage and I favor dialing them back indeed.
More stupidity in your remarks regarding broken families. Where a parent dies, there is still the effects of having had both parents, even in cases where the children may have been infants at the time the parent died.
But even more stupidly, you ignore the difference between a child having lost a parent, and a child being denied a parent to begin with. Such is the case with homos who adopt or worse, impregnate a woman in order to produce a child for them (or having a man impregnate a lesbian for her and her "spouse"). Such selfish bastards purposely deprive the child of both a mother and a father. Contemptible.
This of course, differs greatly from a married couple adopting as they can provide the child with the proper environment of having both a mother and father.
"If this is your argument, that gay marriage should be disallowed because it supposedly cannot provide the "best" circumstances for raising children, then you have failed miserably."
Hardly, but it is one of the most important in this culture that suffers from a warped sense of morality and virtue. This condition has wreaked havoc on our society in ways I've continually highlighted over the years. But, as libs do, you take one point and pretend it's the entire argument. And as I predicted, you take no time to honestly consider the points made in the Wintery Knight blogpost or the many links contained therein. Like the homos, you don't care about the truth and the truthful, logical and sensible arguments defending real marriage, and simply rehash all the inane and lazy gripes so exhaustively refuted time and time again.
Do yourself a favor and spend a week or two reviewing the Ruth Institute site and especially, the words of Jennifer Morse. You'll learn something.
"Non-Christian religions, while worthless, are not necessarily harmful to society while they don't displace the overall Judeo-Christian sensibility that still pervades and influences our culture."
http://marshallart.blogspot.com/2011/06/pride-in-weakness.html
Its your freakin' blog! Jesshh.. do I have to do all the research around here?
"Apparently you believe that at any given time in American history, EVERYONE was racist and eager to lynch black people. You're such a history buff."
lol.. Ma.. do you always fight strawmen? Even so, I think you lose some of those battles.
"This of course, differs greatly from a married couple adopting as they can provide the child with the proper environment of having both a mother and father."
But it's less than ideal according to your article. So we shouldn't allow adoption.
"Where a parent dies, there is still the effects of having had both parents, even in cases where the children may have been infants at the time the parent died."
Yes, biologically speaking, the "effects" is that you have genes from two parents, but this is a stupid reason to ban gay marriage and gay adoption. It might have been better to have two living biological parents from birth to leaving the house, but the odds that that will happen in the vast majority of cases are low.
"I don't need to prove homos would "abuse marriage" since they already abuse it by pretending two people of the same sex can be married. They can't, law or no law."
But they can in 6 states and DC. Nobody cares about the state of Markianna. More states will legalize gay marriage in the near future. The above quote is a cop out.
"What asshole seeks marriage for tax bennies?"
Go over to your local senior center and ask around.
"Banning divorce is a stupid idea"
Of course it is. But divorce creates a family situation that is less than ideal, and that is your quoted article's justification for banning gay marriage and gay parenthood. It's not ideal.
"Do yourself a favor and spend a week or two reviewing the Ruth Institute site and especially, the words of Jennifer Morse. You'll learn something."
I could do this and I could also read the many valid studies that would provide the opposite conclusions.
I happen to be a member of LCMS, a very conservative church. You know how often we discuss gays or gay marriage in sermons or any congregational event?
Never. In ten years the subject has never come up. We care about how we live and love. We don't care how others choose to live and love. None of our marriages is diminished by gay sex or gay marriage. We are strong in our faith and in our commitments.
Obviously it's difference in the church of Mark and the state of Markianna.
"And BTW, if you have to "try" to define what "normal" is, you're hopeless"
Oh my.. Ma.. I'm not the one re-defining a word.. simply pointing out that you dont know what "normal" means.
"Of course I know what it means."
Ma.. please.. for the love of God.. find a dictionary.
Your memory needs repair..
"That wasn't even widespread in the 1700's"
vs.
"Apparently you believe that at any given time in American history, EVERYONE was racist and eager to lynch black people."
Its "widespread" vs. EVERYONE.. Which is it Ma? You cant even keep your argument headed in the same direction.
"What asshole seeks marriage for tax bennies?"
Its more than just tax breaks... Second, why let the govt. know we are married unless we got some sort of bonus for doing it?
Ma.. you confuse getting married in your church with the govt. recognition of a "marriage".
Both of you buffoons seem to ignore the reason for the difference. Traditional marriage is something that the state, that is, the people, find to be worthy of support for the benefits it provides society. The fact that some marriages don't benefit anyone is besides the point and not worth suspending those benefits over. Homo marriage does not provide those benefits so they are undeserving of the same recognition by the state.
And no, you could not find any serious, credible study that would counter that fact.
I have no time at present to respond to your goofy arguments in more detail. That will have to wait. In the meantime, perhaps Parkie can provide evidence that I've used any word improperly for which he thinks I need a dictionary.
"Apparently you believe that at any given time in American history, EVERYONE was racist and eager to lynch black people. You're such a history buff."
Ahh.. speaking of racists.. where is Mark when you need him?
"Traditional marriage is something that the state, that is, the people, find to be worthy of support for the benefits it provides society."
You dont even have a point.
"I've used any word improperly.."
I'll settle for you correctly understanding the word "normal". We've already been through this 100 times.
"The fact that some marriages don't benefit anyone is besides the point and not worth suspending those benefits over."
"Homo marriage does not provide those benefits so they are undeserving of the same recognition by the state."
Anybody else having a hard time reconciling these two sentence that appear in sequence in the same paragraph?
Jim wrote (among other things),
"I happen to be a member of LCMS, a very conservative church. You know how often we discuss gays or gay marriage in sermons or any congregational event?
Never. In ten years the subject has never come up. We care about how we live and love. We don't care how others choose to live and love. None of our marriages is diminished by gay sex or gay marriage. We are strong in our faith and in our commitments."
Actually, your denomination discussed it quite seriously after the ELCA went to the dark side. It resolved to continue following Scripture's dictates on human sexuality and Its determination that homosexual behavior is sinful in all its forms. (Ask your pastor)
I am still, for the time being, a member of one of the most liberal, homo affirming denominations and you know how many times we discuss gays or gay marriage in sermons or any congregational event? Pretty much never. Oh, it has happened, but not with any regularity. But I wrote that off to its overall liberal bent and it the penchant of liberal churches for ambiguity in their sermons. It's much more sad and pathetic to hear the same from a supposedly conservative outfit.
"We care about how we live and love."
You do if you abide Scripture's teachings.
"We don't care how others choose to live and love."
You do if you abide Scripture's teachings. If you are speaking of righteous living, at some point details must come up or one cannot get the message out. It's not necessary to point to the homos in the congregation, or the adulterers, or the fornicators, but to at least occasionally speak on what Scripture teaches on moral behavior would be sufficient. Few congregations, conservative or otherwise, do this anymore. That's part of the reason our culture has taken such a nosedive in the last 100 years. An important reason.
"None of our marriages is diminished by gay sex or gay marriage."
How nice for you. But what a liar to insist that such is a concern of those of us who defend traditional marriage and God's Will on the subject. If the whole world turned homo tomorrow except for my wife and I, our marriage would not be affected. OUR marriage is not the institution of marriage. You can stop that foolishness for good now, Jim.
"We are strong in our faith and in our commitments."
Well, you're not strong in your faith OR your commitment to it if you pretend there is nothing wrong with homosexual behavior and actually support state recognition of it.
Now for the professional idiot, Parkie.
First, about Judaism. To begin, idiot-boy said I considered it deviant, likely because of the percentage present in the country, or, more likely, because he's an ass who tries to be clever while failing with incredible consistency. But I didn't say that. I said the religion is worthless. He found where I said that, linked to it, but failed to speak of the context. The context is that there is only one way to salvation and Judaism doesn't have it. That makes it worthless for the Jew's hope for salvation. But Judaism isn't worthless as regards its benefit to society by those who practice seriously the teachings of that faith. The bottom line, though, is that I never claimed there was anything deviant about Judaism. I use that term as regards particular sexual behaviors.
