Sunday, February 05, 2017

From The Sad, Pathetic Little "Man"

As the title of this post implies, the topic is compelled by a nonsensical question posed by feo.  Before I get to it, there are two other statements he made on which I wish to comment.  Don't bother trying to find them, I've been deleting his comments due to restrictions placed upon him due to his ongoing hateful behavior.  But these comments and the questions I thought were worth saving until I had the time to compose a post about them that will demonstrate once again how foolish he insists on being.  Let's begin:

"In christian theology marriage is a sacrament of the presence of God in the love two people have for each other."

Remember, this is a guy who brags about his vast knowledge and understanding of the Christian faith and his overall intellectual superiority.  The above may be an example merely of hasty composition, but it's really not much of a definition.  That is, it wouldn't pass the editor's approval due to it's sloppiness and lack of precision.  Here's a far better definition:

In Christian theology, the sacrament of marriage is the union of one man and one woman who, in the sight of God and for His glory, vow to love, honor and serve each other faithfully, forsaking all others, until death parts them.

That's far more accurate a representation of what a Christian marriage is.   Indeed, that's what is actually is in fact.

"I like rubbing your nose in who you are given that you (sic)  spine bends that far back."

Since the first time he's darkened this blog by his arrogant and condescending presence, as if he's ever presented reason to justify such attitudes, he has either failed to understand who I am, or, more likely, lacks the honesty to acknowledge who I am.  For example, despite repeated requests for evidence to support the charge, he likes to think I'm racist.  I've no doubt that's just his self-loathing white guilt talking and I pray that when he gets the psychological counseling he so desperately needs then that issue will be addressed as well as all the others.

As to spine, I'm not sure exactly what he means there.  But he hasn't demonstrated he has the spine to engage in honest discourse without the nasty, hateful pettiness.  He likely is referring to his charge that I dodge his accusations or something to that effect.  An absurd charge to say the least.  It's a defensive tactic when faced with that which his "intellect" fails to provide a legitimate and compelling response.  I'd actually have to be an incredible coward to run from the lame and infantile rhetoric and accusations he constantly puts forth.  I mean, it's not like he offers up anything that I'd consider a real stumper.  And the question (more of a demand, really) to which I referred is a good example:

"Try to explain to me how baking a cake for a gay wedding supports gay marriage but voting for a racist isn't supporting racism."

No "trying" required, first of all. 

To provide anything for the celebration of sexual immorality, which he refers to as "a 'gay' wedding", is to take part in the celebration.  That's obvious.  It doesn't matter whether one provides a product or service for free or if one charges for doing so.  It is taking part in the celebration either way.  Certainly, one's participation ends once the product or service is delivered, but taking part it is nonetheless.  Promoters of sexual immorality like to pretend that isn't the case, but the whole purpose of the product or service being requested is to celebrate that immoral and depraved union.  To provide that product or service acknowledges that the union of two of the same sex can actually be a marriage.  Such acknowledgement is support for the notion.  As such a union cannot be a marriage, to acknowledge the union of a same-sex couple is to affirm that it can.  That's called support for the notion.  "You are charged with supporting the revolution against our president!"  "No!  I just provided the guns!"  That dog, as they say, just won't hunt.

The question seeks to prove that I support a racist.  There are two problems with this:

1.  Trump isn't a racist and there's no evidence, hard or otherwise, that proves he is.  There is evidence he is not.  For instance:

http://ipatriot.com/proof-donald-trump-no-racist/

Of course to sad and pathetic self-loathing people suffering from white guilt, if you're white, you're racist.  That's feo.

2.  But let's assume that I voted for an actual racist, just for the sake of argument.  Does that mean that I support racism?  It certainly would be if I was a racist as well, and voted for the person because the person's a racist.  But might there be legitimate reasons why one might vote for a racist?   Of course.  It's the lesser of two evils dynamic, just like it was in reality with the choice between Trump and Clinton:  the desire to prevent a far worse candidate from winning.  I don't have to like a person personally in order to vote for that person, particularly if I think that person, despite that person's faults, is unquestionably a better choice than the other person, or said another way, that the other person is far worse and needs to never win an election ever.

What's more, a racist (or any other foul person) who is a conservative, or simply favors most of the same things I favor, would be the better choice over the other person whose positions I totally oppose.  And that's another point of relevance.  Trump is not a free trade guy.  I am.  But does my vote for him mean I support protectionism?  In politics, as in love, it's next to impossible to find a perfect fit in an off the rack world.

Of course, it would be hard to find a conservative who is a racist.  Racists are almost always leftists who vote Democrat...the party of racists.  feo's a racist.  He hates his own race.  By his logic, allowing him to comment here means I support racism.  But I clearly don't support anything about a sad and pathetic little "man" like feo, except his visiting here to engage in discourse in a respectful and courteous manner regardless of who attacks him personally...because he'll be deleted if he doesn't.  He's earned that special status.

So that should answer his question quite completely.  Let's see if he's smart enough and honest enough to acknowledge that it has been answered, and answered in a manner that can no longer allow him to pretend I've supported racism by voting for Trump.  Don't anybody hold their breath.

69 comments:

Craig said...

Never said it was only about that. Simply that what goes where is one thing the differentiated between hetro and homo. But feel free to continue to make unsubstantiated false claims about what I've said. At least until you get deleted for stupidity.

Marshall Art said...

Craig's comment is in response to one from the sad, pathetic little "man" himself, feo, who is incapable of acting maturely despite this post pointing out how sad and pathetic a little "man" he is. A normal person would take that opportunity to show how wrong my assessment is by commenting in a manner that implies he is a less sad, less pathetic little "man" than I have stated he is. Instead, he validates my opinion with every comment he posts.

In the aforementioned comment, he claims that "even I know" the sacrament of marriage isn't about the machinery of what goes where. Aside from the childish manner in which feo posted the comment, it is wholly irrelevant to the post. It's funny that this post was a response to the ludicrous charge that I avoid feo's probing questions designed to expose what he thinks is my inferior knowledge and understanding about whatever he needs to believe he more knowledgeable. But I suppose having failed, again, all he has left is to lash out. In doing so, he has, as I have said, validated my assessment. He's truly a sad, pathetic little "man".

So now the question remains: Can feo suck it up, suppress his wholly unjustified huge ego to engage in discourse like someone who truly is more educated, more well read, a superior intellect and an actual student and teacher of Christianity? Or has he totally embraced the title of sad, pathetic little "man"?

Guess where my money would be.

Craig said...

The fact that you continue to maintain this fantasy regarding the reasons why you get deleted is a little bit concerning for those of us who spend most of our time in the real world.

Feodor said...

In the real world people hear about a wedding and think of love. Only perverts like yourself think about the machinery of what part goes where.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Only perverts like Feo think male/male and female/female sex is normal and should be sanctioned and praised and celebrated.

Craig said...

Oh how I love it when you misrepresent what I've said.

Just for grins, I'll play along until the deletion starts.

Are you trying to suggest that I support/supported Trump?

Craig said...

I guess answering a simple direct question is beyond your limited ability to grasp. It's a simple question which if actually answered might prove worthwhile.

Craig said...

OK, I'm going to try this one more time and try to keep it simple. Are you suggesting that I have in the past, or currently do support Trump?

