(07-26-2012 10:14 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  

(07-26-2012 09:58 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(07-26-2012 09:43 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-26-2012 05:05 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Which is why if the GOP had its way there would be no Civil Rights Act of 1964 and blacks would still be banned from lunch counters in pockets of the dirty south.

What are you talking about? 80% of the GOP voted for it and only 62% of the libs did. You lefties just love to invent your own facts, but you guys are the true racists.

LOL...don't talk truth and real history with libs. They prefer revisionist history that fits their current beliefs.

Liberals just make this crap up as they go, and if someone hears it often enough, they may begin to believe it.

Chick Fil-A's CEO has a right speak his opinion on politics (just like the CEO of GM, GE, Solyndra, et al.), and consumers have the right to speak with their wallets whether to support that position or not.

Libs can take the "Thought Police" crap (a la Orwell's 1984) and shove it up their oh so tolerant arses. It is not the government's business or mandate to legislate personal opinion, only actions.....and I am oh so tired of being told by morally bankrupt liberals as to how I "should" feel about the topic if the day.

It's like the Voting Rights Act, many libs fought against it and a larger percentage of the GOP voted for it than the libs. But to listen to a lib tell it, it's the GOP that's against it. Liberals are the true racists.

(07-26-2012 09:57 PM)OLD DIRTY Wrote:  MTSU, while there were cases of polygamy in the bible you're gonna have to present more than a opinion piece that it was "the norm" for me to buy what you're selling.

Since MTSU is still looking thru the Koran on this one, I took the liberty to investigate his claim myself:

Duet 7:14-17 (seems to be the most applicable towards gays and AIDS)

Quote:14 You will be blessed more than any other people; none of your men or women will be childless, nor will any of your livestock be without young. 15 The Lord will keep you free from every disease. He will not inflict on you the horrible diseases you knew in Egypt, but he will inflict them on all who hate you. 16 You must destroy all the peoples the Lord your God gives over to you. Do not look on them with pity and do not serve their gods, for that will be a snare to you.

17 You may say to yourselves, “These nations are stronger than we are. How can we drive them out? ”

Matthew 19:4

Quote: 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a]

Mark 10:6-8

Quote: 6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’[a] 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[b] 8 and the two will become one flesh.’[c] So they are no longer two, but one flesh.

While there were examples of polygamy, it was NEVER accepted or condoned by God in the New Testament or Old Testament. MTSU would be defined a false witness for implying that it was.

(07-26-2012 09:39 PM)SouthGAEagle Wrote:  

(07-26-2012 12:57 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  And while we're at it, try opening up a Gay bar in Tupelo Mississippi

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=gay+bar+tupelo+ms

(07-26-2012 08:56 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  c'mon Max.... I'm not aware of any Christian group who has done to gays what the Klan did/does to blacks. I'm not saying there aren't individuals or small groups of people... but the public groups that are "pro-family", or what you would call anti-gay, do not support doing to gays what the klan actually did to people. Saying someone will burn in hell isn't the same as setting someone on fire.

And I was fair about that. I said that a big difference is the Christians are peaceful. But their hate speech can incite violence, and bullying in schools and harassment, leading to suicides and even murders. It's not as bad but should be unacceptable.

Quote:If marrying anyone you want is fair in the liberal mind, how is polygomy wrong?

You can argue it's bad on public policy grounds because the larger the harem for one man, the more single guys you have roaming around who can never have a family, and this can lead to crime. And I'm sure it's damaging for the women who feel they are stuck in the polygamous marriage on religious grounds. But I'm also somewhat inclined to just let them do it anyway.

Quote:What are you talking about? 80% of the GOP voted for it and only 62% of the libs did. You lefties just love to invent your own facts, but you guys are the true racists.

That was the MUCH more reasonable 1960s GOP, and when the southern racists were voting Democrat, before LBJ scared them off with his civil rights embraces and Nixon's southern strategy won them over to the GOP. If you don't know this you're the one ignorant of history. Today, the "right to discriminate" rhetoric of those 20% who voted against it are echoed all over the right, including here. Senator Rand Paul even said point blank he would have voted against it (after which he realized what a huge blunder that was and disappeared for a couple months, refusing to engage the media and risk his lead even further).