"Oh my.. Ma.. I'm not the one re-defining a word.. simply pointing out that you dont know what "normal" means."
You haven't once shown that I've used the term incorrectly. Not once. What's more, Craig provided a dictionary definition and with that to aid you, you have yet to show where my usage of the word departs from that definition. But here's an example that you have rejected without sound cause: There are two sexes, male and female, each of which is created to be biologically compatible and complimentary with each other. The attraction of one for the other is normal due to this biological dynamic. For a male to be attracted to a male for the purpose of engaging in sexual relations is not normal. The fact that such attractions exist, for whatever reason, does not make it normal.
"Ma.. please.. for the love of God.. find a dictionary."
You don't love God. If you can show how I've misused the word based on the word's definition, bring it. I don't need to misuse words because I do love God and His Truth enough that I'm confident in my proper usage of the words I select.
More...because he loves being stupid
Here's a real winner by the loser, Parkie:
""That wasn't even widespread in the 1700's"
vs.
"Apparently you believe that at any given time in American history, EVERYONE was racist and eager to lynch black people."
Its "widespread" vs. EVERYONE.. Which is it Ma? You cant even keep your argument headed in the same direction."
Notice how in the first quote, I'm stating what I believe to be a fact. Racism wasn't widespread (by which I meant "total" or "through & through" or "every damned citizen of the country"). That's what I stated that I believe.
Then, the idiot quotes me again, but in the second quote, I'm presenting what HE apparently believes, which is proven true by my use of the words "Apparently you believe". From this, where I laid out what apparently he believes about "EVERYONE" being racist in at any given time in American history, from this he concludes that I'm, what, contradicting myself? WHAT. AN. IDIOT!
"Second, why let the govt. know we are married unless we got some sort of bonus for doing it?"
You don't have to.
"Ahh.. speaking of racists.. where is Mark when you need him?"
Mark is not a racist and you are totally incapable of proving otherwise. However, you are doing a bang-up job of proving you're an idiot. It seems effortless for you. You make it look so easy.
""Traditional marriage is something that the state, that is, the people, find to be worthy of support for the benefits it provides society."
You dont even have a point."
...the idiot says after I've just made it. If you can't understand the point, just say so. Don't risk looking like an idiot. Of course, being an idiot, that might be difficult.
Almost forgot this, Jim:
"Anybody else having a hard time reconciling these two sentence that appear in sequence in the same paragraph?"
Good catch. Those two DO seem incongruous. That's what happens when one fails to resist the urge to respond when time does not allow a decent attempt. Now that I have the time, I'll restate it:
Not every hetero marriage provides to society the benefits that studies show are bestowed by the average marriage situation. But the law isn't required to demand that every couple seeking marriage provides those benefits. It simply assumes it to a degree, hopes for it to another and despite sometimes being disappointed still sees traditional marriage as worthy of its support. It's interest is in promoting the ideal, not demanding the ideal be met.
With homos, however, the ideal cannot be met. It is not the same dynamic, it has not shown to be worthy of support and studies show this is true. The same can be said for incestuous or polygamous arrangements and thus, THEY are not supported.
However, the gov't does NOT step in and prevent a man and woman from living together and even having kids together. They do NOT step in and prevent ANYONE from living together in a marital-like arrangement. Thus, they are not "banned". The gov't simply refuses to acknowledge these other arrangements as having equal benefit to society. That's because they DON'T and forcing such acceptance won't change that.
One more thing for Parkie. There is limited time for you to become an actual contributor at this blog. You continue to post idiocies and inanities, but never anything of substance, never anything meriting respectful responses. Thus, the time is quickly approaching when you will have gained the dubious distinction of being the first joker banned from Marshall Art's. If you could at least be funny, you might stand a chance. But you're never funny. Never witty. Never clever. Only stupid and idiotic, as if that is your purpose in life, which if it is, congratulations on your incredible success. From this point, I don't imagine you will be able to resist another stupid comment that exposes your worthlessness. That's too bad. I hope you'll prove me wrong. Any comment of yours that stands longer than a few hours will be such proof. No one will hold their breath. You're obviously keen on achieving this distinction, likely thinking that it puts me out to go through the effort to ban assholes. It's really, really a small price to pay to keep your stench from tainting this blog. But the extent to which you've bored me is beyond my ability to express, or perhaps I'm simply too bored to do so. I'm thinkin' this is "good-bye". You're too much the unrepentant asshole for me to expect any other alternative. I feel a final straw on its way...
"stupidly"
"idiot-boy"
"stupid"
"IDIOT"
"stupid and idiotic"
"assholes"
.....
:(
"First, about Judaism. To begin, idiot-boy said I considered it deviant, likely because of the percentage present in the country, or, more likely, because he's an ass who tries to be clever while failing with incredible consistency. But I didn't say that. I said the religion is worthless."
vs.
"The bottom line, though, is that I never claimed there was anything deviant about Judaism."
""stupidly"
"idiot-boy"
"stupid"
"IDIOT"
"stupid and idiotic"
"assholes""
Parkie doesn't seem to enjoy the appropriate use of these terms directed at him despite his efforts to prove them appropriate. What he wishes wasn't true is that these words accurately describe his behavior and the types of comments he leaves here. There are others that leave comments with which I disagree, but few who are worthy of these descriptions as a matter of routine. Jim's recent comments have been very Parkie-like, but generally his are merely wrong-headed. Parkie's are always (pick from the list above).
Time's running out. Parkie's banning seems assured.
Regarding Parkie's last comment of 12:45 PM, he's once again lacking a point and/or an explanation. He again seems to be trying to insist that "deviant" is the same as "worthless" in order to accuse me (wrongly of course) of indicting Judaism as a deviant behavior or belief. What a sad case he is. And he believes I'm the one in need of a dictionary! As Parkie the idiot-boy would say, "LOL!"
Of course, Parkie may be speaking from a position of experience. Only he knows just how deviant he is, and add that to his obvious worthlessness as evidenced by his substance-free commentary, and he may be having trouble distinguishing between the two words. Being both deviant and worthless, he may view the words as synonymous. Keep him in your prayers after he's banned.
"But I didn't say that. I said the religion is worthless."
I'll have to agree with you on this, MA. Not only did you not say deviant; the meanings of the words are quite different.
Having said that, the mere fact that you have referred to one or several of the world's major religions as worthless, I suggest makes you deviant, bigoted and ignorant.
"He again seems to be trying to insist that "deviant" is the same as "worthless" in order to accuse me (wrongly of course) of indicting Judaism as a deviant behavior or belief."
umm... not really my point. But, thanks for catching that.
btw.. I thought I was already banned? Does this make me the first person in MA history to be banned twice?
"There are others that leave comments with which I disagree, but few who are worthy of these descriptions as a matter of routine."
lol.. WWJXD?
"Having said that, the mere fact that you have referred to one or several of the world's major religions as worthless, I suggest makes you deviant, bigoted and ignorant."
No, Jim. It makes me a Christian with a clear understanding of the consequences of following other religions and not Christ. What do they teach in your so-called "conservative" church? That Jesus is only one to salvation? There's two possibilities here, Jim. 1) You don't understand the faith to which you claim membership, or 2) Your particular congregation is entirely lame and less than accurate in the teaching of the faith. I'm thinking it's likely #1.
Furthermore, Jim, you obviously aren't reading my comments in their entirety, you're purposely ignoring what I've written, or you're a twit. If you had paid attention, you'd know that I explained what I meant by "worthless", and that was that it is worthless for achieving salvation. As far as the benefits to society of a solid Jew who adheres to the teachings of his faith, there is much value. These are two distinctly different situations. One speaks of the religion's worth to our society, and the other to the Jew himself. If you think you can explain what is deviant, bigoted or ignorant about my position, bring it. But keep this in mind: The Jesus Christ you claim to follow as a member of the Lutheran denomination said that He is the only Way to the Father. If you can keep this in mind, what worth is there for one who does NOT follow Him?
