Re: Same-Sex 'Marriage' and Religious Liberty

by Cato Sun May 17, 2009 5:36 pm

TerryRC wrote:Olympia Snowe = RINO

Oh, so because you don't agree with all of her platform, she is not a real republican.

I take it you have to be a bible-thumping stoic to be a "real" republican?

It was a republican president that launched civil rights legislation. You people forget your roots.

Terry I don't care what god if any she prays to. What a I care about is unintrusive and very limited government. She obviously doesn't seem to grasp the meaning of limited government or fiscal accountibility.

TerryRC wrote:So you are saying the items Keli posted are lies and that if I choose not to sell property or rent to a homosexual couple, they'll respect my right to do so with MY property.

Rant, rant, rant.

Renting to them condones their lifestyle no more than selling them a car does. You STILL haven't addressed that.

The fact is that I distilled your rant down the the truth - that gays wanted to be treated like people, not criminals or animals.

You should understand "discrimination". You and Keli scream that christians are being discriminated against all of the time.

I have answered it many times. The catch is you don't like my answer, which is one more thing I don't care much about either. Discrimiation laws or not, I won't sell or rent to homosexual couples, just as I won't rent or sell to an adulterous couple, or unmarried couples.

Your are alot like the bedwetting leftists I argue with at home. They refer to me as a bigot or idiot, a title I wear with pride by the way. I make a statement that I choose not to sell MY property or rent MY property to a homosexual couple and you would think I was saying they should be shot. In reality I haven't said the first word about using the force of government to make them accept what they choose not to do. All I have done or said is what I personally would do, what I personally choose. Just as I don't and won't use the force of government to force my way others, I don't want it done to me either. That is the ssue, one which you haven't dealt with.

by ziggy Mon May 18, 2009 10:11 am

SheikBen wrote:And as far as homosexual couples go, Terry, they are behaving by choice, even if their preferences aren't (which I am not convinced of).

A black person cannot help but be black. A gay man can choose not to have sex.

So if he chooses "not to have sex", by what determination is he considered "gay"?

by **SheikBen** Tue May 19, 2009 7:52 pm

I suppose he's not, then.

by SamCogar Wed May 20, 2009 4:13 am

One doesn't have to eat kumquats be "gay".

by TerryRC Wed May 20, 2009 5:54 am

I have answered it many times. The catch is you don't like my answer, which is one more thing I don't care much about either. Discrimiation laws or not, I won't sell or rent to homosexual couples, just as I won't rent or sell to an adulterous couple, or unmarried couples.

No. You have never answered it. If you were a grocer, would you refuse to sell food to gays? If you were a doctor would you refuse to treat them?

If you don't want to rent to people, you shouldn't be in the renting business.

Same thing. Also, you are too judgmental. Doesn't your big book of largely borrowed myths have something bad to say about that?

You don't want to treat gays or single moms or people that don't believe in marriage as sub-humans. Telling thing, that.

They refer to me as a bigot or idiot, a title I wear with pride by the way.

You would.

by TerryRC Wed May 20, 2009 5:56 am

Terry I don't care what god if any she prays to. What a I care about is unintrusive and very limited government. She obviously doesn't seem to grasp the meaning of limited government or fiscal accountibility.

Yep. The Bush Administration was ALL about fiscal responsibility.

Snowe is a MODERATE republican, at least as they used to be measured.

by Ich bin Ala-awkbarph Wed May 20, 2009 6:55 am

ziggy wrote:
SheikBen wrote:And as far as homosexual couples go, Terry, they are behaving by choice, even if their preferences aren't (which I am not convinced of).

A black person cannot help but be black. A gay man can choose not to have sex.

So if he chooses "not to have sex", by what determination is he considered "gay"?

That's right! If a pedophile does not abuse children, then he is not a pedophile. HA! Tell me that there is not Pedophile-DNA! Adultery-DNA! Gay-DNA! When are you going to come up to the 21st Century, Z?

by Cato Wed May 20, 2009 8:00 am

TerryRC wrote:Terry I don't care what god if any she prays to. What a I care about is unintrusive and very limited government. She obviously doesn't seem to grasp the meaning of limited government or fiscal accountibility.

Yep. The Bush Administration was ALL about fiscal responsibility.

Snowe is a MODERATE republican, at least as they used to be measured.

And I have never, ever said Bush was fically concervative. Just to be clear, Terry, George W. Bush was a leftist joke, just as his daddy was. He and the republican congresses during his tenure as President have absolutely no excuse for the run up in the National Debt. Don't think for a moment I think everyone with a "R" after their name is conservative, because they aren't.

