tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post3122710428892554826..comments2024-03-29T04:17:43.875-05:00Comments on Marshal Art's: Agenda Lies 5: Based on Science?Marshal Arthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comBlogger95125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-68678184815420568422012-06-29T18:43:04.243-05:002012-06-29T18:43:04.243-05:00they are still granted the benefit of being raised...<i>they are still granted the benefit of being raised by a mother AND a father which is best for their development.</i><br /><br />Sometimes the "best" is not available. In that case, one parent is better than two?<br /><br />In fact, my Brady Bunch example expressly refuted what you suggested a traditional marriage offered that a "non-traditional" one didn't when you wrote:<br /><br /><i>Really? "Their" children are the result of their sexual behavior? ... Their unions tie the adults to the children their sexual behavior produced? </i><br /><br />And if you didn't like The Brady Bunch how about Yours, Mine, and Ours?Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10004209843701697773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-44400529776997984042012-06-29T18:14:06.618-05:002012-06-29T18:14:06.618-05:00I did not, however, delete your nonsensical commen...I did not, however, delete your nonsensical comment from my email in-box. Thus, I can re-read it and just wonder that you think you've actually scored points. I am aware of the premise of the Brady Bunch TV show and it's not surprising you would look to bad television to validate your baseless assertions. Keep in mind again, I am not missing the fact that you take points out of context and act as if they stand alone as an argument for the overall position. Childish at best.<br /><br />The fact is that as with all normal marriages where adopted or step children are involved, they are still granted the benefit of being raised by a mother AND a father which is best for their development. Thus, your attempt to pretend the Brady Bunch example does any damage at all to the cause of defending the logic and righteousness of traditional marriage fails as do all of your other weak attempts. Try again.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-6567323633842289672012-06-29T16:40:53.654-05:002012-06-29T16:40:53.654-05:00Clearly the comment scored a mortal blow to your a...Clearly the comment scored a mortal blow to your argument. Personally, I think the Brady Bunch analogy simply short-circuited what was left of your mental wiring because there was just no possible way for you to come up with a counter argument for it.<br /><br />Deleting that comment was such a chicken s**t thing to do.<br /><br />I win!Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10004209843701697773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-89025789147939148672012-06-29T16:04:44.612-05:002012-06-29T16:04:44.612-05:00Jim,
I deleted your last comment for it's pec...Jim,<br /><br />I deleted your last comment for it's peculiar Parkie-like quality of offering nothing in support of what you think was a refutation of the partial and mostly out-of-context excerpts of comments you highlighted. I probably should have done that for most, if not all of your comments, but I needed the entertainment of seeing just what stupidity you'll come up with next. <br /><br />I will say that your every comment HAS been a tacit support for homosexual behavior and without a doubt, support for the Agenda That Does Not Exist. You seem to think that saying otherwise overrides the implications of your Parkie-like commentary. It doesn't. It just gives credence to the charge that you are dishonest and/or stupid.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-87506719921347276672012-06-29T14:24:12.008-05:002012-06-29T14:24:12.008-05:00"Thirdly, the state confers unto real marriag..."Thirdly, the state confers unto real marriages that which it does not confer on single people, either.'<br /><br /><i>"Uh, that's because they are married."</i><br /><br />Uh, the point here that you deceitfully evade or lack wisdom to see is that the state sees a benefit from legitimate traditional marriages that other lifestyles to not provide. Single people are merely another example of such lifestyles so lacking. Single people, regardless of their aspirations or conscious decision to do so, are committed to their single status. Some for life. This is not a commitment the state finds worthy of special considerations as it lacks unique benefits to the state that would provoke such. Neither do weak imitations of marriage such as SSM or polygamy.<br /><br />"show how those reasons are present in same sex unions."<br /><br /><i>"Every one of them is present."</i><br /><br />Really? "Their" children are the result of their sexual behavior? Their unions provide the best environment for children as all reputable professionals have concluded? Their unions tie the adults to the children their sexual behavior produced? You're an idiot.<br /><br />"what exists between my wife and I is not based on any state sanctioning at all."<br /><br /><i>"Your Social Security survivor's benefits and IRS tax rates are."</i><br /><br />Irrelevant to the point I made. Try paying attention. More accurately, try being honest.<br /><br />Gotta go. I'm sure Jim will add more inanity that he thinks makes US look silly. The irony!Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-29242763936098047412012-06-29T14:16:27.325-05:002012-06-29T14:16:27.325-05:00You know, I have wasted too much time with the foo...You know, I have wasted too much time with the fool Jim. He is unteachable, makes things up out of whole cloth, thinks he has the moral high ground, can't understand logical discussions and is intentionally being stupid.<br /><br />Good luck, Marshall.Glenn E. Chatfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04117405535707961903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-17427788631237205202012-06-29T14:09:49.257-05:002012-06-29T14:09:49.257-05:00Here is one incredibly idiotic piece of nonsense:
