Bigotry nonsense

Nonsense.

None of the items of progress demonstrated in our constitution are based in religion. And, our foundation is in a long line of SECULAR rule - one of the major changes setting us free.

A constitution as the foundation of law? Law coming from an elected legislature?

Rights? The Bible is about duties, not rights.

Separation of powers - checks and balances?

Separation of church and state?

No, America is very solidly in secular tradition. In fact, we would label any nation as secular if it were even close to our ideals.

- - - Updated - - -

So, you have no point based on faithfulness.

Plus, if we're interested in monogamy, we would ENCOURAGE marriage, not prevent it.

 

Neither to both of the above. I made a statement of fact regarding pastors and officiants obligation or lack thereof to marry persons they did not wish to marry.

Instead of countering with reference to a law which does force them to do so in this way and maybe providing examples (doesn't need to be gay couples, straight couples will do) you countered with:

...as a display of your brilliance.

I wasn't impressed since I seem to be speaking in fact while you seem to have your fingers in your ear singing La, La, La....

No you ask a serious question and are given a serious answer and the best response to that answer you can come up with is:

and you have the gall to accuse anyone else of wallowing?

Good because people's individual rights aren't up for popular vote which is a lessen it seems keeps needing to be taught.

It is bigotry to pass nonsensical and wholly unnecessary laws which seek to vilify a section of the population as they simply try to exercise their constitutionally protected rights and to somehow imply that another group (pastors) have had their constitutional rights somehow abridged by that recognition when they categorically have not.

What like:

Something like that?

What, the attitude that I might be right and you might be wrong or the attitude that gives rise to crass, grade level, swats like:

?

Then stop telling people who understand the law that they don't and running off when they provide you with the information you lack.

What, as in:

Yea...right.

Well there's always the local bar or debate club.

 

Luke 6:37"Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned. 38"Give, and it will be given to you. They will pour into your lap a good measure-- pressed down, shaken together, and running over. For by your standard of measure it will be measured to you in return."…

There was no message on the cake, another lie.

You stated:

The source you posted is a disgusting perversion and betrayal of fact and logic. It's anti-gay rhetoric uses discreted studies from 20-50 years ago and still doesn't make the claim you say (they say 40) it does, it even acknowledges that it WAS for people with AIDS - 50 years ago.

So let me ask it again, please post a source showing that the average life span for a homosexuals is 30 and that AIDS started with the gays. You know bearing false witness is a grevious sin? Correct?

 

No, it isn't. Marriage is what the law says it is, it directly dispels your belief.

Scared to answer the question I see. That should show you how much faith you have in your own beliefs.

 

It has become obvious (based upon the overall tone of your posts) that you are here to spout irrational animus toward homosexuals.

That BS should be rejected out of hand.

 

We keep having this discussion on many threads, but YES the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence draw heavily on the Bible. And, yes, the Bible does address Rights. The concept of Liberty as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence IS a biblical presupposition.

 

right wingers say there is no such thing as racism in USA - yet they claim liberals are the world's biggest racists - but all that shows is their version of twisted politically correct mindlessness

 

Is there ANYBODY on either side of this argument that reads - or keeps up with such idiotic back and forth exchanges as this? Chill out dude, try answering my initial questions and if you can do that, we can move forth. If not, you're wasting bandwidth. You can't even convince yourself of your own talking points. That's why you have to have a line by line attack on everything I've said. Even after all that, you cannot counter the simple truth.

 

Not the Right but the Ultra-Religious Right.

There is a big difference.

AA

 

many of the right wingers on this forum repeat that nonsensical idea on this forum every week but I am not aware of them being particularly religious

 

Case in point....this topics author.

AA

 

Once again the person who declares others are acting in a superior fashion decides that a perfectly rational exchange is "idiotic". This is called hubris; look it up.

Oh! don't worry, I'm perfectly chilled. In fact I really enjoy this.

I was responding to the contention that a law was neccessary to "protect" pastors from the obligation of having to marry same sex couples by advising that no such protection is required as it is already in place. You claimed it was not. What do you expect me to do, just take your word for it when I know it's patently untrue?

Can you see that that's not your call?

I don't need convincing of known facts.

A discourse isn't an attack. Stop being so sensitive.

Well provide one and we'll see?

 

Yes, people read and keep up with this back and forth, especially when one member is claiming superiority over another while dancing around the subject.

So far you have been unable to provide a single case where a pastor protection bill needs to be reintroduced. They already have protections and those protections are not being reasonably challenged.

Why do you feel we need duplicate laws for a matter that is not even contested? Other than to highlight a minority group that you have issue with.

It is neither appropriate or financially prudent to pass duplicate legislation, legislatures that waste time on measure such as this are simply pandering to their base while simultaneously wasting everyone's money.

 

Your agenda is showing, FIRST, the laws in each State allow a huge list of stuff and prohibit others, the States also have a huge list of laws, some are not enforced anymore,, like the first laws about horses having the right of way over cars, pedestrians have this right in many jurisdictions, as a LEO, much time is spent learning basic law, the two main volumes in NYS LE work is the penal code of NYS and the vehicle traffic code, and there are the normal enforcement codes you write a citation for or a DAT, or arrest, or call a patrol supervisor if you don't know what to do.