It's a pretty simple direct question it could be answered either yes or no. I'm beginning to doubt your willingness or ability to do so, but there is no reason for any other response. If, you can actually answer the question as it was asked then it might be possible to Move on but until you can do so ...

Marshall Art said...

It is clear that feo is too immature, arrogant and cowardly to play by the rules his hateful attitude and behavior has imposed upon him. I will leave all of his inane comments up just so anyone who cares can see the low quality of his character.

However, the question that has been answered rather exhaustively and comprehensively by this post he continues to ask others, as if expecting a different answer from others who also lack his refusal to deal in truth and logic. The difference between baking a cake for an SSM being a supportive act, versus voting for Trump being a sign of support for racism (despite Trump not being racist in the least) is stark and obvious to those who are not corrupted by an intense hatred of the truth...which is so true and obvious of the sad, pathetic little "man" that is feo.

No one is obliged to do a damned thing demanded by feo, who refuses to respond to legitimate questions or requests with maturity and the Christian attitude of which he feign superior knowledge.

No one is obliged to disavow Trump or any other center-right figure, as if feo's charges against such figure are actually true (feo never having supported any of his charges against the guy that we already haven't clearly and unequivocally acknowledged). As I said before the election, Trump was not guilty of anything that could not also be leveled at Clinton (specifics notwithstanding).

Rather, feo is required to abide that which his behavior has invited. He thinks he's special and unique. Fine. He now is required to follow rules of engagement that are special and unique to him. Thus, from this point forward, after having allowed to stand comments that don't possess any quality that justifies doing so, no further comments of his will remain until I have had the time to respond where I feel a response is justified. There's only one way that I will not delete his childish and inane comments from this point on, and that is if he actually abides the terms I have set for him for the privilege.

Again, no need for anyone else to hold breath. He's incapable of acting like the Christian he pretends he is.

Craig said...

Feo, thank you ever so much for providing such overwhelming and convincing proof of your prejudice.

I have frequently and publicly on at least 3 blogs (two of which I know you have perished) made my feelings about Trump known. The fact that you continue to make assumptions that are contrary to multiple public evidences simply demonstrates your unfamiliarity with the truth. You made numerous false unsupported claims elsewhere, which you refused to support, now you continue with the same ridiculous behavior.

The problem you have is that your hatred fro Trump colors your perception and causes you to assume that anything less than a call for lunching equals support.

In my case, my views on Trump are out there for anyone to see, and if you're too lazy to research before you make stupid assumptions it's not my job to bail your idiotic ass out of the hole you've dug.

Ultimately the problem with the "Trump is a racist" crowd is that there's no actual proof of racism. (Unlike Robert Byrd or Sen Fullbright for example). I'm sure he's said some things that may or may not indicate racism, but so did Clinton (and she threw in anti Semitic comments as well). So, if intellectual consistency is a goal then it seems that one couldn't single out Trump while ignoring Clinton.

But it's clear that anything less that full throated hatred won't be tolerated by y'all.

Given the fact that Trump is president all I can do is evaluate him based on what he does. But that's clearly to reasonable.

Once again, thanks, I knew you didn't have the spine to provide a simple answer to a simple question and that you're not one to let facts get in the way of a good rant.

Craig said...

1. I'm not from, nor have I ever even visited Crete.
2. The time lag in my response had zero to do with Marshall and everything to do with the fact that I have a lot of stuff going on that's more important than responding to your inane demands
3. My views on Trump are on the record in multiple places, the fact that your too lazy or not intelligent enough to find out what the facts are before you enter your fantasy world is not my problem.
4. Your name calling attempt to taunt me into doing what you want went out of fashion in 3rd grade or so. Grow up.
5. Yes my Christian worldview does indeed shape my views on virtually every candidate I consider. If you had the wit to do a tiny bit of research you'd know exactly where I've stood on Trump for months, instead of these increasingly ridiculous attempts to shoehorn me into your prejudice driven vision of what you assume I think rather that in the world of fact and evidence with the rest of us.

Craig said...

Art,
I asked you to hold off from deleting any comments on the slim chance that Feo would actually be intellectually honest enough to answer one simple direct question, clearly he is unable to do so.

While I'll probably respond as I have time (you probably have a fair idea of what I'm busy with), you may consider my request withdrawn. It's clearly too much to ask.

Feodor said...

I'm opposed to Trump more than I have ever been opposed to any President and as much as any Presidential candidate that I've ever known.

Craig, that's how easy it is. Intellect isn't required; simply support Trump or renounce him. But you won't; you don't have the balls of a snake.

Craig said...

That's not the issue. As long as you refuse to live in the real world where the evidence you want is readily available, I see no reason to give in to your petulant childish demands.

I suspect I know why you won't actually search the answer out for yourself, if you do then you'd have to admit that virtually every conclusion you've drawn about my views on Trump is false, which means you'd need to admit you've been wrong. So you're either to lazy to do a little search or you don't have the spine to admit your mistakes.

I know which one I think it is.

Craig said...

Your fear of being proven wrong must be powerful, I've rarely encountered one so craven. Nor anyone so averse to facts and truth. I understand that it's easier to hide behind bias and prejudice rather than seeking the truth.

But you've mastered repeating yourself in lieu of actually providing any substance, so that's something.

Feodor said...

I'll answer anything you ask now. I just needed clarity in the capacities and incaoacities of the audience.

Craig said...

What hubris. You can't answer one simple question, you parade your prejudices and assumptions as if they are fact, you don't have the motivation to actually find out reality before you spew your fantasies about others, and you somehow think your failures demonstrate something about anyone but you.

It's honestly amusing as hell to have watched your increasingly pathetic attempts to cling to your fantasy that somehow you can just assume things contrary to fact and to resist all attempts to educate yourself about reality.

Craig said...

I did ask you a question, one simple direct question in this thread, you've dodged and obfuscated ever since I asked.

In the other thread I asked you to demonstrate that the series of claims you made were accurate.

In both cases I've gotten no answers, just whining and excuses.

Just because you refuse to realize that the answers you want are out there for you to find, doesn't mean they don't exist. You have to admit that an actual time/date stamped comment or post from months ago would be a much better demonstration of my views than simply parroting what you demand that I say to satisfy your arbitrary demand.

Craig said...

Only in some sort of alternate Feoverse, is saying, "Look at the evidence, instead of your prejudices." a sign of cowardice, while bullying people into saying something a sign of superiority.

That Feo is so intent on ignoring the record available to him in favor of his own prejudices seems to indicate a deep irrational fear that he's not as superior as he thinks he is.

Craig said...

I don't know how to even deal with someone so divorced from reality.

A. My views on Trump (the answer to your question) are publicly available for any with the wit and interest in finding them. You clearly are lacking in both
B. In what alternate reality is failure to answer a question, answering a question.

I'm in awe at the level of fear that drives you to bullying, as opposed to doing a teensy tiny bit of research for your self.

I'm proud of you for demonstrating your mastering of the challenging skill of copy/paste, maybe you could practice the skill of the search and impress us some more.


Craig said...

Once again, I'm not from Crete. I'm also not refusing to answer, I'm pointing out that I already have. Perhaps that subtle difference escapes you.

Obviously answering questions and demonstrating that your claims are accurate escapes you.

Craig said...

Except you didn't actually answer it. It's a yes or no question, which you "think" you answered. If you're not sure, why would I be?

I do so get tired of repeating, but until you comprehend I guess that's all I can do.