As far as Senator Snowe goes, her voting record speaks volumes about what she really is.

by Cato Wed May 20, 2009 8:25 am

TerryRC wrote:
No. You have never answered it. If you were a grocer, would you refuse to sell food to gays? If you were a doctor would you refuse to treat them?

Nope, I'll sell groceries to them and if I were a doctor, depending on the issue, I would treat them as I would any person.

TerryRC wrote:
If you don't want to rent to people, you shouldn't be in the renting business.

Why shouldn't I be able to use or dispose of MY property as I see fit.

TerryRC wrote:
Same thing. Also, you are too judgmental. Doesn't your big book of largely borrowed myths have something bad to say about that?

You don't want to treat gays or single moms or people that don't believe in marriage as sub-humans. Telling thing, that.

First, I would rent or sell to a single mother, in fact, I have never said the first word about a single mother. As I have said, I do not condone nor will I be forced to rent to a homosexual couple, unmarried couple, or adulterous couple. Am I being judgemental? Maybe, however, I do not condone their lifestyle and I won't rent or sell to them.

TerryRC wrote:
They refer to me as a bigot or idiot, a title I wear with pride by the way.

You would.

Sheik brought up something I find very interesting, Terry. You rip me for standing for my convictions and yet you have never said the first word about blacks and some of their antics. For example, what about the "buy black" that Sheik brought up. What about the Black Caucus in congress, or Black history month. The homosexuals have Gay Pride and gay pride marches. I wonder what would happen if hetrosexuals had hetrosexual pride. We already know what happens when one stands up for traditional marriage.

Going back to the book of myths as you call it, it is also written that one needs to take the plank out of thier eye before they try and remove the speck out of mine.

by ziggy Thu May 21, 2009 12:48 pm

How about the governement get out of the marriage business altogether, stop rewarding taxpayers for getting 'married' and allow one head of househould to claim exemptions for those he/she supports?

If the government were not in "the marriage business"- and presumably some other entity (or entities) would be- would states recognize marriages performed by that other entity(ies)? Would not any couple living together in a marriage not recognized by the state be in violation of "illegal co-habitation" laws?

In the absence of state sanctioned marriages, what would define "statatuory rape"? If a church or other entity allowed a 25 year old to marry a 10 year old, could the 25 year old be charged with statuatory rape?

What about bigamy / polygamy?

What about incest- marrying ones first cousins or siblings or parents even?

If the government were out of the marriage business, would it still regulate any of this?

My point is that getting the government out of the "marriage business" affects more than just "marriage".

by TerryRC Thu May 21, 2009 2:05 pm

As far as Senator Snowe goes, her voting record speaks volumes about what she really is.

So you have no actual examples of why she is a RINO? More so than any of the other republicans, anyway?

Why shouldn't I be able to use or dispose of MY property as I see fit.

Because it affects others. You can't put a garbage burning plant in your backyard, for instance.

It is no different than were the would be renters to be black. You might think (and I don't mean you, specifically) you should be able to refuse to rent on the "I just don't like them" principle. That lead to "separate but equal" (which was anything but). De facto segregation and discrimination. Something found CLEARLY unconstitutional.

How far would you and your neighbors drive them? The next town? County? State?

There is also the spirit of the law to think of, even if you are following the letter.

by TerryRC Thu May 21, 2009 2:09 pm

Sheik brought up something I find very interesting, Terry. You rip me for standing for my convictions and yet you have never said the first word about blacks and some of their antics. For example, what about the "buy black" that Sheik brought up. What about the Black Caucus in congress, or Black history month. The homosexuals have Gay Pride and gay pride marches. I wonder what would happen if hetrosexuals had hetrosexual pride. We already know what happens when one stands up for traditional marriage.

Christians march all of the time in the name of family values (hetero pride).

I only try and buy local. That isn't quite the same as refusing to sell or rent to minorities, or the majority, for that matter.

Going back to the book of myths as you call it, it is also written that one needs to take the plank out of thier eye before they try and remove the speck out of mine.

I'm not the one passing judgment on a group of my fellow Americans. Nor am I called to avoid such by yours, or any similar book of myths, thankfully enough.

by Cato Thu May 21, 2009 6:35 pm

TerryRC wrote:As far as Senator Snowe goes, her voting record speaks volumes about what she really is.