Polygamy is not legal anywhere I know and bestiality would need to be looked up by State, if you wanted to know, same for incest.
Marry an animal ? I do not know a State that allows it, but to bring it up at random or as a counter point in a thread, seems to indicate a mental defect of some sort in my opinion.

Laws exist on most matters, or do not, or stay silent, or some things are made legal like medical Marijuana laws in some States, or is illegal in other States.

Concealed firearms laws, varies State by State... So just asking about polygamy or abortion or whatever, it all depends what State you live in and if it is legal there, then you can decide if you feel it is proper or not and either obey a law, or break the law..

 

So this post not only is you admitting to being a bigot, but a hypocrite also.
For you sin. You just don't like others who sin certain sins. That is a bigot. And because you sin and don't like other sins, makes you a hypocrite.

I've read in the bible, being a hypocrite is really unfavorable in the eyes of God and Jesus. Seems you may be treading on very thin ice. It may melt and collapse to hell.

 

I have a good example of a hypocrite, a street corner preacher, with a microphone and a small speaker droning on, so I approached him and conversed, and I told him how Jesus came to save, not condemn people to hell, and how he had a message of reconciliation, and he got mad and told me to go away, then turned around and resumed droning his rehearsed droning.

Great example of a hypocrite with a pretense to Christianity.

 

Religion should be used for Goodness and not Badness.

 

I agree.

 

I don't specialize in posting B.S. and telling people to look up words that have no relevance to the subject at hand. You wrote:

"Can you see that that's not your call?"

My response is simply this:

I DO get to make the call as to how much bandwidth I choose to spend responding to irrelevant personal attacks that have NOTHING to do with the subject matter at hand. If you want to have a personal whizzing contest with me, PM works best.

 

I'm debating public policy. I have no interest in private conversations.

 

In just two paragraphs you have managed to call a poster not one, but TWO different names. What I think is a lot of chickensqueeze here is that I've participated on these threads. Whenever I have offered scholarly, well researched responses, the mods have saw fit to delete the work.

For the most part these kinds of personal attacks are allowed to stand, but personally I'm not offended that you had to stoop to the level you did. It only proves two things: A) You don't have a clue as to what you're talking about and B) You feel so insecure that you have to hurl names.

Besides name calling being childish, it is indicative of the weakness of your arguments.

Every person commits sin. Every person has an impure thought at some point in their lives; ALL of you have a weakness; All of you have done the wrong thing at one point or another. A man loses his cool, yells at his wife and instantly regrets what he just did. That does not make a hypocrite make.

The Christian deplores the sin and works to refrain from it. The non-believer thinks they have a monopoly on human virtue because they sin with no remorse. The Christian is always striving to be better, realizing that they will never be perfect. Being a good Christian is a journey not a destination.

 

Every person commits sin according to the christian religion.
When a person is intolerant to a group of people or person that is bigotry. It was admitted he didn't like gays because they are gay. That is the definition of bigot.
The fact he admits he's a sinner and is intolerant of another sin is the basic definition of hypocrisy. They feel superior to another sinner because they have a different sin.

A spade is a spade.

And the OP had the balls to start a thread about bigotry nonsense and with in 1 or 2 pages of the thread basically says I don't like gays because it is a sin.
Sorry you don't like the truth. Most christians don't.

 

SB 757:

http://townhall.com/columnists/brya...for-your-pastor--2-billion-n2138040/page/full

https://soundcloud.com/ewerickson/erick-responds-to-gov-deal

http://barbwire.com/2016/03/18/yes-need-pastor-protection-act/

 

As far as judging anyone else's sins, in any case all sins are forgiven save one, blasphemy against the holy spirit, even one speaking against the Son, he shall be forgiven, he who speaks against the Holy Spirit, shall not be forgiven, neither in this World nor the World to come.


Matthew 7:3-5King James Version (KJV)

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

All sins of commission are equal, lying, cheating, fornication, aldultery, stealing, lusting in your heart.

If you sin daily and we all do, at the end of the day, you repent of ALL your sins for that day, and Jesus forgives you and you are washed clean by his blood, every day you take a shower, right ? The same way, you need to repent of your sins every day.
And all your sins are forgiven.

**********
Romans 7: 4 - 25

"4Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. 5For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. 6But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

God's Law is Holy
7What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. 8But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. 9For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. 10And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. 11For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. 12Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

Struggling with Sin
13Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

14For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. 16If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. 17Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

21I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 22For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin."

 

The truth means different things to different people. Christians realize that an act is bad (whether you categorize it as evil, sinful, immoral, or just plain wrong.) The difference that I see is that a Christian knows that they've done something wrong and try to make it right while attempting to avoid it in the future.

By contrast, a non-believer (or in this case, gays) denies that what they're doing is wrong and demands that we accept it. When pressed, the gays have been unable to tell us where the buck stops. Marriage was defined as a union between one man and one woman. Instead of creating civil unions or changing the meaning of marriage via legislation, the gay community opted for corrupting they system by getting the courts to "legalize" gay marriage.

While the courts had the power to declare an immoral act to be legal (sic), they definitely lacked the authority. The courts are legislating from the bench and turning the Republic into a sick side show. Nobody wants to discuss the real issues without the name calling, but rest assured, dairyair, your side did not corner the market on the truth.