Do other members see the fallacy of Plain Ol's attempted arguments? --- go ahead and beg for help ... but your delusions aren't going to go away. try thinking very slowly.
On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 11:16:35 AM UTC-6, KeithInTampa wrote: > > Do other members see the fallacy of Plain Ol's attempted arguments? > Besides attempting to twist my words, he pulls out the very first attempt > at two militant Gay men in Minnesota, (obviously influenced by Marshall > Kirk and Hunter Madsen....go and Google those names Plain Ol!) as some > example of the American people's clamoring for the redefinition of > marriage! > > It just hasn't happened, and when presented with the truth and fact; > Plain Ol then reverts to his failed attempt at trying to portray this > Nation as never being influenced by our religious heritage! > > It's laughable! > > On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 12:12 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > The term "Marriage" is not only a misnomer, it is crossing the boundaries > of the State getting involved in religion. > --- > imo ... neither the state or the church should have control over marriage. > > Prior to the last two decades, no one was clamoring for "Gay Marriage", > --- > stop lying ... > > - On May 18, 1970, two University of Minnesota students, Richard John > Jack Baker and James Michael McConnell applied to Hennepin County District > Court clerk Gerald Nelson for a marriage license. He denied the > application, because the applicants were both men. Baker and McConnell > sued > Nelson, claiming Minnesota law on marriage made no mention of gender. The > trial court was not impressed with the argument, agreeing with Nelson. The > state Supreme Court agreed with the lower court. When Baker-McConnell went > to the U.S. Supreme Court, the couple was rebuffed again > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson>. > > > and these "Civil Unions" that the government was performing under the > guise of "Marriage" was of no concern to the vast majority of Americans, > because; well....We are a Christian Nation! > --- > delusion noted. > our forefathers warned us about people like you. > > By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary > concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. > Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice > in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense > would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional > Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United > States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the > rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith. > > (Whether you like it or not; that is our roots and our heritage! > --- > your roots as a xian have absolutely no bearing on the secular position of > the US government. > > It was easier and more practical to call these contracts, "Marriages" for > expediency. But now, with the advent of Gays and purported civil rights, > it is now a big contradiction and should be changed. I am convinced it > will be. > --- > if it's changed, both the government and church should be absolved of any > power over marriages. > > What I oppose is the government getting involved in ecclesiastical > matters, and "Marriage" is just that, no matter how you cut it! > --- > delusion noted. > never again in America will anyone need a church to get married. > your should keep your religious beliefs to yourself and out of the > government. > > > > > On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 10:14:14 AM UTC-6, KeithInTampa wrote: > > Good Morning Brine! > > You and I agree here. I have no problem with two of the same sex going to > a church and having their union "Blessed". I've said this repeatedly, that > if you can find a Church that will marry you, then more power to you, and > go for it! > > The term "Marriage" is not only a misnomer, it is crossing the boundaries > of the State getting involved in religion. Prior to the last two decades, > no one was clamoring for "Gay Marriage", and these "Civil Unions" that the > government was performing under the guise of "Marriage" was of no concern > to the vast majority of Americans, because; well....We are a Christian > Nation! (Whether you like it or not; that is our roots and our heritage! > It was easier and more practical to call these contracts, "Marriages" for > expediency. But now, with the advent of Gays and purported civil rights, > it is now a big contradiction and should be changed. I am convinced it > will be. > > What I oppose is the government getting involved in ecclesiastical > matters, and "Marriage" is just that, no matter how you cut it! > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Brian Bednarek <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't see it as additional rights, but we have been through this before > ... I have always held that all unions should be civil and if you have a > religion that blesses that union, it's not automatically recognized as a > gov't sanctioned legal union, just a religious ceremony like baptism. There > are many Christian denominations that recognize gay marraige, so there must > be something to it!!! > > On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Good Morning Brine! > > We may disagree, but (as stated in my response to Pluto; you are either > ignoring the issue, and/or are misinformed regarding the issue); this has > nothing to do with "Equality". You as a Gay man had the same "Equal > Rights" that I had a year ago; and now, you have "Additional" rights that > I don't have, based on who you choose to hop in the sack with. This is > morally reprehensible when you stop and think about it! > > As I pointed out earlier in this thread and in other threads, marriage is > an "ecclesiastical/religious" function; ALL States, or Nation-States will > recognize a marriage which has been performed under the "Eyes of God", > which requires a priest or a minister to acknowledge. Again, in our > Nation, States didn't even get involved in "marriage" or "marriage > contracts" until the mid to late 19th Century. Some states didn't get into > the marriage business until the 20th Century. The reasons for this (within > several states) was initially to prevent miscegenation. Later, I'm sure > that local and state governments realized that "marriage" was another > source of income, and began taxing what it termed, "Marriage" but that's a > topic for another day. Today, the government is needed in a sense, for > the dissolution of the contract, and separation of properties. > > By example, prior to 1966, the State of Florida did not license any > marriage that was not performed by clergy. Judges or notaries were not > usually utilized in the contract of marriage in most Southern States. It > was around this time that Florida, (unlike South Carolina and Georgia) > disallowed what is usually referred to as "Common Law Marriage"; (*See* > Lee Marvin) but did begin to acknowledge what it termed, "marriage > contracts" performed by a civil authority and the Florida Legislature > codified this procedure and these contracts by statute. > > A State "licenses" marriage, because a State cannot "Marry" anyone, > marriage is, and always has been a "religious/ecclesiastical" function! > > There was no outcry for same sex marriage ten years ago, twenty years ago, > and especially fifty or one hundred years ago. Thus, States adopted the > term, "Marriage" when these governmental entities first got into the > licensing business, when in fact the correct term should have been "Civil > Union". There is no distinction between the two terms from a legal > standpoint; but from an ecclesiastical perspective, there is a world of > difference, and thus, one more reason that the Supreme Court's recent > Opinon which redefined the term "Marriage" is unconstitutional. > > Nevertheless, therein lies the solution to the problem. No State, or > local or governmental entity should be in the "Marriage License" business, > but instead, the "Civil Union License" business. > > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Brian Bednarek <[email protected]> wrote: > > Obviously we will always disagree, you feel equality is special, I don't > ... so I suppose all those Christian denominations that are for equal > rights are wrong and your version is right!!! > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> > wrote: > > A couple of "Facts" that you are overlooking Brine; > > First, the week prior to Ms. Davis refusing to place her signature on a > marriage license for same sex couples; wherein the U.S. Supreme Court > unconstitutionally redefined marriage; the Kentucky Constitution, as well > as Kentucky Code defined marriage as between one man and one woman. This > was the law of the land; and will of the 4.4 million Kentuckians who spoke > out on the Kentucky Constitutional Amendment. > > Ms. Davis was in fact an elected Official by the Kentuckians of Rowan > County. This, the same Kentuckians who in fact voted and vociferously were > opposed to the redefinition of marriage. > > "Special Rights" is exactly what has happened here. Prior to the > redefinition of marriage, a Gay man or a Gay woman was able to marry > anyone that they so chose as long as that individual was within the 5,000 > + years of the tenets and definition of marriage, and; providing that the > individual who was his or her partner wanted to be married! The Supreme > Court has now redefined the definition of marriage, where now a Gay man or > Woman can marry someone of their own sex, based on their sexual > proclivities. > > This is discriminatory against me, a single, heterosexual man, in that it > allows for a Gay man to reap certain tax benefits and other privileges that > I am not allowed, based on my sexual tastes. > > > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Brian Bednarek <[email protected]> wrote: > > Since the law of the land changed and she felt so strongly that she could > not uphold the law, she should have quit the job ... if I am unable to do > what my employer requires, my job is forfeit!!! > > How is it "special" to want the same rights afforded others ... why should > a gay person have to jump through hoops and hire lawyers when a union > granted by the state will give them all the same rights? > > The worst argument I heard against gay people getting married was by a > woman on a board who didn't want them to collect social security ... do gay > people NOT pay FICA???? > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> > wrote: > > No, what you are advocating is "Special Rights" for Gays. Mark me in the > "opposed" category. > > Ms. Davis by your own admission has persecuted no one. > > You should be ashamed at the hatred, smear and nasty rhetoric that you > have slung against this Christian woman! Shame on you! > > > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 3:59 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected]> > wrote: > > How did Ms. Davis, (*e.g.