(07-27-2012 08:39 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(07-26-2012 09:39 PM)SouthGAEagle Wrote:  

(07-26-2012 12:57 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  And while we're at it, try opening up a Gay bar in Tupelo Mississippi

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=gay+bar+tupelo+ms

No kidding, liberals still looking for the stereotypical southern anti gay witch hunt. Looks like it is pretty easy to find a gay bar in Tupelo.

(07-27-2012 07:43 AM)OLD DIRTY Wrote:  

(07-26-2012 09:57 PM)OLD DIRTY Wrote:  MTSU, while there were cases of polygamy in the bible you're gonna have to present more than a opinion piece that it was "the norm" for me to buy what you're selling.

Since MTSU is still looking thru the Koran on this one, I took the liberty to investigate his claim myself:

Duet 7:14-17 (seems to be the most applicable towards gays and AIDS)

Quote:14 You will be blessed more than any other people; none of your men or women will be childless, nor will any of your livestock be without young. 15 The Lord will keep you free from every disease. He will not inflict on you the horrible diseases you knew in Egypt, but he will inflict them on all who hate you. 16 You must destroy all the peoples the Lord your God gives over to you. Do not look on them with pity and do not serve their gods, for that will be a snare to you.

17 You may say to yourselves, “These nations are stronger than we are. How can we drive them out? ”

Matthew 19:4

Quote: 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a]

Mark 10:6-8

Quote: 6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’[a] 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[b] 8 and the two will become one flesh.’[c] So they are no longer two, but one flesh.

While there were examples of polygamy, it was NEVER accepted or condoned by God in the New Testament or Old Testament. MTSU would be defined a false witness for implying that it was.

I didn't look through the Bible for that one - it was a quote from an opinion piece. Take it however you want - as polygamy in the Bible is, in fact, a hotly-debated topic, as this reply evidences.

It wasn't "the norm" per se - but it did happen, as "many of the Old Testament Prophets and Patriarchs had multiple wives, including Lamech, Abraham, Jacob, Esau, Gideon, Saul, David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Elkanah, Ashur, Abijah and Jehoiada." I don't want to get into a huge theological debate because that would go on and on and on.

The University of Louisville, snd other colleges across the country, look to remove Chick-Fil-A from their campuses:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/27...11001.html

Tolerance just isn't being taught anymore.

(07-27-2012 09:55 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(07-26-2012 08:56 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  c'mon Max.... I'm not aware of any Christian group who has done to gays what the Klan did/does to blacks. I'm not saying there aren't individuals or small groups of people... but the public groups that are "pro-family", or what you would call anti-gay, do not support doing to gays what the klan actually did to people. Saying someone will burn in hell isn't the same as setting someone on fire.

And I was fair about that. I said that a big difference is the Christians are peaceful. But their hate speech can incite violence, and bullying in schools and harassment, leading to suicides and even murders. It's not as bad but should be unacceptable.

Quote:If marrying anyone you want is fair in the liberal mind, how is polygomy wrong?

You can argue it's bad on public policy grounds because the larger the harem for one man, the more single guys you have roaming around who can never have a family, and this can lead to crime. And I'm sure it's damaging for the women who feel they are stuck in the polygamous marriage on religious grounds. But I'm also somewhat inclined to just let them do it anyway.

It's amazing how you think. Do you notice that in both of these responses, you are basically saying that people shouldn't be free to express themselves because OTHER people might react in a bad way to it? You don't seem to mind having atheists try and tell Christians what the bible says, though they might react poorly to it... or for gays not to express their displeasure at straights, in case the straights react poorly to it.

How about YOU be responsible for YOUR actions (the collective you), and me for mine. If two ir 6 consenting adults want to marry, I am personally against doing it myself, but who am I to dictate your actions that don't involve me? The argument that by taking women out of the available population vicarously involves me sounds like a losers excuse. If THAT guy is so much more virile/attractive than you, maybe you shouldn't be procreating anyway. Shouldn't this help the gay male population? With the male/female population roughly equal, I certainly hope there are an equal number of lesbians as gay males... otherwise SOMEONE is going to get short changed. Perhaps the government can address this by offering tax incentives to certain minority sexual orientations to ensure "equality of outcomes"??