My views on Trump have been in clear public view for months, your inability or unwillingness to acknowledge this fact and do your research doesn't mitigate the fact that the information you claim to want is in clear public view.

But, please continue to act as if repeating your childish refrain will trump reality.

Feodor said...

Let me take out all those words you can't understand:

Cowering Craig: "Are you trying to suggest that I support/supported Trump?"

Feodor: "... [left out so as not to confuse cowering Craig] You support Trump."


WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT A "YES" IS THE ANSWER???? 😂😂😂😂😂

Craig said...

Here's your chance, you're going to get one shot at this. If you can assure me, that you will except whatever answer I give you as an accurate representation of my views on Trump, and that if my answer disagrees with your assumptions that you will admit that your assumptions are incorrect, I will answer your question as posed. If you cannot give me those assurances, then the answer I have given you multiple times previously will have to suffice.

Craig said...

I knew you'd balk at a. Accepting whatever answer I gave & b. Acknowledging that you could be wrong.

Your unwillingness to look at the record coupled with your inability to accept whatever answer I might give leads me to suspect that your question isn't a request for information as much as an attempt to accomplish some other end.

Too bad you chose to blow your chance.

Craig said...

Not at all, just followed your example. Surely you remember, "I'll demonstrate the accuracy of my claims as soon an MA stops deleting my comments." ( or words to that effect). Just like Dan, you demand that others adhere to standards of behavior you refuse the adhere to yourself.

One last chance. You've kind of said you'd own your false assumptions, but still balking at accepting test my answer accurately reality.

I'm not sure you can do it, but maybe you can.

Craig said...

Fine, even though you are unwilling to commit yourself to providing the assurance I ask...

My answer (had you invested the effort to find it) is that I have been unable to support Trump for president for this entire election cycle. My primary reason for this lack of support was that I believe that ethics and morals are the primary qualities I look for on any elected official. Given that I could not disqualify Clinton for her moral and ethical failures while ignoring Trumps.

Not only did I not support Trump, I did not vote for him. (I would suggest that there are a number of folks on both sides who voted for someone that did not support as the "lesser of two evils"). I was prepared to leave the presidential ballot blank, but voted for one of the other options.

One final note, I've written elsewhere that Trump simply reflects our current pop culture society in which all sorts of vulgar, boorish, depraved, immoral, and unethical people are regularly elevated to prominence and showered with respect and adulation. It doesn't surprise me at all that a society that idolizes Miley Cyrus, Tech Nine, and the Real Housewives would elect someone like Trump.

Now, will you shut the hell up? Or bitch because I didn't use your idiotic A/B but instead went a little deeper.

Or you could have looked and seen me arguing about this very thing with MA among others.

Feodor said...

Hey! Wow! Beautiful! I was wrong, you don't support the Predator in Chief. Fantastic. Now extend those commitments to resist brutality and call out Marshall for his "vulgar, boorish, and depraved" words regarding Christians that have different theological views than he does, regarding people who are gay, and regarding honorable Democrats like Dan. Come on, you're have a spine after all! Keep it up.

And while you're at it why not show a little regret for joining in on pressuring Dan about a beautiful gift his children gave him and about which only stone cold hearts could object.

Or is your apology bound someplace else too?

Feodor said...

Add in Muslims, about whom Marshall is very bigoted.

Craig said...

Sorry, not playing your games. I answered your question, I'm not just going to repeat your idiocy back to you. Art is his own person, I've not been shy to disagree with him both publicly and privately when appropriate. I've also not been shy about disagreeing with Dan, I've also agreed with Dan. In the case of his trip, I never had a problem with either his kids giving it to him, nor with him going. My problem with Dan (and you) is more with your unwillingness to live by the standards you demand of others. You demand that every potentially racist comment by anyone on the right be repudiated while excusing or ignoring racism on the left. You expect denunciation of anything remotely violent that can be tangentially attributed to someone you determin to be on the right, while ignoring and excusing violence from the left

I know it's difficult to grasp, but we're all individuals and the failure of folks like you and Dan to interact with people as individuals not as perceived members of a group is both pointless and demeaning.

So, no, I've proven that your assumptions in the previous post as well as in this one were wrong. That you are more willing to trust in your prejudices that to search out facts. Both of those would indicate that you have no standing to try to tell me what I should be doing regarding other people.

If you want to engage Art on substance, I encourage you to do so. If you want to keep throwing out assumptions and prejudice, I'd say don't bother.

But I'll just try to speak for myself and let others do the same.

Marshall Art said...

I've got a lot of catching up to do. By the time this comment is read, many of feo's comments will have been deleted, with some reproduced in portions here, but without his childish prattle that always accompany his less than intelligent drivel. I do wish to respond to some of it, and will include the date and time of the original comment to which I do where appropriate.

I do have to say that I vaccilate between deleting feo's crap and leaving it posted. The latter is my first inclination because I feel it is such a joy to watch the foolish make fools of themselves before the world (or even my tiny readership). I figure, if fools like feo are so intent on showing the world how pathetic they are, who am I to get in their way. It's as if he's screaming, "Look at me and laugh, for I'm a freakin' idiot!!" And I do, because he is. He needs both our prayers and serious psychological counseling.

So here we go, starting way back at the beginning (with those comments that, as of this writing, I had not yet deleted):

"Deleting in fear is immature. And pathetic. Supporting Trump is anti-Christian.
February 7, 2017 at 10:58 AM"


Were I deleting "in fear", it might be true that doing so in immature and/or pathetic (this coming from a sad and pathetic little "man"). It's absolutely laughable to suggest that I fear anything that feo could possibly bring to bear. The reality is that he only brings to bore. As to supporting Trump, doing so is hardly "anti-Christian" (this coming from a false priest with no understanding of what it means to be a Christian). Doing nothing to prevent a Hillary Clinton victory is anti-Christian, given her support for the murder of children and sexual immorality (just for starters).

"And I do enjoy every deletion. It's evidence of how much you fear my comments and an admission that you can't deal with in a way that makes any sense.
February 7, 2017 at 11:00 AM"


You would enjoy it. You're that pathetic that you regard it as a sign that you're winning something. So very sad. But there's nothing anywhere in any of your comments that strikes fear. As anyone and everyone can see, your comments are simply low class and petty, not to mention devoid of anything intelligent or relevant to the topics at hand.

"In the real world people hear about a wedding and think of love. Only perverts like yourself think about the machinery of what part goes where.
February 7, 2017 at 11:23 AM"


In the real world, normal people hear about a homosexual wedding and due to the perversity do all they can to distract the natural inclination to consider just what such deviants do together. It's no different than if one were to mention a "den of thieves", the typical person would think of what such people do for a living. As such, there's nothing perverted about the thoughts provoked by any reference to perverts, regardless of how desperately feo needs to thinks so.

"Answer the question, Glenn:
Explain how baking a cake for a gay wedding supports gay marriage but voting for a racist isn't supporting racism.
February 7, 2017 at 11:57 AM"


Neither Glenn, Craig nor anyone else need respond to this question that has already been comprehensively answered in the post itself. Even if feo hopes they will provide an answer in small words so he can better understand it, asking again is inane and idiotic. feo hasn't mustered the courage to address my answer and he isn't likely to respond to theirs, either.

By this point, Craig asked the following:
"Are you trying to suggest that I support/supported Trump?
February 7, 2017 at 1:30 PM"

Marshall Art said...