So you have no actual examples of why she is a RINO? More so than any of the other republicans, anyway?

Go to project Votesmart and look her up for your self. Her stance on abortion, gun issues, and eduction make her anything but a fiscal conservative.

TerryRC wrote:Why shouldn't I be able to use or dispose of MY property as I see fit.

Because it affects others. You can't put a garbage burning plant in your backyard, for instance.

It is no different than were the would be renters to be black. You might think (and I don't mean you, specifically) you should be able to refuse to rent on the "I just don't like them" principle. That lead to "separate but equal" (which was anything but). De facto segregation and discrimination. Something found CLEARLY unconstitutional.

How far would you and your neighbors drive them? The next town? County? State?

There is also the spirit of the law to think of, even if you are following the letter.

As I said it my property. I negioated the price. I'm the one the signed the promissory note and make the payments. I pay the taxes onthe property. I'll darn well sell or rent the property to whom ever I choose. Law or not. The very fact that the law forces me to use my property in manner that I don't condone is nothing less than tyranny. Its like me using the force of law to compell your children to attend catholic catachism classes in school. The arguement is no different.

by Cato Thu May 21, 2009 6:45 pm

TerryRC wrote:Sheik brought up something I find very interesting, Terry. You rip me for standing for my convictions and yet you have never said the first word about blacks and some of their antics. For example, what about the "buy black" that Sheik brought up. What about the Black Caucus in congress, or Black history month. The homosexuals have Gay Pride and gay pride marches. I wonder what would happen if hetrosexuals had hetrosexual pride. We already know what happens when one stands up for traditional marriage.

Christians march all of the time in the name of family values (hetero pride).

I only try and buy local. That isn't quite the same as refusing to sell or rent to minorities, or the majority, for that matter.

So you now discriminate against farmers from other parts of the country. Gee, I think congress should enact a law that says you have to buy from all farmers no matter where they are from.

Truth of the matter is, if you don't like the stance I take, TOO BAD. Unlike you I don't use the force of law to make you comply with my beliefs and I really don't appreciate you doing it to me.

TerryRC wrote:Going back to the book of myths as you call it, it is also written that one needs to take the plank out of thier eye before they try and remove the speck out of mine.

I'm not the one passing judgment on a group of my fellow Americans. Nor am I called to avoid such by yours, or any similar book of myths, thankfully enough.

As I have said a number of times, I choose to belief what I find in the bible as truth. When I compare the lifestyle of some to the bible, I find them to be in error and living in a manner to which I disagree. I choose not to condone their lifestyle or do anything that indicates I might condone said lifestyle. It is a choice I have made and one that I stand by. I do not go whining to the politicians seeking to use the force of law to force others to accept my views. All I can say to you, if you can't grasp that using the force of law to make me comply with behavior to which I find repulsive, you have no usderstanding of the true meaning or value of liberty. Additionally if you don't like my views, I guess you have to lump it.

by ziggy Thu May 21, 2009 7:22 pm

As I have said a number of times, I choose to belief what I find in the bible as truth.

And all the other sects and denominations say the same thing. How does one person or one church or one denomination have any higher claim to having found biblical "truth" than any or all of the others?

by Aaron Fri May 22, 2009 8:00 am

ziggy wrote:
How about the governement get out of the marriage business altogether, stop rewarding taxpayers for getting 'married' and allow one head of househould to claim exemptions for those he/she supports?

If the government were not in "the marriage business"- and presumably some other entity (or entities) would be- would states recognize marriages performed by that other entity(ies)? Would not any couple living together in a marriage not recognized by the state be in violation of "illegal co-habitation" laws?

In the absence of state sanctioned marriages, what would define "statatuory rape"? If a church or other entity allowed a 25 year old to marry a 10 year old, could the 25 year old be charged with statuatory rape?

What about bigamy / polygamy?

What about incest- marrying ones first cousins or siblings or parents even?

If the government were out of the marriage business, would it still regulate any of this?

My point is that getting the government out of the "marriage business" affects more than just "marriage".

I'm glad to know that there is no one molesting 10 year olds, there is no multiple living arrangements around and no incest in the US and we have the government regulating the marriage industry to thank for that.

Rolling Eyes

by TerryRC Fri May 22, 2009 8:10 am

Go to project Votesmart and look her up for your self. Her stance on abortion, gun issues, and eduction make her anything but a fiscal conservative.

Republicans USED to be socially liberal.