...Here is one incredibly idiotic piece of nonsense:<br /><br />"You’ve not refuted any position of ours."<br /><br /><i>"Maybe not, but I have shown how silly they are."</i><br /><br />Absolutely not the case at all. You HAVE shown, however, how silly YOU are by demonstrating how low you'll stoop in trying to defend bad behavior. You take things out of context, conflate what is unrelated with that which is relevant and never take any steps to provide any counter evidence or substantive argument in support of your position or to contradict ours.<br /><br />Here's more idiocy:<br /><br />"overturn the Church and thousands of years of understanding."<br /><br /><i>"Church? As far as the state is concerned, marriage is a civil contract."</i><br /><br />Note how I stated Church <i>AND</i> thousands of years of understanding. Here's a helpful hint: If you're going to take something out of context, you do yourself no service by presenting the entire context. What's more, Jim, you are willing to pounce on anything Obama says as fact and truth and worthy of attention, but this same president speaks of respecting the faiths of Americans, particularly muslims, but shows no desire by his positions of respecting the Judeo-Christian traditions upon which this country has relied in so many ways. Not surprising of lefties to talk out of both sides of their mouths, but to do so in such an obvious manner is telling.<br /><br /><i>"If you met him, how could you tell that he was "set apart" from normal people?"</i><br /><br />My personal knowledge of the orientation of another has nothing to do with whether or not that orientation sets him apart from normal people. This is a very stupid question. You continually prove an inability of understand plain English, whether in reference to a particular word's definition or its usage. Here's another clear example:<br /><br /><i>"Alleged? You are the judge of whether or not another person loves?"</i><br /><br />The word "alleged" signifies a decided <i>lack</i> of judgement on my part. I have no way to prove whether or not ANYONE is truly in love or just saying so. I have no way of knowing with certainty whether or not a person can distinguish between love, lust or infatuation. Thus, to speak of their "alleged" love for each other is appropriate especially considering their arguments suggest love is not as important as cultural recognition and state provided benefits.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-26155800360288005922012-06-29T13:41:52.248-05:002012-06-29T13:41:52.248-05:00You are again being intentionally stupid.
Another...<i>You are again being intentionally stupid.</i><br /><br />Another nonsensical statement. Fits right into the thread.<br /><br /><i>And no one is protected due to their “orientation,” because if that is all it was no one would no [sic] a person’s orientation.</i><br /><br />Sure they would, if a person declared themselves to be gay.<br /><br /><i>No, what they are protecting is the behavior, because everything they want sanctioned is based on behavior.</i><br /><br />No, it's based on their commitment to a person of the same sex. What they do in private is of no consequence.<br /><br /><i>After all, we wouldn't want society to approve of murder, theft, rape and riot - and those are also chosen behaviors.</i><br /><br />That's because the government has a public interest in prosecuting and punishing these behaviors. The government has no demonstrated public interest in discriminating against gays.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10004209843701697773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-86587742715100922412012-06-29T13:30:15.242-05:002012-06-29T13:30:15.242-05:00People don’t have to believe in God to do things f...<i>People don’t have to believe in God to do things for HIS glory</i><br /><br />If they are doing things FOR His glory, then they must believe in Him.<br /><br /><i>You’ve not refuted any position of ours</i><br /><br />Maybe not, but I have shown how silly they are.<br /><br /><i>By being there it would demonstrate my tacit approval</i><br /><br />No it wouldn't. Nobody cares if you approve or not. Being there would demonstrate that you are a (I assume) competent human who takes pictures or human who plays music. You don't have to approve tacitly or explicitly. If you like, you can demonstrate your disdain before your customers and guests and then see what kind of referrals you get from them.<br /><br /><i>So are you then saying I have no right to choose who I want to give my personal approval to?</i><br /><br />No approval is required. If you own a motel, you don't have to approve of interracial couples, but you do have to rent rooms to them.<br /><br /><i>Federally, sexual orientation was not protected before [President Obama].</i><br /><br />Guess he was catching up with the states.<br /><br /><i>I like the word “queer” because it means “strange, odd.”</i><br /><br />Then it could be applied to you as well.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10004209843701697773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-63116617883405674162012-06-29T12:58:33.351-05:002012-06-29T12:58:33.351-05:00Jim,
You are again being intentionally stupid.