Then feo claimed that I had...

"...demonstrated the theological reasoning by which Christians have come to see same sex marriage as capable of holiness as different sex marraiage: only two sacraments acknowledged in scripture (baptism and communion - "do this" - and the early church did not perform weddings, leaving this to the state. Later on, though, the church got to thinking and improved upon the Christian life where scripture leaves off and developed further sacraments.
February 7, 2017 at 1:48 PM"


No demonstration took place, particularly as my definition clearly states, only a union of one man and one woman constitutes a Christian marriage. The fact of the matter, as it is widely known by actual Christians, is that a same-sex union cannot be both the abomination God clearly states such behavior is, and capable of holiness at the same time. As it is clearly the former, given God's clear description of the behavior, the suggestion of the latter is outrageously laughable and mere proof of feo's status as false priest. Which he is.

He then goes on to "educate" us about details regarding the early church, as if the point has any relevance at all. But to be sure, though no specific ceremony existed at the time, there was no separation of church and state at the time (a very new concept in terms of human history, no more than one hundred years old or so), so it clearly makes no difference here. I'm sure he's impressed himself all to hell by stealing the opportunity to present us with that factoid.

Then, Craig appeals again...

"I guess answering a simple direct question is beyond your limited ability to grasp. It's a simple question which if actually answered might prove worthwhile.
February 7, 2017 at 1:53 PM"


...to which the loser responds:

"I've answered all your questions. You've answered none of mine. No class.
February 7, 2017 at 2:05 PM"


This from a "man" with no class, who answered nothing to this point. And as Craig will go on to say, his position on Trump is well known at this point, having stated his position many times at several blogs, including this one.

Marshall Art said...

It's at this point I would like to speak on this issue of support for Trump. Like Craig and others, I did not support Trump for the GOP party nomination for president. Unlike Craig and others, I did indeed vote for Trump, as I could not live with myself had Hillary won after I chose to eithe sit out the election or to have cast my vote for someone with no chance of winning. Even the morning after I could not believe that Trump actually did win. But on the day of the election, there were only two candidates that had any chance of winning, and there's no way it should have been Hillary and God heard the lamentations of His people and gave us the lesser of two evils.

Now, with just 19 days into his presidency, I have no problem proudly stating that I support what he has done in general. His cabinet picks are mostly fantastic. His executive orders are a great start at reversing the direction of the nation back toward that which is in line with the Constitution and he's demonstrated a true concern for Americans, which seems to be Job 1 for any president not named Obama. Sure, there are certain details I don't support. I certainly am not on board with his notions about trade and tariffs. And I certainly don't support his lack of concern about the perversity of SSM. But at this point, he's done quite a bit that true Americans can openly support. So yeah, I support him a good 65-70%. I would guess that Craig does as well, though perhaps at a different percentage. The same for Glenn, and likely others who didn't like him for president before he became one.

But feo supports people like Hillarious Clinton and Barely Obabble. He supports the Democratic Party, Black Lives Matter and those crazy broads that marched all over the place leaving crap all over the ground when they were done. And he dares think we need to disavow Trump??!! What's wrong with him? Aside from being sad and pathetic like the little "man" he is?

Then, Craig appeals again...

"I guess answering a simple direct question is beyond your limited ability to grasp. It's a simple question which if actually answered might prove worthwhile.
February 7, 2017 at 1:53 PM"


...to which the loser responds:

"I've answered all your questions. You've answered none of mine. No class.
February 7, 2017 at 2:05 PM"


This from a "man" with no class, who answered nothing to this point. And as Craig will go on to say, his position on Trump is well known at this point, having stated his position many times at several blogs, including this one.

Marshall Art said...




It's at this point I would like to speak on this issue of support for Trump. Like Craig and others, I did not support Trump for the GOP party nomination for president. Unlike Craig and others, I did indeed vote for Trump, as I could not live with myself had Hillary won after I chose to eithe sit out the election or to have cast my vote for someone with no chance of winning. Even the morning after I could not believe that Trump actually did win. But on the day of the election, there were only two candidates that had any chance of winning, and there's no way it should have been Hillary and God heard the lamentations of His people and gave us the lesser of two evils.

Now, with just 19 days into his presidency, I have no problem proudly stating that I support what he has done in general. His cabinet picks are mostly fantastic. His executive orders are a great start at reversing the direction of the nation back toward that which is in line with the Constitution and he's demonstrated a true concern for Americans, which seems to be Job 1 for any president not named Obama. Sure, there are certain details I don't support. I certainly am not on board with his notions about trade and tariffs. And I certainly don't support his lack of concern about the perversity of SSM. But at this point, he's done quite a bit that true Americans can openly support. So yeah, I support him a good 65-70%. I would guess that Craig does as well, though perhaps at a different percentage. The same for Glenn, and likely others who didn't like him for president before he became one.

But feo supports people like Hillarious Clinton and Barely Obabble. He supports the Democratic Party, Black Lives Matter and those crazy broads that marched all over the place leaving crap all over the ground when they were done. And he dares think we need to disavow Trump??!! What's wrong with him? Aside from being sad and pathetic like the little "man" he is?


Marshall Art said...



Moving on...

"Or, disavow Trump and all his bigoted and misogynistic lies and I will admit that I was wrong about you.
February 7, 2017 at 3:01 PM"


Again, no one is required to disavow anyone, particularly by feo's demand. The putz doesn't seem to get it. He has no standing to make demands of anyone, especially as he fails to abide the demands his childish behavior has placed upon him. And he sure doesn't get to accuse Trump of idiocy like bigotry or misogyny. Not without evidence that give credence to the charges. He has none. As to the latter, there's this:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/whats-up-with-donald-trump-and-the-women-not-090043983.html

It's also helpful to remember what "misogyny" means: a hatred of women. That doesn't describe Trump at all, even without all the women he's put in executive positions in his businesses. As to "bigot", there's this:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/05/trump-family-trump-employees-point-view-video-whether-like-trump-not-gotta-see/

feo wants to talk about liars. He's a liar himself (being the false priest he is, one cannot expect better). He supported Obama and Clinton, the Dem Party and the others mentioned above, and he dares whine about Trump lying. Very Dan-like. Very false.

"Does Craig have a right to respond by his own volition or is Big Brother controlling him, too?
Let Craig declare and slay my assumption. Up or down on Trump?
February 7, 2017 at 5:22 PM"


As stated, Craig's position is well known. He is not obliged to answer your petulant nagging. More importantly, he is free to respond or not by his own volition. He isn't you (and for that I'm sure he's most grateful), nor is anyone else. You're unique, and because you're uniquely boorish and obnoxious, you have invited upon yourself terms and conditions to which no one else must answer...because they're decent and classy. You're scum, feo. You seem to want to be scum as well.

Marshall Art said...


"[In the previous list of issues, I did give you a response: something like, answering your list does not make sense until you both disavow the lying tactics of Trump and Marshall stops deleting facts, otherwise factual answers won't matter. Well... as to the second, you can't ask a leopard to change its craven behavior. As to the first it took me this long to exhibit how determinedly gutless you are in refusing to be honest about your support for Trump. But the long prevaricating, cowering scared little mind of yours is clear at this point, so we can proceed knowing the audience.]
February 8, 2017 at 9:23 A"


First off, as has been mentioned before on more than one occasion, deletions of what for feo passes for "facts" have been no more than deleting what had been presented previously (ad nauseum) and those "facts" didn't support any premise he was putting forth in any way. As those "facts" were never in dispute, what remained was for feo to explain how they support his premise, which he never did...because he couldn't. They didn't.