As I said it my property. I negioated the price. I'm the one the signed the promissory note and make the payments. I pay the taxes onthe property. I'll darn well sell or rent the property to whom ever I choose. Law or not. The very fact that the law forces me to use my property in manner that I don't condone is nothing less than tyranny. Its like me using the force of law to compell your children to attend catholic catachism classes in school. The arguement is no different.

Um, yes it is. You are comparing apples and oranges.

You are saying, "Fuck other people, If I want to put a gun range in my yard in the center of town, I'm going to. After all, it's my property"

You are saying, "If my neighbors and I want to keep the spics out of town by refusing to rent or sell to them, I'm going to. After all, they are our properties."

How very enlightened of you. And how illegal.

Truth of the matter is, if you don't like the stance I take, TOO BAD. Unlike you I don't use the force of law to make you comply with my beliefs and I really don't appreciate you doing it to me.

Who is whining now? Too bad. Discrimination is illegal. So is segregation. We have the law because of bigots that refuse to see other groups as anything but sub-human.

I do not go whining to the politicians seeking to use the force of law to force others to accept my views. All I can say to you, if you can't grasp that using the force of law to make me comply with behavior to which I find repulsive, you have no usderstanding of the true meaning or value of liberty. Additionally if you don't like my views, I guess you have to lump it.

Says you. If you don't want to rent to gays (or blacks or indians), don't get in the renting business. You want freedom to be free... for you... at the expense of others...

If you don't want to cut the hair of asians, don't become a barber.

by Cato Fri May 22, 2009 8:36 am

ziggy wrote:
As I have said a number of times, I choose to belief what I find in the bible as truth.

And all the other sects and denominations say the same thing. How does one person or one church or one denomination have any higher claim to having found biblical "truth" than any or all of the others?

A logic goes out the window when the bible is discussed. Two can read a computer manual and learn how to turn on the computer. One doesn't do it by inserting a disk int he CDROM and another do it by turning on the switch and both be right. They do it the say way, by turning the power on. The same logic applies to the scriptures. When you approach the scriptures without bias or preconceived notions, they say exactly the samething to everyone.

The point is that many choose to insert their bias and prejustices into the scriptures. They attempt to make the scriptures justify what they believe, instead of doing the exact opposite and conforming to what the scriptures say without prejustice.

It is obvious to me that many, including you, have biases that they attempt to bend the scrpitures to justify. When they don't, instead of conforming to what the scriptures say, they discount the scriptures.

by Cato Fri May 22, 2009 8:52 am

TerryRC wrote:Go to project Votesmart and look her up for your self. Her stance on abortion, gun issues, and eduction make her anything but a fiscal conservative.

Republicans USED to be socially liberal.

To you socially liberal may mean butchering the unborn and pouring money into a failed education system. It means something quite different to me.

TerryRC wrote:As I said it my property. I negioated the price. I'm the one the signed the promissory note and make the payments. I pay the taxes onthe property. I'll darn well sell or rent the property to whom ever I choose. Law or not. The very fact that the law forces me to use my property in manner that I don't condone is nothing less than tyranny. Its like me using the force of law to compell your children to attend catholic catachism classes in school. The arguement is no different.

Um, yes it is. You are comparing apples and oranges.

You are saying, "Fuck other people, If I want to put a gun range in my yard in the center of town, I'm going to. After all, it's my property"

You are saying, "If my neighbors and I want to keep the spics out of town by refusing to rent or sell to them, I'm going to. After all, they are our properties."

How very enlightened of you. And how illegal.

More or less that is what I'm saying. I own the property and I will rent or sell it to whom I please.

TerryRC wrote:Truth of the matter is, if you don't like the stance I take, TOO BAD. Unlike you I don't use the force of law to make you comply with my beliefs and I really don't appreciate you doing it to me.

Who is whining now? Too bad. Discrimination is illegal. So is segregation. We have the law because of bigots that refuse to see other groups as anything but sub-human.

I do not go whining to the politicians seeking to use the force of law to force others to accept my views. All I can say to you, if you can't grasp that using the force of law to make me comply with behavior to which I find repulsive, you have no usderstanding of the true meaning or value of liberty. Additionally if you don't like my views, I guess you have to lump it.

Says you. If you don't want to rent to gays (or blacks or indians), don't get in the renting business. You want freedom to be free... for you... at the expense of others...

If you don't want to cut the hair of asians, don't become a barber.