Troll-boy,
"umm... not really my point. But, thanks for catching that."
Who you crappin'? You never have a point, except to mock, and you don't do that very well at all. One needs to be clever. You're not.
"lol.. WWJXD?"
Again, who you crappin'? You don't have the slightest care for what Jesus would do. You think you're making a point by asking the question here? Why? Have I ever claimed to be a perfect example of Christendom? Have I ever feigned piety or sanctimony like Dan Trabue? Sure, I consider myself a believer in Christ. That doesn't mean you're not an idiot, an asshole, stupid and any other word on that list and then some. That just makes me truthful for stating what is. I'd much prefer you'd change your ways and be less of an asshole, but you seem intent on being the best asshole you can be. What would Jesus do? First, He'd very possibly call you on using His name in vain. Secondly, He'd call you a name of His own choosing, as He called Pharisees "vipers" and "hypocrites", for example. And He, too, would hope you'd come around, for the sake of your own salvation.
"It makes me a Christian with a clear understanding of the consequences of following other religions and not Christ."
Sooo.. you're scared of JC. Thats one way to live.
"As far as the benefits to society of a solid Jew who adheres to the teachings of his faith, there is much value."
What about other faiths? What about having no faith? What about you?
"You're not."
See.. your faith is lacking.
"who you crappin'?"
lol.. what is that even supposed to mean? Can you cut the Ebonics for two seconds and join the rest of us in the real world.
"Have I ever claimed to be a perfect example of Christendom?"
Ma.. the problem is you judge and judge and judge. Then cant take the slightest bit of criticism. Worse, you dont even try to be a better person or Christian. For once.. just one time in your life.. stand up and take some responsibility. Please.. for the love of God.
"First, He'd very possibly call you on using His name in vain."
First.. there is no vain, unless you're upset at the added "X", which, if so, would be funny.
"He'd call you a name of His own choosing, as He called Pharisees "vipers" and "hypocrites", for example."
Wonderful. Following somebody that cant even follow his own advice. Try not to get lost in the wilderness Ma.
According to MA's skewed definition of agenda, here's an original agenda:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."
Feo, Declaration of Independence doen't trump the Bible according to MA though, right? :-)
Feo and Jim,
The preamble is not the agenda of the Declaration. Nice try, though. (Not really)
BTW, Jim. NOTHING trumps the Bible. Real Christians everywhere agree. Know any?
Foolish little Parkie,
"Sooo.. you're scared of JC. Thats one way to live."
Not scared at all. I'm a follower, in my own imperfect way. I know who He is and what He's done for me and accept Him as my Savior. I'm not scared. I'm grateful, blessed and saved. You? You're an idiot.
"What about other faiths? What about having no faith? What about you?"
What about adding something substantive, troll? I have very little faith that you're capable.
"See.. your faith is lacking."
Wrong again, nitwit. I have NO faith in you whatsoever. Only hope without cause. I take that back. I have total faith that you will take every opportunity to prove you're an idiot. You haven't failed me yet.
"lol.. what is that even supposed to mean?"
It means you're full of crap. Should have been obvious even to an idiot like yourself.
"Ma.. the problem is you judge and judge and judge. Then cant take the slightest bit of criticism. Worse, you dont even try to be a better person or Christian. For once.. just one time in your life.. stand up and take some responsibility. Please.. for the love of God"
Whoa! Look at little troll-boy getting all huffy! The difference, fool, is that you judge me for judging behaviors. Notice the distinction, or do I have to draw you a picture? And what do you know of how I live my life? You think you know me because of how I respond to your constant provocations? You certainly don't get any clues from my posts, because you haven't the brains to understand the point, and simply spew the usual childish lefty "judgements" against virtues and morality that you don't have the spine to adopt in your own life. As far as taking responsibility... for what, exactly? If you think you can show anywhere I've gone wrong in the things about which I post, try actually laying out a case that shows you have a clue. In the meantime, I'll continue to stand up and repeat the obvious, that you're a freakin' idiot and nothing but a troll with an incredible lack of wit or intelligence. NEVER have you attempted to stick your neck out and actually discuss an issue. You're worthless.
"First.. there is no vain, unless you're upset at the added "X", which, if so, would be funny."
First...you're an idiot. There is plenty of "vain" every time you type things like "for the love of God", or "WWJD" with or without the "X", which isn't funny, just sad like all your other weak attempts at humor. You obviously don't understand what it means to take His name in vain. But as one with no belief in the Almighty, any mention of Him by you is taking His name in vain unless you're looking to truly and seriously discuss Him, or, be still my heart, repent and be saved. I won't hold my breath for the latter as you aren't that bright.
"Wonderful. Following somebody that cant even follow his own advice."
Like others, such as Dan, you can't distinguish between what is permissible for us and what is permissible for Him. You apparently don't understand how your prove your stupidity by trying to pretend you can use the faith against me. You don't have clue one about Christianity, so you childish attempts won't work here.
So now I've got a stupid question for you: Got any other idiotic things to say?
"Not scared at all."
.. he says hiding in his Moms basement.
"What about adding something substantive"
Dodge..
“I have NO faith”.. “I take that back.” .. “I have total faith”
Flip.. flop..
"Should have been obvious even to an idiot like yourself."
Oh.. Im not sure if I made this clear enough.. I don’t speak Ebonics. Please translate.
"Whoa! Look at little troll-boy getting all huffy!"
Lol.. ma.. One thing you are very good at is jumping to conclusions.
"The difference, fool"
Lol.. the difference is you pretend to be Christian.
"You think you know me"
Omg.. ma.. I don’t want to know you.
"lefty "judgements" against virtues and morality"
.. judgments.. are best done by people like you. Your version of morality is antiquated.
"don't have the spine to adopt in your own life"
Such as? My inability to be homophobic. I think I’m doomed!
Ma, you hating gay people doesn’t make you stronger than anybody else.
"As far as taking responsibility... for what, exactly?"
Well. For being anti-gay or the lazy name calling. Or, really what I was talking about was your comments saying that you are imperfect. Which is good, but man-up (umm.. or so they say).
"I'll continue to stand up and repeat the obvious"
Are you going to cry? Besides, why would you ever think I care about your opinion?
"There is plenty of vain"
Umm.. no there isn’t.
"But as one with no belief in the Almighty, any mention of Him by you is taking His name in vain unless you're looking to truly and seriously discuss Him"
Ok? Glad you could make up the rules as we go along. The more and more you discuss your interpretation of the Bible, the more it seems to be filled with double standards.
Besides.. who said I have no belief in the Almighty?
"You apparently don't understand how your prove your stupidity"
Lol.. ma.. Im not as naïve as you are. I am aware that I fall into the trap that allows you to feel better about yourself. The trap that “proves” to yourself that you don’t want to accept people different than yourself. And yes.. you know far more about the bible than I do. But, that is relevant... how?. So, we can call it even.
Marshall, it seems to me that a declaration of any kind has an agenda. Or it's not a declaration of anything. Notice, for instance, in the sample text below what immediately follows the clause where something needs to DECLARED:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should DECLARE the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."
EPIC FAIL
More fun with the troll:
".. he says hiding in his Moms basement."
Unlike yourself, I don't live with my mother. You're projecting.
""What about adding something substantive"
Dodge.."
No dodge, little troll. What need is there to speak specifically on any other faith tradition that does not worship Christ as Lord and Savior? The end result will be similar. Dodge? You wish.
"“I have NO faith”.. “I take that back.” .. “I have total faith”
Flip.. flop.."
If you say so, pathetic one. But note that both positions are really the same...you're an idiot. I have no faith in your improving on that, but I do have faith that you'll continue to prove you're an idiot. Yeah. That's a definite flip-flop. Uh huh.
"Lol.. the difference is you pretend to be Christian."
"LOL!" Not pretending here, sad excuse. You insist that if I claim to be a Christian, that I must be a clone of Christ or I'm lying or pretending. But we both know that this is just a ruse so that you can carry on with your asshole remarks without consequence. As I said, the false piety and psuedo-sanctimony is Dan's forte, not mine.