...Jim, <br /><br />You are again being intentionally stupid.<br /><br />Choices in philosophy and choices in behavior are two different things. And no one is protected due to their “orientation,” because if that is all it was no one would no a person’s orientation. No, what they are protecting is the behavior, because everything they want sanctioned is based on behavior.<br /><br />Behaviors are what we control, what we discriminate. After all, we wouldn't want society to approve of murder, theft, rape and riot - and those are also chosen behaviors. Not all behaviors are worthy of protecting.Glenn E. Chatfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04117405535707961903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-24696506064340390902012-06-29T12:49:20.900-05:002012-06-29T12:49:20.900-05:00Are you trying to equate living by one's faith...<i>Are you trying to equate living by one's faith as equal to living by one's base desires?</i><br /><br />Uh, no. Nor am I trying to equate apples to tse-tse flies.<br /><br />The context was that sexual orientation should not be protected because it was a choice. I countered that if "choice" was a disqualification for protected class status, then Catholics should also be disqualified because they choose to practice their faith.<br /><br /><i>It only means that one can legally refer to it as such.</i><br /><br />Bingo! That settles that argument. Thank you.<br /><br />Ha! I REALLY love this one:<br /><br /><i>And regardless of whether or not a given society allowed multiple wives, it was always the union of one man and one woman, then, the union of that same man and one other woman, but still one man/one woman.</i><br /><br />Oh man!<br /><br /><i>Homosexuals themselves speak of their sexual practices as a lifestyle</i>...<i>that is factual.</i><br /><br />Links?Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10004209843701697773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-76110890751593595782012-06-29T11:24:13.106-05:002012-06-29T11:24:13.106-05:00Another example of being punished for being agains...Another example of being punished for being against same-sex behavior.<br /><br />There is no reason the course she was taking should have required her to practice counseling with queers.<br />http://www.theblaze.com/stories/christian-student-expelled-over-her-views-on-homosexuality-loses-lawsuit-against-ga-university/Glenn E. Chatfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04117405535707961903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-30066055843733720902012-06-29T11:20:05.879-05:002012-06-29T11:20:05.879-05:00Homosexual was never a noun. It describes behavio...Homosexual was never a noun. It describes behavior. Queers are always wanting to change definitions to fit their agenda.<br /><br />I am a musician because I play an musical instrument - and that word has always been a noun.<br /><br />My customer base is as large as it has always been. Shows your ignorance in your assumptions.Glenn E. Chatfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04117405535707961903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-9867589294596702372012-06-29T11:15:50.936-05:002012-06-29T11:15:50.936-05:00But no one is “homosexual,” they are humans
I tak...<i>But no one is “homosexual,” they are humans</i><br /><br />I take it then, that you are NOT a musician but a human who sits on a porch and plays a banjo (since your customer base is getting smaller all the time).Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10004209843701697773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-83892264616177275622012-06-29T09:36:20.238-05:002012-06-29T09:36:20.238-05:00Jim,
You are being intentionally stupid.