Seems to me that by being nice/non-violent, the Christians are being taken advantage of. Meanwhile, the radical Muslims are being appeased for fear of their violence. Right up your argument's alley.

Guess what the likely result of YOUR argument is?

(07-27-2012 09:55 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

Quote:What are you talking about? 80% of the GOP voted for it and only 62% of the libs did. You lefties just love to invent your own facts, but you guys are the true racists.

That was the MUCH more reasonable 1960s GOP, and when the southern racists were voting Democrat, before LBJ scared them off with his civil rights embraces and Nixon's southern strategy won them over to the GOP. If you don't know this you're the one ignorant of history. Today, the "right to discriminate" rhetoric of those 20% who voted against it are echoed all over the right, including here. Senator Rand Paul even said point blank he would have voted against it (after which he realized what a huge blunder that was and disappeared for a couple months, refusing to engage the media and risk his lead even further).

See, this is what I'm talking about. I provided an easily verifiable fact, but if I don't believe you I'm the one that's ignorant.

What right to discriminate? You mean like boycotting?

(07-29-2012 09:09 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Tolerance just isn't being taught anymore.

Yeah, tolerance of the intolerant is not taught anymore.

(07-29-2012 11:10 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-29-2012 09:09 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Tolerance just isn't being taught anymore.

Yeah, tolerance of the intolerant is not taught anymore.

I'm not going to use the word tolerance because it has been made weak as water. How about 'respect'? Respect for someone with differing opinions isnt taught anymore and that, in my opinion, is a good amount of what's wrong in America. Not only is it evident on message boards and amongst normal people, it's even at the top with the people that we elect to be able to solve real problems. Instead of solving those problems they are only interested in coming back and talking crap about the others. That's liberals and conservatives.

So now those of you who were backing the mayor of Boston say now that he's backtracking on his own comments?

Out: Blackmailing people leasing land to a company...

Quote:. And we’re not going to have a company, Chick-Fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail. If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult — unless they open up their policies.”

Newness: Saying that I shouldn't have said it, but I'm going to influence the leaser (or try to) anyway

Quote:“I can’t do that. That would be interference to his rights to go there... “I sent (the landlord) a letter, but that’s all. There’s no pressure by me to allow this place to be rented,” he said.”

A letter from the mayor isn't pressure?? RRRRight....

(07-29-2012 11:07 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-27-2012 09:55 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

Quote:What are you talking about? 80% of the GOP voted for it and only 62% of the libs did. You lefties just love to invent your own facts, but you guys are the true racists.

That was the MUCH more reasonable 1960s GOP, and when the southern racists were voting Democrat, before LBJ scared them off with his civil rights embraces and Nixon's southern strategy won them over to the GOP. If you don't know this you're the one ignorant of history. Today, the "right to discriminate" rhetoric of those 20% who voted against it are echoed all over the right, including here. Senator Rand Paul even said point blank he would have voted against it (after which he realized what a huge blunder that was and disappeared for a couple months, refusing to engage the media and risk his lead even further).

See, this is what I'm talking about. I provided an easily verifiable fact, but if I don't believe you I'm the one that's ignorant.

What right to discriminate? You mean like boycotting?

History is not mini's strong point. But then can a 35yo bigoted ambulance chaser have a strong point?

(07-27-2012 09:55 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(07-26-2012 08:56 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  c'mon Max.... I'm not aware of any Christian group who has done to gays what the Klan did/does to blacks. I'm not saying there aren't individuals or small groups of people... but the public groups that are "pro-family", or what you would call anti-gay, do not support doing to gays what the klan actually did to people. Saying someone will burn in hell isn't the same as setting someone on fire.

And I was fair about that. I said that a big difference is the Christians are peaceful. But their hate speech can incite violence, and bullying in schools and harassment, leading to suicides and even murders. It's not as bad but should be unacceptable.

Quote:If marrying anyone you want is fair in the liberal mind, how is polygomy wrong?