"Omg.. ma.. I don’t want to know you."
I can live with that. It's your loss, not mine.
".. judgments.. are best done by people like you. Your version of morality is antiquated."
There are none so judgmental as a lefty. Libs like yourself stand in judgement of conservatives and Christians who support morality and virtue.
What's more, morality cannot be "antiquated". Libs like yourself choose to believe that morality is man-made and thus is malleable by the will and desires of other men. That's what makes you morally bankrupt. Conservatives and conservative Christians believe morality is fixed, ever present and either something to which we adhere or something we ignore, which is what you and those like you do. It is quite similar to the preamble that is not an agenda but lists unalienable rights. Rights that exist not because of men, but because of Nature's God. Morality is the same. It cannot be out of fashion. Only basing one's life on morality can be out of fashion. Morality is constant. It is only out of fashion for the self-obsessed left.
So my "version" of morality is morality. Period. You simply ignore and reject it for whatever idiotic reasons suit you.
More fun with the troll...
...is here:
"Such as? My inability to be homophobic. I think I’m doomed!
Ma, you hating gay people doesn’t make you stronger than anybody else."
Well, you're doomed, all right. I'd wager big bucks on that unless you repent of your asshole ways. Until then, it would be fun to see you try to prove I'm either "homophobic" or a hater of homosexuals. That would be interesting if you could muster the nerve to risk. Pardon me if I don't hold my breath.
"
"As far as taking responsibility... for what, exactly?"
Well. For being anti-gay or the lazy name calling. Or, really what I was talking about was your comments saying that you are imperfect. Which is good, but man-up (umm.. or so they say)."
I don't see how you can say that I don't take responsibility for being anti-homosexual agenda. I talk about it openly all the time. I'm right up front in speaking out on the lies upon which the agenda is based, the sinfulness of the behavior, the abnormal condition of homosexual attraction...what more do you want? I mean besides joining in the stupidity of supporting homosexual behavior, that is.
And what do you mean by "lazy-name calling"? Is there a labor intensive way to call people names? Truly, I call you what your words demand you be called. If you acted like a gentleman (assuming you're a male---I have no idea), a gentleman is how I'd label you. I could not help myself. But as you continue to act like an asshole...there's really no effort required. You are referred to by the name your words suggest. You name yourself by your words here.
AS to my imperfections, I don't know how you'd expect anyone to manifest any effort in self-improvement on a blog. I own up to my imperfections. I don't pretend they don't exist. I don't defend them to avoid critiques based on them. In my own life, I work to eliminate them as best as I can. I don't gauge my success in that endeavor by the standards set for me by people who are themselves in need of improvement, and thus have no room to dare point fingers, such as yourself. So bite me.
""I'll continue to stand up and repeat the obvious"
Are you going to cry? Besides, why would you ever think I care about your opinion?"
I don't understand what makes you think I might cry. As to you caring about my opinions, your constant visits are proof that you do.
Still more fun...
""There is plenty of vain"
Umm.. no there isn’t."
Yeah. There is. Plenty of it, too, since you never pray here or speak much about Him here. All your comments that include Him are examples of your poor attempts at wit. You never speak His name with any hint of reverence.
"Ok? Glad you could make up the rules as we go along. The more and more you discuss your interpretation of the Bible, the more it seems to be filled with double standards."
I don't make up the rules, but I do know what they are. Any time you'd like to risk showing examples that I engage in double-standards, that would be a real treat. Got the nerve?
"Besides.. who said I have no belief in the Almighty?"
Oh, please. Show that you do. Thus far, you've demonstrated a complete lack of it.
"Im not as naïve as you are. I am aware that I fall into the trap that allows you to feel better about yourself. The trap that “proves” to yourself that you don’t want to accept people different than yourself. And yes.. you know far more about the bible than I do. But, that is relevant... how?. So, we can call it even."
????
First, I'm not naive. Thus, you cannot be less so than I.
Next, nothing you do has any effect on how I feel about myself. Are you that full of yourself to believe such could be possible?
Then, what makes you think I have a problem with people different than myself. No one is like me. No two people are alike. I deal with differences between myself and others daily. I generally ignore differences except where those differences are harmful behaviors, either to themselves or others. I know YOU choose to believe that those who willfully engage in bad behavior are merely "different", but that's your corrupted sense morality talking (assuming you have any sense of morality at all).
If indeed I do know the Bible better than you do, it has no relevance at all if you do not avail yourself of whatever knowledge you might glean here. None whatsoever.
I don't see any way to call us even on any issue. You don't expound on your opinions at all on any issue, except to crap on my opinions in the most boring and unenlightening manner possible. All I can glean from you is that somehow, you don't agree with me. You don't say why, you don't offer any support in any fashion, you just disagree. Even? How can that even be possible?
That's about it. Got any more (he asks knowing the answer)? I've got to show Feodor why he's goofy.
Feodor,
"Marshall, it seems to me that a declaration of any kind has an agenda."
Does it really seem so?
"I declare, Miss Annabelle, you have the brightest blue eyes!"
Oh, yeah! HE might have an agenda, but it isn't evident merely by the declaration. In fact, he might be a homosexual who is just fascinated by Annie's bright blue eyes.
"Or it's not a declaration of anything."
Except of the fact that Miss A has bright blue eyes.
A declaration of independence simply declares (to make known formally, officially, or explicitly) one's position or one's intentions. How one goes about achieving those intentions is the agenda. An agenda is a list of things to be done. A declaration is a formal announcement. The preamble you first posted is NOT an agenda. You could say that it was on the founders' agenda to first declare their independence, but that declaration isn't itself an agenda.
All that education, all those books, and all you can do is fail in an epic manner. So sad.
In case anyone's forgotten, the post here is about the lie of the homosexuals that they have no agenda. Feel free to comment on that, too.
Marhsall, I'm afraid that you're not having been friends in life with a dictionary or the principles that reign in dictionaries has resulted in pretty simple mistake.
Among the varied meanings of the word, declare, you're exhibiting one that has nothing to do with declaration.
Your failure is now, first, of understanding what you are talking about (Epic) and, second, failure to be aware of varied definitions of a word (merely tragic).
I know your book and intellect averse. But please buy AND look into a dictionary.
"I declare, Miss Annabelle, you have the brightest blue eyes!"
I'm pretty sure Ma is drunk.
"the post here is about the lie of the homosexuals that they have no agenda."
lol.. have you been paying attention? You act like having an agenda is a bad thing.
"Yeah. There is."
Umm.. no there isnt.
"you never pray here"
Ma.. there is no "here" here. Fyi.. I pray everyday for you.
"Oh, please. Show that you do. Thus far, you've demonstrated a complete lack of it."
Once again.. youre upset that my set of beliefs is different than yours. Ma.. again.. put on your man-pants and growup.
"Next, nothing you do has any effect on how I feel about myself. Are you that full of yourself to believe such could be possible?"
Lol. ma.. Are you a real person?
"I generally ignore differences except where those differences are harmful behaviors, either to themselves or others."
omg.. ma.. How do you balance all these conflicting ideas in your head?
"I don't see any way to call us even on any issue."
haha.. I dont either.. Btw.. California is now allowing gay history in schools. Can you imagine? History being taught in history class!
"You don't say why, you don't offer any support in any fashion, you just disagree."
Right back at you! Oh right.. you hide behind a really old book. Sounds logical to me.
For both feodor and the troll-boy:
It would really be helpful if you could provide an alternate or better definition of words you believe I don't understand and a link to the source you use to prove your point. Simply saying I need a dictionary when I already use the words properly is childishness on your part.
Indeed, showing exactly how I exhibit that I "don't know what I'm talking about" would go a long way toward demonstrating that you do. It's clear you don't like what I say. I get that.
Furthermore, regardless of whether or not a word indeed has multiple or varied definitions, I rarely, if ever, use words here in a manner that is not in line with common usage and understanding.