If one stands opposed to abortion, don't become a doctor with a speciality in ob/gyn, or if one stand opposed to gender reassignment surgery, don't become a urologist. Your arguement is pathetic. You can't even stay on subject. You have yet to address were you or anyone else for that matter has the right to force me to condone activity to which I am opposed. All you have done is whine and moan and toss out a bunch of leftist soundbites.

You talk liberty out of one side of your mouth and then seek to use the force of government to require others accept policy they are opposed to. It can't be both ways.

by ziggy Fri May 22, 2009 10:29 pm

It is obvious to me that many, including you, have biases that they attempt to bend the scrpitures to justify.

And you don't?

by ziggy Fri May 22, 2009 10:32 pm

Go to project Votesmart and look her up for your self. Her stance on abortion, gun issues, and eduction make her anything but a fiscal conservative.

How do her stances on abortion and gun issues indicate anything about her fiscal conservatism, or lack thereof?

by TerryRC Sat May 23, 2009 7:06 am

To you socially liberal may mean butchering the unborn and pouring money into a failed education system. It means something quite different to me.

Socially liberal means keeping you out of my bedroom and my business. It means that individual liberty is more important than government power.

This also has nothing to do with fiscal conservatism.

If one stands opposed to abortion, don't become a doctor with a speciality in ob/gyn, or if one stand opposed to gender reassignment surgery, don't become a urologist. Your arguement is pathetic. You can't even stay on subject. You have yet to address were you or anyone else for that matter has the right to force me to condone activity to which I am opposed. All you have done is whine and moan and toss out a bunch of leftist soundbites.

What leftist soundbites?

My argument IS on subject. If you aren't going to rent to qualified renters, don't get into the rental business.

You can't do WHATEVER you want with your property. If it affects your neighbor's rights, you will be shut down.

You can't do whatever you want with your business. If you are a barber, you can't chose to only let whites through your door. If you are a doctor, you can't chose to see only mormons.

That is called discrimination and has been used to drive "undesirables" out of town (or county, or state).

This is not a "leftist" argument. It is based upon historical fact and law.

I guess we are done here. You refuse to address my arguments. Also, you can't stay on subject. You say Snowe isn't a fiscal conservative and then bring up social issues as examples.

You place your liberty above that of all others. You don't care if gays, or blacks, or people that don't believe in marriage can't find a place to live in your town or county, just as long as you get to ride your moral high horse.

How... christian.

by TerryRC Sat May 23, 2009 7:11 am

To you socially liberal may mean butchering the unborn and pouring money into a failed education system. It means something quite different to me.

Also, willy, you have never seen me speak a good word about our school system.

You are off kilter. Now you are just blindly attacking me.

Just because I have a liberal attitude to things like abortion and gay rights doesn't mean I AM a liberal.

I support the right to carry pistols. I think SS is a scam. I think hate crimes are a crock...

The list of ways I lean right goes on.

I only say this because you may, some day, decide to actually look at facts as opposed to taking solace in beliefs.

by Cato Sat May 23, 2009 8:24 am

TerryRC wrote:To you socially liberal may mean butchering the unborn and pouring money into a failed education system. It means something quite different to me.

Also, willy, you have never seen me speak a good word about our school system.

You are off kilter. Now you are just blindly attacking me.

Just because I have a liberal attitude to things like abortion and gay rights doesn't mean I AM a liberal.

I support the right to carry pistols. I think SS is a scam. I think hate crimes are a crock...

The list of ways I lean right goes on.

I only say this because you may, some day, decide to actually look at facts as opposed to taking solace in beliefs.

Well ain't that just special. I don't care what you think or where you stand. I do care where the politicin stand and what they think however. You seemed to be defending Snowe and asked if I really knew her position and I pointed it out to you. If you believe as you say you do, you should be so happy with her either.

by TerryRC Sun May 24, 2009 8:50 am

Well ain't that just special. I don't care what you think or where you stand. I do care where the politicin stand and what they think however. You seemed to be defending Snowe and asked if I really knew her position and I pointed it out to you. If you believe as you say you do, you should be so happy with her either.

So. You would rather be sanctified than correct? You don't want to look to close and find than I'm not a true "liberal". Would that take away from your weak list of personal attacks?

Again, you say nothing concrete.

Why don't you TELL us why Snowe is a RINO.

She is socially liberal and reasonably conservative in fiscal matters. I don't agree with her every stance, but then I can't think of any politician that I do agree with 100%.

You are the one that sneered at her and called her a RINO. Why? Try and use your own words.

After that, show me a REAL republican.

This should be amusing.