You can argue it's bad on public policy grounds because the larger the harem for one man, the more single guys you have roaming around who can never have a family, and this can lead to crime. And I'm sure it's damaging for the women who feel they are stuck in the polygamous marriage on religious grounds. But I'm also somewhat inclined to just let them do it anyway.

Quote:What are you talking about? 80% of the GOP voted for it and only 62% of the libs did. You lefties just love to invent your own facts, but you guys are the true racists.

That was the MUCH more reasonable 1960s GOP, and when the southern racists were voting Democrat, before LBJ scared them off with his civil rights embraces and Nixon's southern strategy won them over to the GOP. If you don't know this you're the one ignorant of history. Today, the "right to discriminate" rhetoric of those 20% who voted against it are echoed all over the right, including here. Senator Rand Paul even said point blank he would have voted against it (after which he realized what a huge blunder that was and disappeared for a couple months, refusing to engage the media and risk his lead even further).

Bigotry doesn't equal discrimination.

(07-29-2012 10:33 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I'm not going to use the word tolerance because it has been made weak as water. How about 'respect'?

+1 For this: I hate what the word Tolerance has become. To Tolerate something means you find it uncomfortable and distasteful, disgusting and something you'd rather not be around.... Yet you *TOLERATE* it.

The left has moved tolerance to the bar of acceptance and celebration.

(07-30-2012 08:25 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(07-29-2012 10:33 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I'm not going to use the word tolerance because it has been made weak as water. How about 'respect'?

+1 For this: I hate what the word Tolerance has become. To Tolerate something means you find it uncomfortable and distasteful, disgusting and something you'd rather not be around.... Yet you *TOLERATE* it.

The left has moved tolerance to the bar of acceptance and celebration.

Take "respect" out of nomad's post and I agree. I tolerate much but my tolerance does not equate to respect. Quite the contrary.

Figured I'd bring this over from MT.org, courtesy of Cletus:



"The Constitution?
The First Ammendment?
Religious liberty?
Do these aply to Christians?"

Quote:

Published: July 27, 2012 Updated: July 28, 2012 4:35 a.m.
Star Parker: Chick-fil-A protest could set back gay activism


By STAR PARKER / San Clemente resident who lives in San Clemente


The current hate campaign being waged by homosexual activists against fast food chain Chick-fil-A, because of the firm's Christian values, may well turn out to be a bridge too far. The effort may prove to be a setback for homosexual activism.

The vile attacks on the firm and its owners, the Cathy family, should make clear, finally, that the "gay rights" movement is not about refining and advancing American freedom, but about rewriting American values and advancing, not freedom, but the homosexual political agenda.


This Thursday, July 19, 2012 photo shows a Chick-fil-A
fast food restaurant in Atlanta. Chick-fil-A, whose founder
distinguished the fast-food chain by closing on Sunday out
of religious piety, continues to mix theology with business
and finds itself on the front lines of the nation's culture
wars after its president, Dan Cathy, confirmed his
opposition to gay marriage in June 2012.

Recently Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton spoke at a flag-raising ceremony in Alexandria, Egypt, noting the re-opening of the American consulate there. Given the current political climate in Egypt, the Secretary of State felt behooved in her remarks to highlight principles of freedom as understood by Americans.

"... to us, real democracy means that every citizen has the right to live, work and worship as they choose, whether they are man or woman, Muslim or Christian, or from any other background."

Perhaps Clinton should be lecturing Americans instead of Egyptians.
Can it really be that in America today a businessman can be labeled a bigot, boycotted and cut off by suppliers because of the crime of being a Christian?

When Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy made his now famous incendiary admission that "we are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit," he was not pontificating. He was responding to a question in an interview done in a paper I expect is not read by many homosexuals – the Baptist Press.

Never mind. It was sufficient provocation that Cathy publicly admitted that the Bible defines his understanding of marriage – the unique bond of man and woman – which also happens to be the standard definition in dictionaries on the shelves of every American home and library.

"Chick-fil-A's values are not Chicago's values," said Chicago Mayor, and former chief of staff to President Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel. Emanuel defended Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno's threat to deny Chick-fil-A permitting in Chicago because its owner supports traditional marriage and family.

But UCLA law professor and constitutional scholar Eugene Volokh points out in his blog that "denying a private business permits because of such speech by its owner is a blatant First Amendment violation."