So, if you truly believe, and believe in a manner that will not provoke laughter and bemused amazement, that my understanding of the words "declare", "declaration" and/or "agenda" have not been used appropriately, prove it.
Then, try to show how the preamble of your first post is an agenda, or that a declaration is an agenda at the same time. I await the entertainment your sorry attempts will no doubt provide.
More fun with trolls:
"I'm pretty sure Ma is drunk."
That would be funny...if it was.
"have you been paying attention? You act like having an agenda is a bad thing."
Yes, I've been paying attention. You haven't spoken on the point of the post at all, that I can recall without re-reading every painfully stupid post you've offered. What's more, there is nothing in any of my comments that would suggest to anyone of even low intelligence that I have acted like having an agenda is a bad thing. Is there no limit to your stupidity? The point is whether or not one exists for the homo lobby. One does indeed and THAT agenda is indeed a bad thing for them and for us.
"Fyi.. I pray everyday for you."
Pardon me if I'm not convinced you even pray at all. I certainly hope you do. Pray for forgiveness for supporting that which God calls sinful.
"Once again.. youre upset that my set of beliefs is different than yours. Ma.. again.. put on your man-pants and growup."
Wrong again, Sparky. I'm not upset at all, only bored more than I can say. But the fact is that you never speak of your beliefs, other than demonstrating that you don't agree with me. That tells me so very little (likely a good thing) about what you believe. You obviously don't own man-pants and refuse to grow-up as evidenced by your consistent lack of substance in your comments. Stick your pencil-neck out a bit, troll, and state your case in a mature and reasoned fashion. THEN you can dare to question the manhood of others. Droll and witless comments of the type for which you seek fame ain't gettin' it done.
"Are you a real person?"
No. My comments are spontaneously generated by a rogue computer. Idiot.
"How do you balance all these conflicting ideas in your head?"
As shown by the above "flip-flop" accusation, you're not really good at identifying conflicting ideas.
"Btw.. California is now allowing gay history in schools. Can you imagine? History being taught in history class!"
Irrelevant and insignificant information will serve no child. The sexual perversions of an inventor have no importance as regards his invention. Only a morally bankrupt lefty would believe otherwise. The key here is whether or not these giants of education will focus on matters of true importance, or rather, as I have no doubt they will, inflate the importance of events, actions or influence of homosexuals in order to push the agenda that it is normal and morally benign behavior. The moral decline of our culture continues at a quickening pace thanks to fools like yourself.
""You don't say why, you don't offer any support in any fashion, you just disagree."
Right back at you! Oh right.. you hide behind a really old book."
Now you're just a lying. I always provide support and will provide more as the goofy counterpoints of lefty visitors might provoke. And I don't "hide" behind the Bible. What a stupid way to put it. That's like saying that I hide behind a mathematics text because I defend the truth that 2+2=4.
You really should give it up, Parkie. You're not equipped for this form of joust. If you want real discussion of our differences, I'm here for you. If you just want to trade quips, your time is short and getting shorter.
Why do you always want me to do your intellectual spadework?
I refuse! I draw a line in the sand. I am like Eric Cantor in yesterday's crisis meeting: my lips are sealed. I cannot solve your problems.
"Now you're just a lying. I always provide support and will provide more as the goofy counterpoints of lefty visitors might provoke. And I don't "hide" behind the Bible. What a stupid way to put it. That's like saying that I hide behind a mathematics text because I defend the truth that 2+2=4."
LOL.. Omg.. I havent laughed that hard in a long long time.
"THEN you can dare to question the manhood of others."
Sooooo.. you're not going to step-up? Thought so.
Feodork asked:
"Why do you always want me to do your intellectual spadework?"
I've never asked you to do anything for me, as if I can't do my own work for myself. I've asked that you back up your lame accusations with something tangible, like proof, for example. I am well aware of the meanings of words I use. In fact, if there is any doubt in my mind about the actual meaning of a word I intend to use, I do actually look it up so that my meaning is clear and my intentions are plain.
But you, you horse's ass, come here and claim I don't understanding a word you try to use improperly, claiming it is I who is so misguided, but you offer nothing to prove it, nor do you offer any explanation as to how I went wrong.
The point here, and I take these extra pains because you highly educated lefties need pictures painted for you, is that if you intend to counter anything I've said, you need to prove your point. I'm not the one who has to research your claims against my position. That is not my "spadework", idiot. It is YOURS, since you're the one making the counter argument.
The fact is you've made a fool of yourself and are trying to weasel out of admitting it or proving your idiocy is legitimate.
You're not too shabby at sounding intellectual. But you're a far cry from being intellectual. All that education. All those books. How pathetically sad.
Troll-boy,
I've deleted your more idiotic comments. Looks like I'll be deleting further comments from you until you get a spine and an actual thought and express something that, even if it isn't intelligent, might sound intellectual like feodor does. It would at least show some effort at actual discussion rather than your usual offerings of stupidity. I left two comments to which I will respond:
"Sooooo.. you're not going to step-up? Thought so."
I have a few hundred posts now at this blog. I've given my opinion on many things and have stood in to support those opinions at every turn. Step up? You've got to be a retard. And here's evidence:
"LOL.. Omg.. I havent laughed that hard in a long long time."
The constant "LOL" with nearly every comment indicates mental defect. You laugh, or claim to, but NEVER indicate in any way why what you "LOL" at is worthy of derision. You're a clinical idiot. What's so funny? When will YOU step up and defend whatever it is you think you believe, or at least why you disagree? C'mon, chicken-shit. Get off momma's lap and man up for a change. I can assure you I won't run away. But I tell you again, you're time is running short. Tick-tock, wuss.
I declare, Marshall, I don't understand how Parklife deserves your erasure when you've put up with me for so long.
I declare, Marshall, take a look at the distinction of the verb, declare, having an object (like #3, i.e., "I declare, you have blue eyes") and not having an object (like #8, i.e., making a declaration.)
FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL EPIC FAIL
de·clare
[dih-klair]
verb, -clared, -clar·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1.
to make known or state clearly, especially in explicit or formal terms: to declare one's position in a controversy.
2.
to announce officially; proclaim: to declare a state of emergency; to declare a winner.
3.
to state emphatically: He declared that the allegation was a lie.
4.
to manifest; reveal; show: Her attendance at the rally declared her political allegiance.
5.
to make due statement of, especially goods for duty or income for taxation.
6.
to make (a dividend) payable.
7.
Bridge . to bid (a trump suit or no-trump).
–verb (used without object)
8.
to make a declaration.
9.
to proclaim oneself (usually followed by for or against ): He declared against the proposal.
10.
Cricket . (of a team) to surrender a turn at bat in an innings before ten players are put out.
You're right, feo. You
"FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL EPIC FAIL"
Not once, in any of those definitions of the word "declare" do we see any relation to the word "agenda". That was your position, that the Declaration is an agenda, that preamble of said Declaration is an agenda. Your comment is pasted here:
"According to MA's skewed definition of agenda, here's an original agenda:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...""
You have yet to show how my definition of agenda is in any way skewed, OR how you've presented an agenda by the excerpt you pasted. Failure, your name is "feodor".
"Not once, in any of those definitions of the word "declare" do we see any relation to the word "agenda"."
Actually, I think #7 would fit.
Not a bridge player, Jim. I'll have to take your word for it.
Marshall, you're always forgetting the steps you've taken in the conversation (a good strategy for you would be to reread the comment thread before you attempt a response). You thereby create large gaps in the logic of your responses. This results in leading your even weaker readers astray, such as Craig.
Witness:
1. I quoted the Declaration of Independence which argues, as its agenda, that people have unalienable rights endowed by the Creator that cannot be ignored without social and political conflict. I thought you could have read the Declaration and gotten this simple sense, but I assumed too much.
2. I did not know that you, with your nose too stuck to the ground, would follow the word "declare" in the Declaration right off the map of its use of "declare" as in declaration (without an object) into your use of "declare" which, as is now pointed out, a different sense (with an object, i.e., blue eyes).