Next, Craig has been quite open with regard to whether or not he supports Trump. That he did not respond to feo's petulant demand to "meet the challenge", as it were, is much ado about nothing...feo being the nothing. There's no reason to give any demand of feo's respect. feo likes to pretend it's about fear or that feo has one over a barrel or some such. But that's just feo diggin' his own sorry ass. Frankly, I'm not convinced that feo is any more impressed with himself than any of us are impressed with him...which we're not. And that's what really eats at him. All of his posturing is for his own benefit and as we aren't duly in awe of his *snicker* "superiority", he can't convince himself of it either. So he lashes out with his sorry attempts to insult. So very, very sad.

Marshall Art said...


"I think we've answered that. Given the clear opportunity here to say, "Hell, no! I don't support lying, brutalizing behavior and tactics that destroy democratic process and institutions like our system of laws and freedom of the press,"
February 8, 2017 at 9:35 AM"


This is some serious "he's got his head way up his ass" kinds stuff. feo supported liars Obama an Clinton, as well as the Dems, BLM and the wacky feminazi movement. So lies are what the false priest feo is all about.

Anti-Trump protesters, in typical leftist protest fashion, have routinely engaged in brutal behavior, from vandalizing to assaults on Trump supporters, Tea Party people and those who dare oppose any of their wacky leftist positions.
His messiah Obama has willfully and routinely dismissed the democratic process with his executive orders meant to circumvent the will of the people and the people's representatives, and the left in general has sought out sympathetic jurists to overturn the will of the people for the sake of moral perversion. They attacked the instution of marriage by their appeasement of the depravity of homosexuality, as well as the institution of family.

And Obama has interfered with true objective journalism by his own nasty behavior with regard to members of the FoxNews staff and conservative journalism and punditry in general.

Marshall Art said...

More from the boor:

"I was wrong, you don't support the Predator in Chief"

This from a guy who was likely a Bill Clinton fan, and we know he supported Shrillary, who enabled her predator husband.

"call out Marshall for his "vulgar, boorish, and depraved" words regarding Christians that have different theological views than he does"

Nothing "vulgar, boorish or depraved" in the words I use toward you and/or Dan with regards your perverted and corrupt misrepresentation of Christianity. A more accurate description would be "truthful, fact-based and righteous". I have close friends with different theological views, and one very close friend who's an atheist. I treat them respectfully because their views, even the atheist's are based on something they can support without twisting and pretending that what isn't true, is. That's not something either you OR Dan have done.

"regarding people who are gay"

I speak the truth about those who promote the homosexual lifestyle. I know the truth is anathema to you, being a false priest and all, but the LGBT agenda is based on lies, and you support that agenda. What a surprise, false priest!

"regarding honorable Democrats like Dan"

This is especially hilarious given the state of the Democratic party. As such, I wouldn't necessarily refer to anyone by that term (I don't mean "honorable". I mean "honorable Democrat". Support for that party is not the least bit an honorable choice of action, even recognizing how many close friends and family members vote that way routinely. But unlike Dan, I don't see that any of them are truly paying attention. Well, Dan doesn't either, but he likes to think he does. His defense of leftist policies, and his denigrating of conservatism (as if he understands it at all...which he clearly doesn't) is worthy of comment, particularly as he publicizes his opinions regularly.

"And while you're at it why not show a little regret for joining in on pressuring Dan about a beautiful gift his children gave him and about which only stone cold hearts could object."

Just like Craig, I had no problem with either the gift nor Dan's partaking of it. What an idiotic implication on your part. Why not actually read our comments without your routine hatred, and without looking for a chance to attack your betters? Dan preaches simple living and a rejection of "over-consumerism". A European vacation cannot be described as "simple living" nor is it a reflection of his posturing as Mr. Humble. What's more, he failed to resolve the inconsistency except to push ambiguity in order to alter his ideology as his desires so dictate at any given moment. But that's what you leftists do.

"Add in Muslims, about whom Marshall is very bigoted."

My next door neighbors are muslims from Bosnia. They brew a wonderful Bosnian coffee. Great people.

But muslims in general have provided reason for suspicion. Their "religion" is NOT one of peace and it encourages behavior that is both unAmerican as well as unChristian...by which I mean cruel. They are responsible for doing real harm to the very perverts you defend and they are haters of Christians, Jews and pretty much everyone who isn't like them. They are determined to rule the earth. That there exists those who are willing to assimilate does not mitigate the danger of pretending that too many of them are up for worse than merely not assimilating. That's not bigotry, you raving idiot. That's reality.

Unfortunately, that, too is truth about which you have no care. All you see is your fantasy world and your projection of character flaws upon those who live in the real world. You're a liar, feo. I don't expect that you'll ever change.

Craig said...

It's interesting that there is such outrage about the cake baking thing but none about the folks refusing to do business with various Trump family members.

Marshall Art said...

I wonder if feo is ever going to actually engage on any topic of any post at any blog he ever visits? I know it's risky for him to do so, seeing as how he routinely gets shown up as the low intellect fraud he is, but it would be a nice change of pace, don't you think?

Marshall Art said...

Check it out...feo actually referred to others as narcissists. He's really a piece of work.

Craig said...

Because somehow in your twisted little world engaging in individual responsibility for what you do and say is a negative thing and shows a lack of courage, frankly that's just a bit bizarre. But as long as you can pull quotes out of context and twisted to try to make your point I guess it's all good for you.

Craig said...

Wow, ALL CAPS and an exclamation point that's quite impressive.

Given the fact that your online footprint is minimal, that you hide behind an alias, and that we really truly don't know if you actually have any black friends or not, your assurances that you call out liberal racism ring a bit Hollow. In all honesty he you may be very proactive about it, but you have no way to demonstrate that fact in anything close it close to an objective way.

As far as what Marshall says or doesn't say, he is his own person and I bear no responsibility for what he says. Sometimes I comment sometimes I don't. Sometimes I agree sometimes I don't. But no matter what I do or don't do What Marshall does has little or nothing to do with me.

Craig said...

Not so much assumptions as snark. Strike 1.

So we agree that I have no idea about the extent of your online presence beyond your engagement here. So how could you possibly expect anyone to be aware of something invisible? Strike 2

I simply pointed out the fact that (as you acknowledge) that you hide behind an alias. It's simply a fact, nothing more. Strike 3.

Craig said...

Given your lack of familiarity with my conversations with Marshall at the various places where we interact I'd say that you have very little evidence on which to base your 90% figure. But that's not really the point The point is is that I can and do agree with various different people on various different things regardless of their ideology and how it lines up with mine.

As far as the rest of it, it's just more of you repeating yourself with very little new or of substance. I realize given your impatience, that it's hard for you to believe that others of us might have other things to do besides just wait to respond to you. But, as things are fairly busy for me right now I'm forced to pick and choose what comments I respond to, and when I respond to them. I am under no obligation to to address or respond to every single thing you mention and therefore I don't. In much the same way you ignore much of what other people say and simply repeat yourself.

So in the absence of anything new or substantial, I think I'll probably back away from this for a while and leave on a win.

Marshall Art said...