The Constitution? The First Amendment? Religious liberty? Do these apply to Christians?

Volokh goes on to point out that a permit might be denied "if Chick-fil-A actually discriminated in their serving or hiring decisions in Chicago in a way forbidden by Chicago or Illinois law. But the stories give no evidence of such actions ..."

The fact that there is no evidence that Chick-fil-A discriminates in its business practices did not deter Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank from writing that Dan Cathy's support of traditional marriage "implied that gay people (not to mention divorced people) had no business eating at Chick-fil-A."

One court decision after another over the last 50 years has, step by step, purged any hint of religion and traditional values from our schools and public spaces.

Has it made this a fairer, better, freer nation? If you think breakdown of family, 40 percent out-of-wedlock births, a million abortions a year, $16 trillion in national debt, and government dependence is better and freer, yes.

Of course, society must embrace civility, respect and tolerance. But this doesn't mean that the sexual proclivities of some should provide license to rewrite our language and the traditions that define our faith and virtue.

Hopefully many will respond to Mike Huckabee's appeal to patronize Chick-fil-A on Aug. 1 as a display of support for traditional Christian values and as a reminder that our Constitution protects religious freedom.
Have we really gotten to the point where being a Christian is considered un-American?

(07-30-2012 09:03 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(07-30-2012 08:25 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(07-29-2012 10:33 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I'm not going to use the word tolerance because it has been made weak as water. How about 'respect'?

+1 For this: I hate what the word Tolerance has become. To Tolerate something means you find it uncomfortable and distasteful, disgusting and something you'd rather not be around.... Yet you *TOLERATE* it.

The left has moved tolerance to the bar of acceptance and celebration.

Take "respect" out of nomad's post and I agree. I tolerate much but my tolerance does not equate to respect. Quite the contrary.

I didn't want to make it seem like I consider the two words equal. It's just that some have made it as though they are. That's why I said that respect is stronger than tolerance.

(07-29-2012 09:32 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  It's amazing how you think. Do you notice that in both of these responses, you are basically saying that people shouldn't be free to express themselves because OTHER people might react in a bad way to it?

Speech has always been unprotected when other people "might react in a bad way to it." There's the classic example of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. Hitler never picked up a gun-- he didn't have to. He wrote a book called Mein Kampf. Hate speech doesn't necessarily need a call to action to be dangerous.

Quote:You don't seem to mind having atheists try and tell Christians what the bible says, though they might react poorly to it... or for gays not to express their displeasure at straights, in case the straights react poorly to it.

Where have gays bashed straight people? No matter, straight Christians run this country. They don't have anything to be afraid of. Be reasonable. Kids aren't killing themselves because they're straight Christians.

Quote:How about YOU be responsible for YOUR actions (the collective you), and me for mine. If two ir 6 consenting adults want to marry, I am personally against doing it myself, but who am I to dictate your actions that don't involve me? The argument that by taking women out of the available population vicarously involves me sounds like a losers excuse. If THAT guy is so much more virile/attractive than you, maybe you shouldn't be procreating anyway. Shouldn't this help the gay male population? With the male/female population roughly equal, I certainly hope there are an equal number of lesbians as gay males... otherwise SOMEONE is going to get short changed. Perhaps the government can address this by offering tax incentives to certain minority sexual orientations to ensure "equality of outcomes"??

Now it's getting interesting LOL. You should care because it's bad policy, just as incest is because it weakens the gene pool. It affects you when roving bands of sexually frustrated single guys break into your house, beat you up and rob you blind, and your wife leaves you for Derek Jeter, who is dividing up the world's women with Brad Pitt off on an island somewhere. If that's Hambone's anarchist vision for America, count me out.

Quote:Seems to me that by being nice/non-violent, the Christians are being taken advantage of. Meanwhile, the radical Muslims are being appeased for fear of their violence. Right up your argument's alley.

Guess what the likely result of YOUR argument is?

But they're not being nice. They're promoting bigotry under cover of the Bible. Who's doing any appeasing? I've never heard an American Muslim leader speak out against gays, but if he did I'd give him the same treatment.