3. So, I had to teach you that your use of the word "declare" was not related to a declaration - therefore having no role to play in the agendas of declaration.
You've now confused yourself in that you think I think the word "declare" itself is supposed to have an agenda. If you read again - perhaps too large a burden for you to bear - you'll not find that.
4. It is the phenomenon of declarations that have agendas, and the agenda of the Declaration of Independence is announced by and immediately follows the phrase which includes the word "declare: "declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
So:
5. The word "declare" has several senses. Your example is not the sense in which it is uses in the Declaration of Independence, as I have precisely demonstrated.
6. The word as used in the Declaration of Independence is used in the sense of making a declaration.
7. Declarations have agendas: to communicate, in a formal way, a or several reasoned point(s).
8. Among the points constituting the agenda of the Declaration of Independence, but not the first, is that all persons are endowed with unalienable rights.
9. I seem to hear a devaluation of whatever passages are thought to be included in what you call the Preamble. You'll notice, Marshall, that the text as written, and the text as our Founding Fathers printed it, nowhere writes, prints or mentions any concept that the document has a "preamble." Indeed, the first 90% of it is one long paragraph.
[I hope you can follow this precision, but, to be safe, please reread a few times.]
10. Lastly, and the original reason I introduced the Declaration of Independence in the first place is to agree with you that the GLBT community does indeed have an agenda.
One that the Declaration of Independence shares:
"all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Thus, your EPIC and HISTORIC FAIL.
feodor,
"preamble: A preliminary statement, especially the introduction to a formal document that serves to explain its purpose."
Yeah, though that first comment of yours doesn't necessarily refer to itself as a preamble, it is without a doubt a part of one. Indeed, Wikipedia refers to it as, "the famous preamble" (note: under "Text"; "The next section..."). What it is most definitely not is an agenda. And despite your weak attempts to parse words finely enough to match your incorrect definitions, a declaration is that which is declared. The D of I declares the grounds for seeking independence, self-evident truths, a list of grievances justifying the declaration, disappointments with their sovereign and there exists "conditions under which people must change their government". Yet, despite your frantic and desperate wishes to the contrary, no agenda for achieving anything. It is, merely, a declaration of independence. And "agenda" is, to make it easy for you to understand, a "to do" list. Declaring their independence may have been on an agenda, but isn't itself an agenda. So, to most of your list:
1) The only thing that is simple is you and Parkie.
2) You have yet to show that my understanding of the words "declare" and "declaration" is incorrect. Your saying so is not proving anything but your own stupidity, as my usage is correct indeed.
3) You've taught me nothing I did not already know about both words from #2, as well as what an idiot you are. You have reiterated the latter, however, quite well. Good job.
4) You almost have a point here. To separate is an agenda point, but is far too generally stated to actually be an agenda in and of itself. An agenda would comprise steps to separate from Great Britain. At the same time, the declaration only states that they are declaring their independence or separation, not how they intend to achieve that, which would be an agenda. So close, but still an epic fail on your part, not mine.
5) Again, you've demonstrated nothing by merely saying so. As I said, the declaration merely declares their independence.
6) This point is especially stupid. The Declaration of Independence IS the founders making a declaration. Duh!
7) There is no "agenda" in the D of I. It is declaring their independence, their separation from GB. An agenda states what one intends to do. They are declaring what they are doing. How they are going to accomplish that will be an agenda as well.
8) That, too, is a declaration. It's not an agenda. Stating that we are endowed by our Creator with rights is a declaration of a fact that serves as the premise upon which they will declare independence. It is NOT an agenda as the statement does not indicate what they will do, but what is. Boy! you're desperate!
9) More stupidity that is somewhat explained above. They don't need to label the section as a preamble for it to be one.
10) You could have easily done this without going through so much effort to show how stupid you are. A simple "I agree. They do have an agenda." would have sufficed and demonstrated the possibility that you aren't 100% full of shit. But it obviously must be on your personal agenda to make every comment a public declaration of how you've wasted time reading books and money going to universities.
And BTW, homos have not been deprived of any of those unalienable rights despite their protestations to the contrary. They've been denied only that which others would be denied. Nothing more.
Ah, stubborn density, thy name is Art... armed with Wikipedia to reassure them that the Preamble is more true than Jeffferson.
feodor,
First off is this thing about "stubborn density". I have shown more precision in defining terms, as well as showing how the definitions fit each case than anything you've yet to present. You are the dense one as you continue to fail in your attempts to make your mistakes work. They won't because they can't. As to "stubborn", I am indeed stubborn about the truth and do not see that as a fault, as much as you'd like it to be. I can see how it makes your life difficult as the truth stands in the way of how you'd like to appear to be the wise one. It would help if you would align with the truth, and facts and what is righteous and virtuous and your struggle to appear wise would not be so overwhelming for you.
As to the rest of your comment, it lacks precision in relating whatever intentions provoked it. Are you suggesting that Jefferson must himself entitle a section of his work "The Preamble" in order for it to be a preamble? If so, would he then have to label the center section "The Middle" in order for it to be a middle section?
Ah, stupidty desperate to be regarded as intellectual, thy name is feodor.
I'm sure Jefferson would agree that it was quite hot when he was in Philadelphia writing, but I seriously doubt he would have wished for a window unit AC.
When he wrote the first word, surely he felt he had beginning. What historians would call that beginning he had not a clue.
Idiot.
"I'm sure Jefferson would agree that it was quite hot when he was in Philadelphia writing, but I seriously doubt he would have wished for a window unit AC."
How very enlightening! Did you deduce that all on your own? Regardless of whether or not anyone at the time imagined some way to cool a room during a heat wave, what makes you think he would have preferred enduring the heat when a method to relieve that suffering could be introduced?
Idiot.
"When he wrote the first word, surely he felt he had beginning. What historians would call that beginning he had not a clue."
Unlike yourself, Jefferson was both educated AND intelligent. His work on our founding documents demonstrates that as well as his understanding of words, another gaping difference between the two of you. What's more, regardless of whether or not he ever took a moment in his life to consider what word others, historians or otherwise, would use to label any part or excerpt of any of his writings, "preamble" is an appropriate word to describe the section in question. In fact, you pompous and intelligence challenged buffoon, google "preamble to the Declaration of Independence" and see how many sites appear using that term for the very excerpt you originally posted. Then, rather than apologize for your arrogant refusal to admit your mistake, simply re-insert your head back up your ass.
Flaming idiot.
Marshall, since you haven't picked this up, I'll spell it out for you. I am aware that the opening few sentences of the Declaration are called, by historians and all good school children like you, the Preamble.
I am also aware that the first sentence of the US Constitution is called, by historians and all good school children like you, the Preamble.
I am further aware, as another instance, that the first amendment to the US Constitution is often by called, by historians and legal theorists, the "Establishment Clause" or the "Free Exercise Clause. I'm sure you've heard this at some point in your lifetime but may have not retained the name and now will, no doubt, repair to you highest power - Wikipedia - to explore further.
I am aware - since I find that you need a mountain of civil liberty and us legal homework, I'll end with this - that the Fifth Amendment is often called, by historians and legal theorists, the "Due Process Clause." I'm sure you've heard this at some point in your lifetime but may have not retained the name and now will, no doubt, repair to you highest power - Wikipedia - to explore further.
The question you need to ask yourself is whether the Founding Fathers ever anticipated electric air conditioning or that historians long after would analyze their writings and label sections it seemed helpful to label with names they never used?
Imbecilic idiocy and, appropriate for today, "willful blindness."
"I am aware that the opening few sentences of the Declaration are called, by historians and all good school children like you, the Preamble."
Apology accepted.
"I am also aware that the first sentence of the US Constitution is called, by historians and all good school children like you, the Preamble."
Good for you. You must be so proud.
"I am further aware, as another instance, that the first amendment to the US Constitution is often by called, by historians and legal theorists, the "Establishment Clause" or the "Free Exercise Clause."
How impressive!