*; "the *fat assed bigoted bitch*") persecute > Gays? > --- > she refused to issue them marriage licenses ... but you know that. > > What is your definition of "persecute"? > --- > denying someone equal rights. > > Get a grip Plain Ol' and stop it with the PC crap! You never used to do > that! What has changed you? > --- > seeing American rights being denied to people because of their sexuality. > That change took place about 10-15 years ago and you need to catch up. > Thank goodness you're not a civil rights attorney. > > > On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 2:43:50 PM UTC-6, KeithInTampa wrote: > > How did Ms. Davis, (*e.g.*; "the *fat assed bigoted bitch*") persecute > Gays? What is your definition of "persecute"? > > Get a grip Plain Ol' and stop it with the PC crap! You never used to do > that! What has changed you? > > > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 3:28 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Kim Davis has discriminated against no one. Your typical hate filled > extremist (and clueless) post proves my point! "Fat assed bigoted bitch" > says it all Plain Ol'. Continue on with your hate, vehemence, and lies. > --- > she persecuted gays and then disobeyed the courts .... so they sent her > fat bigoted ass to jail with a warning that if she refused to issue > marriage licenses she would be jailed again. > > it's you're klan that persecutes people because of your mythical religious > beliefs and your klan that will end up in court and/or jail for > persecution and bigotry. > open your heart or open your wallet ... lawyer boy. > > > On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 4:02:16 PM UTC-6, KeithInTampa wrote: > > LOL! Kim Davis has discriminated against no one. Your typical hate > filled extremist (and clueless) post proves my point! "Fat assed bigoted > bitch" says it all Plain Ol'. Continue on with your hate, vehemence, and > lies. > > > > On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 4:07 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected]> > wrote: > > To date, you've yet to produce any Christian who has purportedly > discriminated against or in any way harmed Gays or Transgenders. > --- > does the name kim davis ring a bell? > that fat ass bigoted bitch was sent to jail for persecuting lgbt's. > > You will have a hard time somehow protecting those wacked out Atheists, > Agnostics, and left of center elitists who hate Christians and go on the > attack against them! > --- > defend yourself at all times. > > There is no excuse Plain Ol'; other than to point to the breakdown of the > family, moral decay and the lack of Christianity in these people's lives > that cause them to go on murderous assassinations and terroristic rampages. > --- > lack of xianity? > nobody kills more people than religious myth believing abrahamics. > > the good news! > world-wide, humans are becoming less religious. > > > On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 1:57:46 PM UTC-6, KeithInTampa wrote: > > To date, you've yet to produce any Christian who has purportedly > discriminated against or in any way harmed Gays or Transgenders. You will > have a hard time somehow protecting those wacked out Atheists, Agnostics, > and left of center elitists who hate Christians and go on the attack > against them! > > There is no excuse Plain Ol'; other than to point to the breakdown of the > family, moral decay and the lack of Christianity in these people's lives > that cause them to go on murderous assassinations and terroristic rampages. > > Chris Harper Mercer; > Floyd Lee Corkins; > Amy Bishop; > Andrew J. Stack, > James J. Lee; > Craig Stephen Hicks; > Adam Lanza, > Jared Laughner, > Seung-hui Cho, > > Just to name a few..... > > > > > On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 1:39 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Many more U.S. Christians headed to jail in 2016? > --- > we should jail as many as it takes to insure equal protection to lgbt's > and other minority groups from xian persecution. > > On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 10:22:02 AM UTC-6, Travis wrote: > > > > > > > > *Many more U.S. Christians headed to jail in 2016?* > > Posted By *Greg Corombos* On 12/25/2015 > > The year 2015 witnessed a Supreme Court decision ruling there was a > constitutional right to same-sex marriage, a federal judge jailing a county > clerk for refusing to issue licenses to gay couples and the public > explosion of the transgender movement, but one of the key figures in the > culture wars says 2016 could well be a year of Americans pushing back > against the liberal agenda. > > In June, years worth of political and legal battles found their way to the > Supreme Court. By a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the > court ruled that the equal protections offered in the Constitution ought to > establish a right to same-sex marriage. > > The decision was not surprising given previous rulings by the same > justices, but Liberty Counsel Chairman Mathew Staver told WND and Radio > America it was disgraceful nonetheless. > > “Frankly, I don’t think it deserves any respect as the rule of law,” > Staver said. “It’s just the opinion of five justices. However, some people > are playing the games of masquerade and assuming this is what the > Constitution says. That will have a culture-changing impact at every level.” > > Although he refuses to honor the court ruling, Staver knows it is a huge > moment in the battle over American morality. He said the nation has arrived > at a major cultural crossroads. > > “This is a culture clash of unprecedented proportions that we’ve now > entered into. This