People...Jim, <br /><br />You are being intentionally stupid.<br /><br />People don’t have to believe in God to do things for HIS glory and to represent what HE wants represented. Marriage was designed by God for a purpose, and whether you believe that or not doesn’t alter the fact of it. Truth is truth regardless of belief about it.<br /><br />You’ve not refuted any position of ours - all you have done is demonstrate how abjectly stupid and ignorant you are.<br /><br />The New Mexico photographers had the right to determine whether or not they wanted to participate in the fake wedding ceremony. According to the defense’s legal brief, these Christians also “discriminate” when they <i>“will not take photographs of situations that will promote or depict favorably such practices as unmarried cohabitation, polygamy, polyamory, no-fault divorce or same-sex 'marriage,' regardless of the sexual orientation of the people in the photographs."</i> They also “discriminate” when they refuse to photograph people nude, or subjects which would show abortion or pornography in a good light. But this sort of discrimination is apparently okay with the NM Human Rights Commission since they were never fined for any of these. <br /><br />I hire out to play at weddings but I would turn down a fake wedding - should I then be fined, jailed or otherwise punished? By being there it would demonstrate my tacit approval, which is why I could not morally be there. I have actually been asked to play for a Celtic polygamous “hand-fasting” ceremony and refused. I also refuse to play religious tunes at funerals of non-believers, refuse to play for cult groups (including Masons). So are you then saying I have no right to choose who I want to give my personal approval to?<br /><br />Federally, sexual orientation was not protected before Obamanation. In some cities it has been. However, everywhere sexual “orientation” has been designated a protected class, the only “orientation” protected is homosexuality. Pedophiles, polyamorous, zoophiles, necrophiliacs, etc aren’t protected - proof of the bigoted agenda of the queers.<br /><br />Medical texts will not use words of morality to describe sexual behavior - they make no moral judgments. I like the word “queer” because it means “strange, odd.” Homosexual is an adjective or adverb and yet the homosexualists have taken it to be a noun. But no one is “homosexual,” they are humans who like homosexual behavior or lust homosexually. “gay” means happy, but the queers stole that word and I refuse to let them keep it. Other good words would include perverts, sodomites, sexual degenerates, etc.Glenn E. Chatfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04117405535707961903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-33262208338635408362012-06-29T04:01:31.221-05:002012-06-29T04:01:31.221-05:00"Faith or behavior, it's still a choice.&...<i>"Faith or behavior, it's still a choice."</i><br /><br />What point are you trying to make here? Are you trying to equate living by one's faith as equal to living by one's base desires? Here's two problems with this stupidity: <br /><br />1) Living by one's faith is counter to one's base desires, even normal heterosexual desires. It is to transcend one's base desires to become something better than what is naturally predisposed to doing. Homosexuals, by engaging in homosexual behavior, do exactly the opposite, just as a hetero does when having out of wedlock or adulterous affairs. <br /><br />2) You have just equated them as behaviors that are choices, which flies in the face of the activists' claims. As a hetero, assuming you are one, you are not forced by your "orientation" to ever engage in sex at all, much less sex that the religion to which you claim to adhere prohibits. One's "orientation" does not justify anything regarding whether the behavior desired as a result of the orientation <i>should</i> take place or is beneficial for society to tolerate, sanction or accept as normal. <br /><br /><br />"if the state calls something a marriage, that doesn’t make it true."<br /><br /><i>"Actually, yes it does."</i><br /><br />No. It doesn't. It only means that one can legally refer to it as such. That doesn't mean the arrangement is actually a marriage. As I said earlier, if the state said you were a horse's ass, it wouldn't mean that a veterinarian would agree, even though it would seem obvious to anyone who read your words. And you could certainly have that on your business cards, but again, you wouldn't literally be a horse's ass just because the state passed some kind of law that so stated you are one. The is in regards to what honest people know to be true. The state cannot dictate that.<br /><br /><br />"everyone KNEW what the definition of marriage is."<br /><br /><i>"Everyone knew what THEIR definition of marriage was. Some apparently defined it differently from others. "</i><br /><br />Nonsense. EVERYONE knew that marriage was a union between one man and one woman. EVERYONE. What's more, the state would not license every individual's personal definition, so the state indeed defined what constituted a legal marriage. This had been going on for centuries. It is not a new development. And regardless of whether or not a given society allowed multiple wives, it was always the union of one man and one woman, then, the union of that same man and one other woman, but still one man/one woman. Try to be at least a little bit honest and less Parkie-like. <br /><br />"Then in parentheses I suggest"<br /><br /><i>"That, I would suggest, is a very important qualification of your statement."</i><br /><br />Absolutely not. It is an addendum at best. The bottom line was what came before and that is factual.