"So, a summary for today looks something like this:

Craig, after weeks of spineless shuffling out of sheer OCD stubbornness, finally admits that he does not support Trump and his immoral ways.

-------

And Marshall is a craven, brutalizing narcissist much like Trumps

February 8, 2017 at 8:25 PM"


1. Craig's position on Trump is well known and has been for some time. feo's demand that he affirm what is already well known and has been for some time, just because feo demands it, does not require that Craig must do so. It does demonstrate that feo thinks he has the right to demand anything of anyone when he does not. Indeed, here he has no rights of any kind.

2. feo's idiocy invalidates any charge of idiocy, or anything, that he levels against anyone else. Indeed, were feo to show any graciousness at all and accuse anyone of something nice, that too would be legitimate to question. feo has no credibility on any subject.

3. feo once again satisfies himself with name calling without any evidence to justify doing so. "Craven"? "Brutalizing"? "Narcissist"? By what measure exactly, and in just what way? Here's how one proves one's point: Cite the blog post or comment in which alleged evidence exists. Copy and paste exact comment that validates the charge, along with date and time of alleged validating comment in order than any can easily find it to peruse it in context. Otherwise it's just one more empty and baseless assertion leveled in order for feo to make himself feel good.

In the meantime, here's a quick definition of "narcissism" from dictionary.com:

" 1. inordinate fascination with oneself; excessive self-love; vanity.
Synonyms: self-centeredness, smugness, egocentrism.
2. Psychoanalysis. erotic gratification derived from admiration of one's own physical or mental attributes, being a normal condition at the infantile level of personality development."

If anyone here is well described by this definition, if anyone is well suited for the word to be applied upon him, it is feodor. His every comment is a demand that he be taken notice of, that he is enamored with what for him passes as superior thought and position. He thinks so highly of himself, that he does not see that he is indeed a narcissist. No one admires feo like feo. (No one admires him at all)

Marshall Art said...

"90% of Marshall's posts are anti liberal vision of the life/Democratic policies. And his divisive tone aggregates us into camps within five words of his text.
---------------------
I showed that violence is way down under Obama - had graphs and charts and numbers. He deleted them all.

Marshall cannot admit he's wrong. Never on facts, never on his... always juvenile analysis of things. He's a narcissist. Like Trump.

February 8, 2017 at 6:34 PM"


1. To the extent that I comment on Democratic policies, it is to expose the abject flaws of those policies, flaws feo consistently fails to defend in any way that might compel a reversal of opinion. Such would be difficult for even an intelligent man given just how bad Dem policies are.

As such, rendering opinions of any kind has the potential of dividing readers/listeners into those who agree and those who do not. Why this seems to be a willful and malevolent act in feo's addled mind is something his counselor might wish to study. As to how quickly ("within five words"), suggests feo has a problem with how quickly I get to the point. Also a personal problem of his.

2. No one here had every suggested that crime was down "under Obama". Constant posting of graphs and data illustrating what was never in contention neither impressed or was necessary. They were deleted for failing to prove the contention that Obama had anything at all to do with it...a contention feo still has yet to support with evidence. feo just throws out stats, asserts that it proves his case, and we're expected to pretend he's actually proven something. Doesn't work that way.

feo then asserts that I can never admit when I'm wrong. I'm not obliged when it hasn't been proven that I am. What's more, I don't fear learning or improving my understanding. I count it as profit, not as an attack my ego cannot bear. But as the true narcissist, feo expects that I just take his word on that which is doesn't support, as if his word and knowledge is beyond reproach. Unfortunately, after all this time, the only thing he's actually proven is that he isn't anywhere near the intellectual he insists we regard him as.

Marshall Art said...

"And no comment on this:

3) Here's another one (from Trump's ridiculous murder rate claim). Most pertinent is the graph.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/07/politics/donald-trump-murder-rate-fact-check/

February 8, 2017 at 6:34 PM"


1. Not obliged to comment on anything feo posts. So there's that.

2. Not obliged to comment on anything or everything Trump says, as if I require absolute perfection out of any elected official. I expect Trump to do and/or say stupid crap now and then. It's what he does, just as I expect feo to continue exposing himself as boorish, arrogant and an egomaniac.

3. Most pertinent about the graph is that it proves our contention that the crime rate rose before the end of Obama's term, adding credence to the rejection of Dan's assertion that we are safer because of Obama (the crime rate in American being only one reason why the assertion is crap).

Marshall Art said...

"We done made Big Brother Maaaaaad!!!


February 8, 2017 at 4:02 PM"


This is actually common among lefties. But here it is more evidence of feo's narcissism that he believes he actual provokes intense emotion by his childish antics. That's so sad. He only compels sadness and compassion for his delusional state. False charges do not bother me at all. I couldn't care less. Why should I when I'm innocent of the charges? Truer is that he clearly is affected by my easy ability to expose his false preaching and the fact that he never actually has anything substantive to say.

Marshall Art said...

"I have an alias for job purposes. Don't want my secondary school students trying to find me.

February 8, 2017 at 6:31 PM"


This stands as probably my most favorite feo comment. Here's what I believe are more accurate reasons for his alias:

1. He doesn't want his students to see him routinely exposed as stupid by a lowly blue-collar dude like me.

2. He doesn't want the parents of his students to know what kind of low class scum is teaching their kids.

3. If no one knows it was he who said the stupid crap he says here, he won't be expected by those who know him to explain himself.

4. Others who also think he's totally full of shit won't have the ability to give first hand examples that agree with what he's already proven to us.

Yeah, it's probably best that he never identify himself. He couldn't handle the embarrassment.

February 9, 2017 at 3:27 AM

Feodor said...

😂😂😂😂 Narcissist scurrying to scour his cave of troubling truths from outside in the real world.😂😂😂

Marshall Art said...

Feel free to provide evidence of your charge of narcissism. All of your comments on my blog that I haven't deleted clearly indicate your own.

OR---

Find a spine and actually prove any of my positions are not based on actual truths from the real world. I'm always up for a laugh.

Feodor said...

One sign of a narcissist would be avoidance of negative feedback.

If I were the narcissist we would expect that I would not keep coming back here. And yet here so am.

Another sign of narcissistic behavior would be a need to excise information damaging to one's sense of mastery.

Excise, huh? Would that be anything like delete?

Why yes it would; who'd you have in mind?

Marshall Art said...

"One sign of a narcissist would be avoidance of negative feedback."

You don't provide negative feedback as the term is understood by honest people of character and integrity. You merely insult. I welcome constructive criticism. You actually think you aren't deserving of any. Evidence of your narcissism.

"If I were the narcissist we would expect that I would not keep coming back here. And yet here so am."

Who's "we"? You and your head lice? Being the narcissist you are, you keep coming back here in a desperate attempt to prove you possess what you think is your intellectual superiority. Such delusion is truly sad.

"Another sign of narcissistic behavior would be a need to excise information damaging to one's sense of mastery."

Good to know. Had I ever done that, you might be able to make the case that I suffer from narcissistic disorder. But first, you'd have to provide information that damages me in any way. You've yet to do that, so the case can't be made. You do, however, provide irrelevant info, off topic info as well as info that fails to support any premise you've yet put forth on any topic my posts cover.

In the meantime, you totally ignore info that exposes your incompetence and you dismiss calls to provide evidence that supports or proves your positions.