"I am aware - since I find that you need a mountain of civil liberty and us legal homework, (where did you find it? I've been looking all over---you're an idiot) I'll end with this - that the Fifth Amendment is often called, by historians and legal theorists, the "Due Process Clause."
My, how you can carry on with irrelevant bits of trivia! Impressing yourself all to hell, I'll bet.
I don't know how you came to think that Wikipedia holds any special significance for me. But then, there's so much about which you go on that makes so very little sense. Using Wiki has two benefits: it's convenient and lefty leaning. The latter point results in lefties like yourself blubbering and babbling as you try to justify the stupid things you say that Wiki contributors have contradicted, such as that D of I excerpt of yours being a preamble. Look at you now, bending over backwards to make a silk purse out of the sow's ear of an epic fail of yours.
"The question you need to ask yourself is whether the Founding Fathers ever anticipated electric air conditioning or that historians long after would analyze their writings and label sections it seemed helpful to label with names they never used?"
Actually, there is no reason whatsoever for me to ask myself that question. It would serve no useful purpose in any way. No one, back then or now, needs to specifically point to a section and label it at all. Those sections would still be what they are without anyone having done so. A conclusion is a conclusion whether or not the author or speaker so entitles it a conclusion. A greeting is still a greeting whether or not someone greets another with a "Hello, how are you?" and then follows it with a "How do you respond to my greeting?" or not.
Here's a question you have to ask of your own self: Is it really necessary to try and extricate your foot from your mouth when by doing so you will only shove it back in more deeply, which must be uncomfortable when your head is so far up your ass to begin with?
Talk about "imbecilic idiocy"! All this could have been avoided had you not allowed your pompous arrogance to rule your mentally challenged ego. But no. You couldn't stand being schooled on the proper use of the words "agenda", "declare", "declaration" and "preamble" (more precisely, shown that they were not improperly used to begin with), so you dug yourself a nice hole out of which you could not climb.
Once again, you pathetic loser, you give education a bad name. If I ever thought my kids would graduate from their higher education to be anything like you, I'd pull them from their schools and burn those schools down. YOU are absolutely one stupid individual.
"You couldn't stand being schooled on the proper use of the words "agenda", "declare", "declaration" and "preamble" (more precisely, shown that they were not improperly used to begin with)..."
Sorry, no need for me to have gone to the school of Sisyphus.
If you cannot be honest and own up to your mistakes of laziness when using those words, then - to borrow from Simp's bag of one club only - you have no ounce of integrity as a conversation partner.
You're a truck stop Rupert Murdoch.
"Sorry, no need for me to have gone to the school of Sisyphus."
What a great analogy for your efforts. You work so hard trying to appear intellectual only to find that work pathetically futile, only to see you go back and start rolling that boulder again and again. That might be the most intelligent thing you've ever said here despite it being meant as an insult to me.
"If you cannot be honest and own up to your mistakes of laziness when using those words..."
I might if you could show how my usage is some kind of example of laziness. The words were used properly and by their very definitions. In fact, they were most "precise" in their usage. But perhaps it's just that you don't understand the word "integrity", either, which means "adherence to moral principles; honesty" or "the quality of being unimpaired; soundness", neither of which describes you. A man (or "boy" in your case) with integrity wouldn't obfuscate in conversations with another, while trying to appear more intellectual than he actually is. One with integrity would stick to the freakin' point of the post instead of leaving comments of incredible irrelevancy in place of thoughtful opinions regarding the topic at hand, also in order to appear brilliant. No, simpleton. You have no standing to speak of integrity. Not until you display a little of it yourself.
As your guru says, see above.
Feodor,
Who, in your wild imaginings, do you believe I regard as a guru?
True, I was being too kind.
Your demagogue.
You can look up the definition of demagogue, can't you?
I'm well aware of what a "demagogue" is. Perhaps you can explain why that's necessarily a bad thing.
Are you serious? You think you know what it means?
God, Marshall, pick up a book.
Demagogue:
- noun
1 : a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power.
–verb (used with object)
3.
to treat or manipulate (a political issue) in the manner of a demagogue; obscure or distort with emotionalism, prejudice, etc.
Thanks for demonstrating how you can back yourself into a corner. Wasn't it YOU who first spoke of precision in word usage? And isn't it true that the word "demagogue" can simply mean:
1. A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.
2. A leader of the common people in ancient times.
-American Heritage Dictionary
Obviously, one needn't distort or lie at all to appeal to people in order to lead them or incite them to actions of their own. Impassioned appeals to emotions or prejudices can also be positive emotions and prejudices, unless you insist on also painting those two words in only negative hues.
You speak of precision in word usage only to frame yourself as more thoughtful and intellectual, but in fact, have no noticeable talent for precision in word usage.
But, by your chosen definition, the one you use to demean a better man, in what way has the object of your derision either lied, or shown a desire to gain power by doing so? It is libel on your part.
If we were to live in an era when demagogue was anything but pejorative, you would then also have to abide by the following American Heritage Dictionary listing:
gay
adjective, -er, -est, noun, adverb
–adjective
1.
having or showing a merry, lively mood: gay spirits; gay music.
2.
bright or showy: gay colors; gay ornaments.
3.
given to or abounding in social or other pleasures: a gay social season.
God but you're a stubborn, ridiculous idiot.
The use of the word "demagogue" by people like yourself is always pejorative. This is a given. The left lives on pejoratives as they are easier than a real argument. But I've shown that the word is not necessarily so and if you're going to bring up "precision" in word usage, you can't then assume YOUR intended meaning MUST be inferred by the reader. What's more, if you're going to use it pejoratively and by the un-sourced definition you provided, you need to explain why the application of that word is appropriate, especially in light of the fact that neither myself nor my conservative visitors seek power or are obscuring or distorting anything. To apply the word as you intend it to be understood is to lie.
What's more, that IS the definition of "gay" and I do abide that definition. You'll note that I never use the word to mean "homo" without using quotation marks to surround it. I DON'T abide the commandeering of terms by sexual deviants to soften the seriousness of their sin in the eyes of the culture.
"God but you're a stubborn, ridiculous idiot."
The false priest uses His name in vain to express a false statement. Obviously you proudly fly YOUR true colors, too.
Why am I not surprised that, in the end, you'd turn out to be gay.
"Why am I not surprised that, in the end, you'd turn out to be gay."
If you mean happy, there's no reason you should be surprised. If you mean homosexual, there's no reason I should be surprised you'd say something so stupid.
Tell everyone in your line of work that you're gay. I'm sure they'll understand, up to date as they surely are on archaisms.
I'm well aware of what the word has become thanks to the efforts of sexual deviants and their enablers. Thus, I would say, "I'm happy and gay, but definitley not a homo." See? Problem solved.
Go ahead. Try it out. Say it loud and say it proud.
And then dispossess yourself of your shoes when you come into the house.
"Go ahead. Try it out. Say it loud and say it proud."
I have, false priest. Moral and reasonable people of good character fully understand my meaning and also lament the bastardization of perfectly good words at the hands of sexual deviants and their enablers.
"And then dispossess yourself of your shoes when you come into the house."
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
Anyone who claims the word, "gay," can still communicate what you suggest would know.
Unless, like you, they too were full of shit.
feodor,
I'm sure few would expect to be able to use the word without explanation now that the homo lobby and their enablers have so bastardized it. Just one of the many ways the morally corrupted have damaged our culture.
And who do you blame for corrupting the word, "dispossess" from its "original" meaning?
feo,
Why don't you save time and explain your comments in the same post? What the hell are you talking about regarding the word "dispossess" and how has its meaning changed in your feeble mind?
And do your intellectual spade work again? Nope.
Well, ok, since you're so helpless, google the word and Somerset Maugham together.
I have a better idea: tell me why I should give a flyin' rat's ass WHAT you believe about the word "dispossess". I know what it means and a quick review of several dictionary sites not only confirmed my understanding, but showed that it is commonly used as I understand its meaning.
You should defend yourself because if you don't you implicitly agree that you're full of shit about using the word, "gay," and about the fact that there was some conspiratorial agenda to twist the word.