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-40145074950898977112012-06-29T03:42:57.961-05:002012-06-29T03:42:57.961-05:00I haven't gotten to any of Glenn's links o...I haven't gotten to any of Glenn's links or articles, but this is another example of Jim's inability to engage honestly:<br /><br /><i>"So marriage only applies to believers?"</i><br /><br />I don't even think it's necessary for me to read the article to know with absolute certainty that no such notion was put forth or even hinted. This makes the following line more laughable than it would normally be:<br /><br /><i>"Actually I'm refuting your so-called "positions" left and right. And quite handily, I might add."</i><br /><br />Not even close. The above example, for instance, shows only the lengths you'll go to try to make a point that rational people wouldn't make by reading the article. It's not even a good straw man, but Jim will go with it anyway believing, as if he was Parkie, that he's on to something. Glenn can correct me if I'm wrong, or if I get the chance to read the article, I might find cause to correct myself, but I'm quite sure the idea was to simply provide an example of a definition that matches that which has been commonly understood for eons. <br /><br /><i>"It wasn't the photographer's job to pass judgement on the celebration, it was his job to take pictures of it."</i><br /><br />Her job is not for you to define. Where do you find the right to dictate to a photographer what jobs she is required to take? What law exists that does this? Her reasons are reasons of conscience that no one has the right to override, and as a private enterprise is fully within her rights to refuse. That you would support any law that would do such a thing shows clearly that you support the activists forcing their immorality on society. She could have lied and said she was already booked. What that suit you better than risking offending these mentally dysfunctional souls who apparently cannot handle rejection, because they're oh so sensitive and offended that another human being objects to their lifestyle? Who the hell are you or they to demand that anyone lives on YOUR terms?<br /><br /><i>"I'm pretty sure that sexual orientation was a protected class years before Obama had anything to do with it."</i><br /><br />My last minuter research said otherwise. If you have a link to something that contradicts what I've said, bring it on and I'll look at it to see how you've misinterpreted it.<br /><br /><i>"Like this has never happened in the entire history of legislation in the US."</i><br /><br />All too often. I'm not surprised you fall back on the two wrongs make a right ideology.<br /><br /><i>"I just sent an email to my friend to inform him that he is an "unfortunate individual"."</i><br /><br />Too bad you're too morally corrupt to competently explain how and why. Now he's even more unfortunate than he was before you told him. Way to go.<br /><br /><i>"I can't find much of anything about what Dr. Turek says..."</i><br /><br />Try harder. I've barely time for my own research.<br /><br /><i>"There you go (I think it was you) with the old "proper use" canard again."</i><br /><br />Canard? I don't need any medical text to know that I'm using the words I use properly. What is more accurate to say is that you DON'T understand the proper use. Are homosexuals mentally dysfunctional or disordered? They are according to all those who tried to block the activists who influenced the APA vote to remove the condition from the list. The are according to those in the field who still offer counseling and therapies to help those who are honest enough to know the score. All other words I've been using have also been appropriate and used according to their definitions. But it is typical of the lefty to accuse the user of such properly used words of bad intention, as if they were mere epithets. That's part of the deceit and dishonesty so typical of you and libs in general which makes progress on any issue so difficult.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-61162181825029057852012-06-28T21:20:28.386-05:002012-06-28T21:20:28.386-05:00Thirdly, the state confers unto real marriages tha...<i>Thirdly, the state confers unto real marriages that which it does not confer on single people, either.</i><br /><br />Uh, that's because they are married. And that's why gays who are couples want to be able to have the same things conferred to them when they are no longer single.<br /><br /><i>show how those reasons are present in same sex unions.</i><br /><br />Every one of them is present. They can provide a stable household, they can own a home together, they can raise their children, send them to school and college, and have a dog.<br /><br /><i>what exists between my wife and I is not based on any state sanctioning at all.</i><br /><br />Your Social Security survivor's benefits and IRS tax rates are.<br /><br /><i>state has a vested interest in promoting traditional marriage</i><br /><br />Fine. Why does that mean that only "traditional marriages" should be allowed? Is there a quota for the number of marriage licenses states can issue and the feds can recognize?<br /><br /><i>But the state isn't required to fine tune every law in order to suit every possibility.</i><br /><br />Fine tuning is what YOU want. Including people is the opposite of "fine tuning".<br /><br /><i>the benefits of having both a father and a mother as each child has a right to have.</i><br /><br />So if a mother dies in childbirth, what happens? Divorce? No can do because that deprives a child of a right? I know the Declaration says that all men have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but I missed the part about the right to a mommy and a daddy. Likewise, the Constitution has free speech and religion, free guns, and few other things, but which amendment has the daddy and the mommy?