will continue as we move into the new year,” he said. > “It’s going to come up in every conceivable context private schools, > churches, universities, colleges, you name it. Every institution, every > person of faith will have to address this issue.” > > Staver would know. Weeks after the Supreme Court decision, he became > counsel for Kim Davis, the clerk for Rowan County, Kentucky. Davis, a > born-again Christian, refused to issue marriage licenses to homosexual > couples, citing her freedom of conscience and free religious expression. > The federal courts disagreed. > > “Two months after this 5-4 opinion, the first Christian went to jail for > her sincerely held religious beliefs,” Staver said. “Although she was the > first, she certainly won’t be the last. It will not involve only public > employees or public elected officials but certainly the private sector as > well.” > > Staver said the entire Davis saga could easily have been avoided, but the > Democratic governor refused to take action to protect the rights of > conscience. > > “There was no accommodation that was given by the former governor, Steven > Beshear, who is no longer in office. He refused to accommodate her so she > made her own accommodation. When she returned to work, she refused to > violate her conscience, so she removed her name and title from the > license,” Staver said. > > *Listen to the WND/Radio America interview with Mathew Staver:* > > Beshear was replaced by tea-party Republican Matt Bevin, who scored a > large upset victory over Democrat Jack Conway. > > "He became elected, in large part, because of the marriage issue and Kim > Davis," Staver said. "He took the side of natural marriage and supports Kim > Davis. He's now been sworn into office, and he's already [issued] an > executive order to protect the religious freedom of Kim Davis and other > clerks like her." > > On Dec. 23, Bevin ordered the removal of clerks' names from marriage > licenses throughout the commonwealth, the very same decision Davis made > unilaterally earlier in the year. > > Staver said the story of Gov. Bevin ought to be a lesson to national > candidates as well. > > "The candidates will have to address this issue. The voters will require > that they address this issue," said Staver, who believes pushing back is a > winning issue for the GOP. > > "The more and more the issue of same-sex marriage and the radical, > so-called LGBT agenda moves forward, the more people will see how > intolerant it is, how coercive it is," Staver said. "Kim Davis is just > Exhibit A in that situation. I think most people will say, 'This is not the > kind of America we want to live in. This is not what we bargained for,' and > they're going to push back." > > Staver also believes the reputation of the nation's courts is in peril. He > said an upcoming ruling in high-profile abortion cases will be critical to > how Americans view the courts. > > "I think it's pushing itself into the realm of illegitimacy," he said. "I > think the same-sex marriage case pushed it across the line. I think if it > goes the wrong way on the abortion or the contraception and the > abortion-inducing drug mandate, I think that will finish off this court and > people will just simply say, 'We're not going to obey people who just > invent the law as they go.'" > > As the gay marriage debate reached a critical moment at the Supreme Court, > the transgender movement also emerged much more publicly in 2015, led by > Olympic decathlon champion Bruce Jenner announcing he identified as a woman > named Caitlyn. Multiple television programs emerged > <http://dateline.radioamerica.org/?p=15655> to highlight the stories of > Jenner and others. > > "It is part of their whole movement to bring out this bizarre 'I think, > therefore I am' concept," Staver said. "We always saw that in philosophy, > but now they're actually trying to make that a reality, that if you think > you're a woman then you ought to be legally recognized and treated as a > woman? It's absolutely absurd." > > Staver said it doesn't take a deep faith to understand the deep flaws in > embracing the movement. > > "You cannot get used to something that pushes in your face and is a direct > collision with your sincerely held religious beliefs and, frankly, > objective, observable reality," he said. > > Staver admits 2015 was a difficult year for cultural conservatives, but he > said there is much more reason for hope than despair. > > "We haven't even begun to see this battle," Staver said. "This battle is > far from over, and, for me, I ultimately believe we will win this battle > going forward." > > URL to article: > *http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/many-more-u-s-christians-headed-to-jail-in-2016/ > <http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/many-more-u-s-christians-headed-to-jail-in-2016/>* > > > __._,_.___ > ------------------------------ > Posted by: "Beowulf" <[email protected]> > ------------------------------ > > > Visit Your Group > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmYjNuOGYyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0NTExNDYxNzk-> > > > > [image: Yahoo! Groups] > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlN2E0cGlrBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQ1MTE0NjE4MA--> > > • Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> • > Unsubscribe • Terms of Use > <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> > > __,_._,___ > > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > ... -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