Words change in meaning all the time across time. "Dispossess" is one case where we no longer use it, like we no longer use "gay" in the ways we once did. Yet there is no conspiracy. ["Ashenden unwrapped his scarf and disembarrassed himself of his heavy coat." From "Miss King" by Somerset Maugham.]
So, too, over the years have disappeared meanings for thousands of English words. Deliver (to describe, to let in, admit), inordinate (irregular, ungovernable), merely (absolutely), obnoxious (exposed to, submissive), peremptory (deadly, destructive), plausible (praiseworthy, deserving applause), success (the outcome of an action for bad or good), suit (order, succession), towardness (docility), abused (deceived), application (adaptation), casualty (uncertainty), conjugations (relationships of husband and wife), combustion (feverish excitement), continent (container), curious (made with care), depress and disable (both meaning disparage)...
Your opposition to the changed meaning of gay is a small sign of your inability to recognize and deal with the real world. And I think I have a mission from God to encourage you to be obnoxious - in your archaic take on vocabulary - to the real world, as God - over time in the Spirit - has inexorably moved to make it thus, changed almost utterly from the real world issues which the Judean tribes and Hellenistic church faced in faith.
OK. Now I know where you're going. It seems that you think because meanings of many words have changed over the years, that the word "gay" or other words bastardized by homosexuals, is an example of a natural metamorphosis. They aren't. As I say, they have been bastardized in order to further their agenda of normalizing their behavior.
The change of meaning in most words happen by a far less malicious intention, generally by misuse that becomes standardized. In some cases, the misuse is intentional for the sake of making a point or literary license in the same way words might be "coined". This isn't the case with words stolen by sexual deviants. There is a clear distinction between the more "natural" morphing of word meanings and the theft of words with the intention of masking sinfulness.
So nice of you to give me opportunity to point out the deceit of such practices.
"OK. Now I know where you're going."
What do you mean, you know. I had to lead you all the way to the water and now you're going to tell me you know how we got here? Stop kidding yourself, Marshall, you don't know how to think about the changing nature of language.
Kids were so malicious when they took "cool" and changed it so. They took "bad" and changed it so. They took "gnarly" and changed it so. They took Dude and changed it so.
Those damn kids and their hedonistic agenda. Let's return English to it origins, without all these bastardizations!!!!!!!! Back to the original, God-given language:
Hwæt, we gar-dena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon!
oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum,
monegum mægþum meodosetla ofteah,
egsode eorlas, syððanærest wearð
feasceaft funden; he þæs frofre gebad,
weox under wolcnum weorðmyndum þah,
oð þæt him æghwylc ymbsittendra
ofer hronrade hyran scolde,
gomban gyldan; þæt wæs god cyning!
Ðæm eafera wæs æfter cenned
geong in geardum, þone God sende
folce to frofre; fyrenðearfe ongeat,
þe hie ær drugon aldorlease
lange hwile; him þæs Liffrea,
wuldres Wealdend woroldare forgeaf,
Beowulf wæs breme --- blæd wide sprang---
Scyldes eafera Scedelandum in.
Swa sceal geong guma gode gewyrcean,
fromum feohgiftumon fæder bearme,
Nice try, butthead (notice how I took two words with specific meanings and appropriated them for the purpose of describing the quality of both your character and level of intelligence). But pointing to the youth culture and trying to draw a parallel with that and the agenda of the homo lobby is another epic fail on your part (your true success is your penchant for epic failure in debate---congratulations). Kids, when using words for their own coded communications, do not generally hope to influence all of society, regardless of whether or not it happens. Sure, they might like it if the culture accepts behaviors their childish and immature minds believe to be their right (damn! where do we see THAT happening now?), but they simply want to do what they want to do. In the meantime, something can still be "far out" and not be close by. Something can be "cool" enough to be meteorologically comfortable. Things that are "bad" are still also those things that are not good for you. Rarely do you need to explain what you mean when using those terms, depending on context and with whom you are conversing.
But "gay" needs to be explained. If one wishes to use the word by its actual meaning, too many people with think of homos. That in and of itself isn't so much the issue, as such morphing of definitions does indeed happen all the time. But the point, you mindless cretin, is that in the case of the homos appropriating words, it is done with wicked intent, to lessen the true sinful quality of the behavior in their aim to normalize it and so corrupt the whole of society to their way of thinking. THAT was my point regarding their misuse of perfectly good words.
As such, where you've been leading me is to view their word appropriation as no different than the morphing of other words througout the ages. This is similar to the lobby itself trying to normalize the behavior and in the same way, you are as corrupt as they are (but that's merely saying what has been plain for a long time).
"This is similar to the lobby itself trying to normalize the behavior and in the same way, you are as corrupt as they are..."
I see where you're going now. You mean something like the lobby that is trying to wrest constitutional rights away from women regarding their own bodies by, in part, twisting a scientific word like "fetus" into an agenda driven manipulation by stacking the emotional deck and substituting the ridiculous - and oddly empty of constructive meaning - phrase, "the unborn"?
I got you.
You've got nothin'. Are you seriously going to pretend that when the term "unborn" is expressed you have no idea what is implied? Are you really that dishonest?
But the notion to which I refer is exemplified in the appropriation of terms like "constitutional rights", "right to privacy", "pursuit of happiness" and similar noble sentiments to justify the murder of one's own child so as to abdicate the responsibility of maturely dealing with the consequences of one's sexual dalliances. I'm referring to those who take a word like "fetus" and pretend it doesn't mean a stage of development in utero and as applied to human beings factually indicates a stage of HUMAN development, twisting the true definition to mean something non-human. So thanks for bringing up another example that parallels what the homos are doing with words. You're a gem.
"Are you seriously going to pretend that when the term "unborn" is expressed you have no idea what is implied?"
?
That last comment tells the tale. You say "unborn" is "oddly empty of constructive meaning". Only to a fool like yourself, so I'm not surprised all you can say in response to my question is "?".
Marshall, what do you think the prefix "un" can possibly mean?
Unborn is a negative construction because of the "un." A positive construction would be a word that ascribes content to a thing, like "dolt," as in you really showed yourself a dolt here. A negatively constructed word in this area would be incompetent. This is negative because what it means is that you are "not" competent. It does not provide any thought as to what you are (like dolt).
So, "unborn," says nothing in terms of ascription of what the fetus actually is (positive construction). It only says what it is not (negative construction).
God, I should get paid for all this remedial work.
"A negatively constructed word in this area would be incompetent."
Only to an incompetent fool like yourself in your impotent attempt to win this point. Everyone, especially these days, understands what is being conveyed by the use of the term "unborn". It is filled with meaning and precisely means "one not born" and in the abortion debate signifies that child, at any stage of development, who has not yet passed through the birth canal to see the light of day.
But YOU, you twit, use "fetus" as if it means any being in that stage of development being equal to any other. But a dog fetus is an animal in the fetal stage and a human fetus is a person in that stage of development. Honest, rational and moral people do not equivocate as regards what stage of development a person may be. To such a human zygote is a person as much as any other person already born, except for you, in which case they are more so.
Thus, in the area of the abortion debate, even people on YOUR side of the debate exist with enough honesty to understand that the terms "fetus" and "unborn" both speak of human beings, even if they don't have the Christian soul to regard them as such themselves.
"God, I should get paid for all this remedial work."
The false priest once again uses His name in vain, and worse, suggests that anyone would pay him for failing to do get a job done at all, much less well.
My dog has something unborn in it. Stay close, I'll let you know what comes out.
"My dog has something unborn in it. Stay close, I'll let you know what comes out."
Your sex life is none of my concern.
feo,
You'll note that if you say your dog has something unborn in it, it is far from likely, except perhaps by those like yourself, that the term could ever be understood to imply an unborn human being, even if you had anything to do with the dog having that something in it.
But when pro-lifers speak of the unborn, only a jackass like yourself would have difficulty understanding what is meant by the term "unborn".
Post a Comment