<br /><br /><i>THAT right, is far more significant and of importance to society in general than the demands of a small group of people</i><br /><br />What does one have to do with the other? Nothing. A gay couple with a marriage license in now way denies a child of your mythical right.<br /><br /><i>forcing the (im)morality of one tiny segment of society upon the majority.</i><br /><br />I've never heard of anyone forcing you to be immoral. Is someone forcing you to be immoral? If so, are you not strong enough to resist?Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10004209843701697773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-20336985863239054872012-06-28T21:15:45.763-05:002012-06-28T21:15:45.763-05:00From Glenn's article on the "definition&q...From Glenn's article on the "definition" of marriage:<br /><br /><i>Marriage is a binding covenant created by God between one man and one woman for our holiness, for our joy, as a picture of the gospel to spread the glory of God.</i><br /><br />So marriage only applies to believers? When couple goes to city hall to get a license, the clerk asks them if they believe in God? Is that how it works?<br /><br /><i>refute our position</i><br /><br />Actually I'm refuting your so-called "positions" left and right. And quite handily, I might add.<br /><br /><i>a case of being forced to participate in a celebration of their immoral union.</i><br /><br />It wasn't the photographer's job to pass judgement on the celebration, it was his job to take pictures of it.<br /><br /><i>Obama's politically motivated pandering to 2% of the population for their votes by signing into law special protections for these sad people was a scam action.</i><br /><br />I'm pretty sure that sexual orientation was a protected class years before Obama had anything to do with it.<br /><br /><i>Make legislators choose between a real need and an incredibly unnecessary one,</i><br /><br />Like this has never happened in the entire history of legislation in the US.<br /><br /><i>unfortunate individuals</i><br /><br />I just sent an email to my friend to inform him that he is an "unfortunate individual".<br /><br />I can't find much of anything about what Dr. Turek says, only how he was fired. A link would help.<br /><br /><i>Trying to justify someone's firing due to the proper use of any of those terms is requires you to make a case.</i><br /><br />There you go (I think it was you) with the old "proper use" canard again. Do you know of any medical text or reputable medical journal which would use the terms despicable, pathetic, queer or homo, much less consider describing homosexuals with those words.<br /><br /><i>Religion is NOT a behavior - it is a philosophy.</i><br /><br />I'd say it's both. You don't see atheists praying or Buddhists genuflecting, do you?<br /><br />Faith or behavior, it's still a choice.<br /><br /><i>if the state calls something a marriage, that doesn’t make it true.</i><br /><br />Actually, yes it does. When it comes to taxes, Social Security, survivor benefits, and medical decisions and much more, what the state calls marriage does, in fact, make it true.<br /><br /><i>everyone KNEW what the definition of marriage is.</i><br /><br />Everyone knew what THEIR definition of marriage was. Some apparently defined it differently from others. The state didn't say one way or the other. So people felt compelled to change it to make it fit THEIR definition.<br /><br /><i>Then in parentheses I suggest</i><br /><br />That, I would suggest, is a very important qualification of your statement.<br /><br /><i>overturn the Church and thousands of years of understanding.</i><br /><br />Church? As far as the state is concerned, marriage is a civil contract. It doesn't care if your ceremony includes taking communion or stomping on a glass, or even if a cleric is involved. Therefore, what the church says is irrelevant, freedom of religion and all that.<br /><br /><i>But for Jim, the knowledge of his co-worker's "orientation" isn't blatant enough for Jim to understand what sets the co-worker apart from normal people.</i><br /><br />If you met him, how could you tell that he was "set apart" from normal people? Except for the no socks thing.<br /><br />Am I supposed to proactively set him apart from the others on my floor because I happen to know he is gay? If he can vote, drive a car, buy a home, and shop at the supermarket like everyone else, how would he be set apart?<br /><br /><i>their alleged love </i><br /><br />Alleged? You are the judge of whether or not another person loves?Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10004209843701697773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-62697047777814744702012-06-28T14:38:21.369-05:002012-06-28T14:38:21.369-05:00Here is a good article about the definition of mar...Here is a good article about the definition of marriage:<br />http://www.mikeleake.net/2012/06/marriage-defined.htmlGlenn E. Chatfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04117405535707961903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-3150515278948771342012-06-28T14:12:12.712-05:002012-06-28T14:12:12.712-05:00"If the commitment is all that matters to you...<i>"If the commitment is all that matters to you, if THAT is the real marriage to you, then why are you fighting the legality of the government-recognized piece of paper that is a marriage license."</i><br /><br />Because, lamebrain, as has been repeated and supported by actual facts for so long now, the state has a vested interest in promoting traditional marriage because if its unique nature and what doing so does for society that is not replicated by all the many alternative arrangements such as SSM and all those other groups of people waiting in the wings to use the same arguments that must allow their demands as well.