Cases in point:

1. Your link to "that Russian spy investigation" has no relevance to anything related to this post. Hence...deleted.

2. Your referenced numbers that you think "show Obama made us significantly safer than W", don't do anything of the kind, no matter how badly you'd like them to. Actual evidence for such a claim must begin with specific policies implemented by Obama that can be shown to have had a direct effect on the crime rate. The already declining crime rate turns upward by 2015. By your "logic" (I use the term loosely here...VERY loosely), Obama is responsible for that rise, which, by the way, was a rather sharp turn by contrast with any rise that may have happened during the Bush years.

Continuing with your "logic", the chart clearly shows that the rate dropped almost continually throughout the Bush years to the extent that Obama inherited the benefits of the hard-fought, crime-stopping work of GW.

But I'm not desperate to attribute to Bush that which is not appropriate to do so. That's YOUR department...lying. I prefer to give props to those who are responsible for it: law enforcement, mostly, but also likely could be the increase in concealed carry licenses.

In short, why would I "stew" about numbers that actually support MY premise better than it does yours? The answer is because your narcissism demands that I do, regardless of whether I do or not, regardless of whether you've given me cause or not.

Hence...deleted also.

Feodor said...

Your first two sections prove you really cannot read.

You keep saying you delete because I don't provide evidence. You keep saying that after deleting the reporting. 😂😂😂😂 Fartshall plays the fool to the hilt.

Marshall Art said...

"Your first two sections prove you really cannot read.

You keep saying you delete because I don't provide evidence. You keep saying that after deleting the reporting."


This proves you're an idiot.

First, I read and comprehend what I read quite well. You, not so much. So find an adult and have them read my comments for you so that you have someone to explain what isn't mysterious or particularly difficult to understand for all but yourself.

Your link to an investigation has no relevance to this post. THAT is why it was deleted. "Evidence" for that which is not being discussed is worthless to the discussion, though not as worthless as you. Therefore, its presence in the midst of the thread is clutter and nothing more.

Then, the "evidence" you posted hoping to shore up your absurd claim that Obama made us safer does not prove or support that claim in the least, as I explained the first of the thousand times you posted it. If your premise was simply that the crime rate has been declining, it works well. But then, that point was never in contention by anyone here. Thus, you're arguing against something not on the table. You do this, obviously, because of your inability to argue against what is.

That same "evidence", meant to argue against Trump's claim that the crime rate is higher than any time in the last 17 years is also worthless, as Trump's claim is also not an issue being discussed.

The issue this post highlights is your idiocy, and to respond to your ludicrous question attempting to connect voting for Trump with support for racism. Now that that question has clearly been shown to be idiotic, your every comment stands as more validation that you are indeed the idiot supreme.

How sad that there are kids suffering under your alleged tutelage!

Marshall Art said...

So, feo. Who did you vote for in the last election for president?

Feodor said...

What if the two same sex partners vow never to have sex? Is the relationship still immoral?

Craig said...

What if a swine, a duck, and a platypus decide to enter a polyamorous relationship and decide it's just too complicated to have sex? But what if they just buy cakes?

Marshall Art said...

Though he didn't respond to my question before posting his own, I am going to respond to feo because he actually asked it without the usual nastiness so typical of his postings.

I am going to assume the question is posed on the basis that the two are actually sexually attracted to each other. I do this because for eons same sex partners who are not homosexual have been forming relationships. Often they are best friends, bonded in a brother-like fashion. As such, no vow regarding abstaining from sex with each other is necessary since they have no erotic feelings for each other. OR, if they do, they may both simply regard the feelings as disordered and unworthy of sincere consideration.

As to that, if the same sex partners feo has in mind are like those referenced in my last sentence, the relationship is clearly not immoral since they regard the feelings as immoral if acted upon in any way. They do, however, put themselves at greater risk by having placed themselves squarely in the face of their own temptations.

Also important to recognize is what one's notion of "sex" is. That is, what behaviors are considered sexual in nature? Bill Clinton did his best to muddy this notion in order to have his lie considered truth ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman"). Sex is not merely intercourse in the minds of most honest people. Take a kiss, for example. A father giving his son a kiss on the cheek is not an act of romance or eroticism. In some places in the world, men still greet one another with a kiss of friendship on the cheek. I have a friend, married to a lovely woman for years, who does this with certain close friends. But two guys swappin' spit and tongue wrestling is engaging in a sexual behavior. If that is the limit of a homosexual couple's sexual behavior, it is still sexual behavior of a type normal people have with members of the opposite sex.

In almost all versions of Scripture (KJV, NIV, etc.), Lev 18:22 prohibits a male lying with a male as one would with a woman. Without a more distinct argument regarding exact translation of the original language, this prohibition must necessarily include ANY manner in which one's behavior is more normally associated with romantic behavior with a member of the opposite sex. Men don't typically cuddle with other men, for example. "Spooning" doesn't typically occur between normal men. We're not talking about extreme weather situations where two men might huddle together for warmth, as opposed to cuddle together for romantic reasons.

Thus, the answer to feo's question is determined by the intentions of the same sex partners in order to draw a conclusion about the morality of the their relationship. Having immoral feelings, thoughts or desires is not immoral. Indulging those feelings, thoughts and desires is.

I hope this answers the question in full.

Feodor said...

Please don't bring scripture into this because Leviticus is not your friend. Women are not free persons, slaves less so, daughters are sold, polygamy is the rule, menstruation despised, pigs and pig skins untouchable, and on and on and on it goes. Intentions and motivations are instfuctive generelally but the specifics do not apply.

So is a non sexual marriage between a man and woman not valid? By the way Craig's intercourse obsessed mind works, it appears such a marriage is not valid.

But you seeem to suggest that a sexless, Eros absent marriage between a man and a woman IS valid. Right?

Marshall Art said...

"Please don't bring scripture into this because Leviticus is not your friend."

Perhaps with your poor understanding of it. I don't have that problem. I am well aware of the differences in perceptions regarding things like the status of women, what "slavery" means, why daughters were sold, that polygamy was tolerated by God (not His ideal) and what the deal was with regards bodily fluids, pigs, certain other animals and dead stuff, and on and on and one while still fully understanding God's Will for human sexual behavior. All that you have listed is a willful distraction from that Will, and I am fully aware of that also. No Christian worth his salt would pretend any of those things on your list have any bearing on the issue at hand.

"So is a non sexual marriage between a man and woman not valid?"

Depends. Who's asking? Us? Civil law? Christianity?

If it's us, then it's likely just another disagreement.

If it's civil law, there's no requirement to engage in sexual behavior at all. The state took interest because sexual behavior between man and woman is likely and that a child will result. To insist that they do engage in sex in order to attain a license is as ludicrous and disingenuous an argument as suggesting a couple must have children. But it should be noted that failure to consummate a marriage is a legal reason to void it. However, in this day and age, that would require that at least the woman be a virgin in order to substantiate the claim that the marriage was never consummated, should one of the two oppose the dissolution of the marriage contract.

If it's Christianity, I would remind you of your statement regarding the lack of ceremony in the early days of the faith. We could go back much farther in time to find that what formed the bond of marriage was indeed the act of sexual intercourse. As soon as a girl or woman first engaged in intercourse, she was regarded as married to the man with whom she did the deed. This was reflected even in the way they dealt with rape, where the rapist was forced to care for his victim as if married, even paying off the father of the victim as one did in a legitimate marriage. This concept lasted centuries, manifesting in what later became known as "shotgun weddings", where the father of the bride forced a guy to marry his daughter if it became known or suspected that they had sexual relations.