<br /><br />Now I know you will likely want to try that old canard about people who can't, won't or no longer can produce children. But the state isn't required to fine tune every law in order to suit every possibility. In each of those situations, the possibility still exists for children to be a part and enjoy the benefits of having both a father and a mother as each child has a right to have. THAT right, is far more significant and of importance to society in general than the demands of a small group of people whose "orientation" is both a mental dysfunction as well as likely to result in sinful behavior. <br /><br />"Two of the same gender will NEVER fit that definition."<br /><br /><i>"That information is no longer up to date."</i><br /><br />That info is ignored without basis in favor of forcing the (im)morality of one tiny segment of society upon the majority. This, BTW, flies in the face of liberal protests against the alleged attempts of the conservative Christians over forcing morality upon society. The truth is obvious. The left will do all it can to disrupt all true notions of virtue and morality to suit its own selfish ends. <br /><br />Here is the biggest lie of all:<br /><br /><i>"So I say, just who is it that's trying to change the definition of marriage?"</i><br /><br />As Glenn said so accurately, marriage needed no codified definition because it was not an issue what the word meant UNTIL homosexuals and leftist enablers lacking moral understanding (or the desire to adhere to any) decided that human sexuality was not a moral issue. Little Jimmy thinks he is being clever by calling me a sex nazi because I uphold traditional notions of morality and encourage others to do so as well, while never once suggesting any legislation to prevent sexual deviants, anarchists and those obsessed with sexual gratification from pleasuring themselves either alone or with any number of consenting "adults". This is not the case with the true fascists, the left, who are forcing their immorality upon the the nation.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-60958908759508719542012-06-28T13:59:35.623-05:002012-06-28T13:59:35.623-05:00Indeed, Glenn. "Ass" must be the term t...Indeed, Glenn. "Ass" must be the term that best exemplifies Jim as a debater at least. He is unafraid to say the most stupid and/or dishonest things in order to fail to refute our position. Case in point:<br /><br />"Homosexuals themselves speak of their sexual practices as a lifestyle (at least those who have left it do)."<br /><br /><i>"Why on earth would we take these very rare people as authorities on the subject?"</i><br /><br />Note how my main point was that homosexuals speak of their practices as a lifestyle. Then in parentheses I suggest "at least" those who have left the lifestyle do. Jim then pounces on this and pretends it means that ONLY those who left the lifestyle refer to their way of living as a lifestyle. Worse, he thinks it matters that the numbers of those people is very small. So apparently, percentages only matter when the opinion expressed is a percentage JIM decides is too small. 2-3% is huge enough for Jim to overturn the Church and thousands of years of understanding. This mentally challenged thinking is then followed by this:<br /><br />"...when he engages in sexual behavior with another of his own gender, it is THAT which sets him apart from normal people."<br /><br /><i>"Sets him apart how?"</i><br /><br />The "how" is in the statement Jim questions. Normal people are attracted to and engage in sexual activity with members of the OPPOSITE sex. It is normal because that is what nature calls for. Same sex attraction is abnormal because it is counter to the reason there are two genders in the first place. An obvious problem never addressed by those who wish to pretend that homosexual attraction is normal. But for Jim, the knowledge of his co-worker's "orientation" isn't blatant enough for Jim to understand what sets the co-worker apart from normal people.<br /><br />"what do they care if the state recognizes them or not? When will THAT question get answered, anyway?"<br /><br /><i>"Seriously? [Forehead slap here] States and the federal government grant legally married couples rights and privileges that non-legally married couples don't have."</i><br /><br />First, I doubt you slapped yourself with the force your stupidity deserves. Secondly, your response suggests that their alleged love for each other is not main thing but that they are seeking monetary gain and/or forcing the state to recognize their unions as normal and equal to real marriages. Thirdly, the state confers unto real marriages that which it does not confer on single people, either. The reasons for this have been explained ad nauseum and your side, you and Parkie least of all, have ever presented reasons (based on anything tangible) to show how those reasons are present in same sex unions.<br /><br />"We were married right then and there because we made the commitment."<br /><br /><i>"I'm pretty sure your state and the Social Security Administration didn't think so."</i><br /><br />The point, as Jim well knows but pretends otherwise, is that what exists between my wife and I is not based on any state sanctioning at all, but on the commitment we made to each other, the vows we could have taken (and pretty much did) without a legal representative of the gov't to presiding.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-91473232539902067422012-06-28T09:56:14.745-05:002012-06-28T09:56:14.745-05:00Jim, you are a complete ass.