So from my perspective, what matters in this question is who is getting uniting? A man and a woman? By all said above, it would be a marriage if they took the vow of lifelong commitment and fidelity. Not so with two of the same sex, because that is not a marriage by definition (or until Obergefell, it wasn't).

At this point, I want to say that I haven't minded this particular tangential discussion. But it clearly strays from the point upon which this post was composed, that being the false charge of racism directed at Trump, and more specifically, whether or not voting for a racist means one supports racism. Curious how you've backed away from that point.

One more thing...regarding this:

"By the way Craig's intercourse obsessed mind works..."

I'm so glad I didn't hold my breath. You validated my assessment once again by demonstrating that you couldn't last long without taking a shot...and lying at the same time. Craig isn't obsessed with "intercourse" or anything else overtly sexual. He merely made reference to the obsession of the sexually immoral. I hope this clears things up and you can apologize to him any time now.

Feodor said...

One more question please and the U'll address your proximate concerns:

Would you claim that a husband and wife who engage a prostitute, say a transsexual, or being an animal into their sex life invalidate the sacrament of their marriage... or no?

Marshall Art said...

I'm betting you're trying to set me up for what you think is an ultimate "gotcha", because no Christian of any integrity would even ask a question like that.

I don't know what you fail to understand about vows like "forsaking all others" and such. The definition of a Christian marriage I submitted in the post answers this question well enough. A third person constitutes adultery...a sin in the Christian world. Sex with an animal??? Really???

Legally, however a married couple chooses to violate their vows and marital bed is up to them. Under God, the sin is obvious.

Feodor said...

So... baking a cake for such a couple would be OK or not OK?

Marshall Art said...

Scenario One:

Two men enter a bakery to place an order for a wedding cake (it could be just one of the two---it really doesn't matter), decorated with little figures on top depicting two men in tuxedos with words on the cake that says, "Congratulations Neil and Bob". There's no confusion on the part of the baker that he is being asked to bake a cake for a "gay" wedding and refuses for religious reasons.

Scenario Two:

A man and woman enter a bakery to place an order for a wedding cake (it could be just one of the two---it really doesn't matter), decorated with little figures on top depicting a man in a tuxedo and a woman in a wedding gown, with words on the cake that says, "Congratulations Nell and Bob". There's no confusion on the part of the the baker that he is being asked to bake a cake for a normal, traditional wedding and agrees.

What the two men in Scenario One do in the privacy of their own home doesn't matter with regard to the baker's decision. Merely the request for a cake to celebrate a homosexual wedding is reason enough to refuse the job.

What the couple in Scenario Two does in the privacy of their own home doesn't matter with regard to the baker's decision. It is a traditional wedding and there is no reason to refuse the job.

In neither scenario did the customer provide details of their private sexual practices. The lack of knowledge regarding those practices doesn't matter. One of the couples is attempting to enter into that which is not a marriage. The other couples is attempt to enter into what is an actual marriage.

So, your question is both moot and nonsensical since no baker seeks personal information about the sexual practices of his customers before agreeing to bake a product of any kind, including a wedding cake.

I'll go further. Assume each couple regards their union in exactly the same way. They both are completely monogamous and faithful to each other, forsaking all others, or they both hire prostitutes and include animals in their sexual practices. How would the baker know any of it, and why would he want to know? Whether the subject comes up or not, one is an actual marriage and the other isn't. The other that "isn't
isn't because the couple is comprised of two men, rather than a man and woman, and that is enough to refuse the job.

I hope this helps. Somehow I doubt it will.

Feodor said...

Marshall Day 1: "if the same sex partners feo has in mind [wedding non erotic same sex partners]... the relationship is clearly not immoral since they regard the feelings as immoral..." "determined by the intentions of the same sex partners in order to draw a conclusion about the morality of the their relationship. Having immoral feelings, thoughts or desires is not immoral."

Marshall Day 2: "Merely the request for a cake to celebrate a homosexual wedding is reason enough to refuse the job."
____

Marshall Day 1: "The definition of a Christian marriage I submitted in the post answers this question well enough. A third person constitutes adultery..."

Marshall Day 2: "doesn't matter with regard to the baker's decision. It is a traditional wedding and there is no reason to refuse the job.
____

Making it up as you go along. Trump-like. Anti-Christian.

Feodor said...

The sad, brutalizing situational ethics of a hard hearted Pharisee.

Marshall Art said...

What's "sad, brutalizing and Pharisaical" is your insisting there is any inconsistency in my explanations. The fact is the logic and consistency is way beyond your faux-intellectual mind. Or worse, you're trying really, really hard to find fault that doesn't exist in my position and reasoning. Look at your first comparison:

"Marshall Day 1: "if the same sex partners feo has in mind [wedding non erotic same sex partners]... the relationship is clearly not immoral since they regard the feelings as immoral..." "determined by the intentions of the same sex partners in order to draw a conclusion about the morality of the their relationship. Having immoral feelings, thoughts or desires is not immoral."

Marshall Day 2: "Merely the request for a cake to celebrate a homosexual wedding is reason enough to refuse the job."


Where's the problem here? Clearly the concept is that the intentions regarding the sexual behaviors (or lack of sexual behavior) of the homosexuals is not the issue. The issue is the fact that the union of two of the same sex cannot be a marriage in the traditional and historic understanding of the term, and that the baker is not down with the concept. Regardless of whether or not the couple intends to engage in sexual behavior is of no concern to people of character that understand what marriage is and isn't. Whether one is correct in assuming sexual behavior will take place, then, is irrelevant to the notion of whether or not the union of two of the same sex should be respect and regarded as a marriage. That's all. Note here that unlike the insistence by those like yourself, it's not at all a matter of gov't or anyone else getting into anyone's private affairs in the bedroom. It never was. It's merely the fact that homosexual unions are not marriages and their insistence that it is doesn't make it so. Nor should that insistence compel anyone to go along with the lie.
---------------------------------------------------

"Marshall Day 1: "The definition of a Christian marriage I submitted in the post answers this question well enough. A third person constitutes adultery..."

Marshall Day 2: "doesn't matter with regard to the baker's decision. It is a traditional wedding and there is no reason to refuse the job."


Again, no inconsistency. You're trying to insist that the baker knows what things a couple does in private, or that in every case where a customer orders a cake, that customer informs the baker of personal sexual practices which compels a baker to refuse service. This is idiotic (thought typical of you). Where does this happen?

But in the case of a customer ordering a cake for a homosexual "wedding", the mere request is all the info a baker needs to determine if it is a job he is willing (or required) to take. Again, the private behaviors of the customer doesn't enter into it, nor should it need to when the request alone is all that is needed for the baker to determine if he is willing to do the job.

You want it to be about sinful behaviors alone, in which case the baker could not render service to anyone, since we are all sinners. But that's not the issue. The baking of a cake for a homosexual union is to partake in the celebration of a sinful (abominable) union, simply because it is a homosexual union. There could be absolutely nothing else in the lives and behaviors of the homosexual couple that one could regard as sinful, and still that union is. It's merely the comparison of a legitimate union with an illegitimate union. Not what happens within that union.

Try to get a clue.