Religion is NOT a be...Jim, you are a complete ass.<br /><br />Religion is NOT a behavior - it is a philosophy. Your ignorance - or intentional stupidity - is astounding.<br /><br />As noted to you before, if the state calls something a marriage, that doesn’t make it true. Same-sex unions will never be marriage. The state can call a dog’s tail a leg, but it will never be a leg. Calling a dandelion a rose doesn’t change its status as a week.<br /><br />The reason why no one had to pass an amendment to define marriage in the past was because everyone KNEW what the definition of marriage is. But when people try to change the definition, laws have to be made to stop the insanity.Glenn E. Chatfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04117405535707961903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-25906171043077960812012-06-28T03:14:29.635-05:002012-06-28T03:14:29.635-05:00Let's look at some of Jim's stupidity and ...Let's look at some of Jim's stupidity and save the rest for tomorrow.<br /><br /><i>"In the case of the photography, the Knights of Columbus and similar situations, these businesses were providing a "public accommodation", and by doing so were subject to the laws of discrimination against protected classes."</i><br /><br />And as stated, this imagined "right" now trumps ACTUAL enumerated rights in the US Constitution, such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of association. And what's worse is that the litigants in these cases are almost ALWAYS able to get what they want from other business owners who aren't religious or religious enough to stand firmly against sexual immorality. The case of the photographer, for example, was not merely a case of not wanting to do business with lesbians, but a case of being forced to participate in a celebration of their immoral union. This is a direct violation of the rights of the photographer, but real enumerated Constitutionally protected rights are <i>forced</i> to take a back seat to this imaginary "right" to have people treat abnormal people and their sexual desires as equal to normal people. <br /><br />What's more, Obama's politically motivated pandering to 2% of the population for their votes by signing into law special protections for these sad people was a scam action. It was added to a much needed military spending bill that provided income guarantees for the very people who put their lives on the line to safeguard actual rights of Americans. This is the type of snake-like tactics constantly employed by Democrats in general, and this lobby in particular to get their way: Make legislators choose between a real need and an incredibly unnecessary one, complete with bullshit rhetoric that states a lie put forth as honorable and honest intentions. Typical and losers like Jim use it to pretend special protected status for these unfortunate individuals is a good thing.<br /><br /><i>"As far as the Dr. Turek case, although I think that's going a bit overboard, I would be interested to hear from the person who complained what it was that the doctor said on his own time."</i><br /><br />"OVERBOARD"?? It's reprehensible and absolutely unAmerican to do what the employer did to Turek over some bullshit notion of "diversity" and "equality". Google his name, jerkwad, and you'll see what he says about sexual immorality. Then try to make the case that there was anything logical, ethical or righteous in his dismissal. OR, try to defend the asinine notion that it is OUR side that is trying to force anything upon anyone. <br /><br /><i>"For instance, if he found that Dr. Turek wrote on a blog or something similar, like this one, that gays are perverts, homos, queers, dysfunctional, despicable, pedophiles, etc., I would say he's perfectly justified in getting the guy fired."</i><br /><br />That's because you're an idiot. A clinical one like your buddy, Parkie. You both suffer from your own mental dysfunction. Trying to justify someone's firing due to the proper use of any of those terms is requires you to make a case. For instance, you decry the use of the word "pathetic" in relation to the condition of homosexuals. You are obviously unaware of the meaning of the term, or, like libs are wont to do, are choosing to redefine the word or insisting on only one usage of the word ANY TIME it is used in order to demonize your opposition. This is the type of dishonesty that makes dealing with lefties on important issues problematic. <br /><br />More later...Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-69726771010483046692012-06-28T02:42:48.462-05:002012-06-28T02:42:48.462-05:00Thanks to Glenn for all the links. I am sorry to ...Thanks to Glenn for all the links. I am sorry to say that Jim (and his pet monkey, Parkie) are too much the reprobates for any of that to have any positive effect. But thanks nonetheless for the effort and good intentions.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.com