If gays aren't discriminated against then Christians will be? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : If gays aren't discriminated against then Christians will be?


Gunhaver
06-18-2012, 14:08
LOL wut? If I'm not free to suppress your freedom then I can't be free? I always knew that's what they thought but I never expect one to just come out and say it. :shocked:

Fischer: If Gays Aren't Discriminated Against, Christians Will Be - YouTube

Kentak
06-18-2012, 17:03
American energy independence = Find a way to run cars and heat homes on ignorance.

Syclone538
06-18-2012, 21:50
I think private citizens should be allowed to discriminate, but I assume he is talking about .gov.

Tilley
06-19-2012, 18:52
If I'm not free to suppress your freedom then I can't be free?

Your president is forcing the Catholic Church to hand out condoms and abortion pills...so don't you think it's right to take it out on the gays? :cool:

High-Gear
06-19-2012, 19:00
Your president is forcing the Catholic Church to hand out condoms and abortion pills...so don't you think it's right to take it out on the gays? :cool:

One has nothing to do with the other.

The church is not being required to do anything. Insurance companies agreed to pay for the contraception for the employees of Catholic "non church" businesses. The Catholics are mad they didnt get to control non-catholics reproductive decisions. Simple as that.


The church of FSM says the creator commands all gay people to be married. If you dont allow gay marriage you are taking away their first amendment rights! If conservatives are really concerned with protecting religious liberty they should be fighting for the Pastafarian gays rights!

Or do they only really care about Christian rights and privlidges?

If a central tennant of your religion is to be bigoted and hate others, you will still be free to do that! Giving another person equal rights in no way takes away your rights. It only makes it illegal to enforce your bigotry and hate on others!

Tilley
06-19-2012, 19:15
The church is not being required to do anything. Insurance companies agreed to pay for the contraception for the employees of Catholic "non church" businesses. The Catholics are mad they didnt get to control non-catholics reproductive decisions. Simple as that.
What "non church" businesses are you talking about? They are still ran by the church. We are upset that people still believe it is okay to murder a child in cold blood.

It only makes it illegal to enforce your bigotry and hate on others!Protecting the human rights of children is not bigotry or hate.

High-Gear
06-19-2012, 19:31
What "non church" businesses are you talking about? They are still ran by the church. We are upset that people still believe it is okay to murder a child in cold blood.

Protecting the human rights of children is not bigotry or hate.

Again this has nothing to do with bigotry against gays!


Just because a hospital, or retirement home is owned by the church, does not make it a church. People of all faiths, or no faith, work there.

How is a birth control pill equal to child murder?

Kingarthurhk
06-19-2012, 19:50
Again this has nothing to do with bigotry against gays!


Just because a hospital, or retirement home is owned by the church, does not make it a church. People of all faiths, or no faith, work there.

How is a birth control pill equal to child murder?

Yes, but it is owned by the religious institution, and the religious views of that institution should be respected under the First Amendment.

So, it is ironic that you speak out against bigotry against gay people, but are okay with bigotry toward those who have a religious view point.

For the record, I am not some Westboro Baptist that thinks God hates gay people. I am of the opinion He loves them just as much as He loves me. It is the sin He hates.

High-Gear
06-19-2012, 20:06
Yes, but it is owned by the religious institution, and the religious views of that institution should be respected under the First Amendment.

So, it is ironic that you speak out against bigotry against gay people, but are okay with bigotry toward those who have a religious view point.

For the record, I am not some Westboro Baptist that thinks God hates gay people. I am of the opinion He loves them just as much as He loves me. It is the sin He hates.

How is it bigotry? No one is asking catholics to use contraception (which most do, btw), and the church does not have to pay for it. Where is the rub?


Oh, and by the way I love all of you religious people, it is your faith I hate (said tongue incheek as you cant seperate one from the other. You dont kmow how condasending you are when you use that line.). I dont really hate anyone.

Animal Mother
06-19-2012, 20:41
Yes, but it is owned by the religious institution, and the religious views of that institution should be respected under the First Amendment. You'd have no objection to a Muslim owned company requiring all their employees wear a veil? Or a Jewish owned company forbidding their employees to ever eat pork?
So, it is ironic that you speak out against bigotry against gay people, but are okay with bigotry toward those who have a religious view point. Over 90% of catholics support the use of contraceptives.
For the record, I am not some Westboro Baptist that thinks God hates gay people. I am of the opinion He loves them just as much as He loves me. It is the sin He hates. Do you also believe God hates the "sin" of miscegenation?

Animal Mother
06-19-2012, 20:43
What "non church" businesses are you talking about? They are still ran by the church. We are upset that people still believe it is okay to murder a child in cold blood.
Luckily no one thinks that, but some do believe it's absurd to try and dictate women's health issues to them rather than leaving them free to choose.
Protecting the human rights of children is not bigotry or hate. How does contraception injure children's human rights?

muscogee
06-19-2012, 21:02
Yes, but it is owned by the religious institution, and the religious views of that institution should be respected under the First Amendment.

I'm tired of churches thinking they deserve a free pass on everything. IMO, they should follow the same rules as everyone else. They should provide the same type of insurance and pay the same taxes as any other for profit institution.

Syclone538
06-19-2012, 21:44
You'd have no objection to a Muslim owned company requiring all their employees wear a veil? Or a Jewish owned company forbidding their employees to ever eat pork?
...

Being a libertarian, almost to the point of being anarchist, I'd have no objection. You should be completely free to chose who you want to employ.

Animal Mother
06-19-2012, 21:52
Being a libertarian, almost to the point of being anarchist, I'd have no objection. You should be completely free to chose who you want to employ.
While one might agree in the abstract, the problems with such a system have been apparent in the past. We don't need to repeat the mistakes that led to institutions like paying employees in scrip and company stores.

Syclone538
06-19-2012, 22:00
While one might agree in the abstract, the problems with such a system have been apparent in the past. We don't need to repeat the mistakes that led to institutions like paying employees in scrip and company stores.

You have a good point, and while I don't want fed gov to do much of anything, I believe they have laws against any kind of competing currency.

edit
...which is going to create it's own problems as the value of the dollar goes down.

Animal Mother
06-20-2012, 01:11
You have a good point, and while I don't want fed gov to do much of anything, I believe they have laws against any kind of competing currency.

edit
...which is going to create it's own problems as the value of the dollar goes down. Sadly companies paying in scrip wasn't a competing currency issue and still goes on in some parts of the world. I'd rather it not be reintroduced here.

High-Gear
06-20-2012, 04:18
We went down an unrelated path.

Moving back to the original point, how does giving someone else equal rights take away ones personal rights as suggested in the video?

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/2995/nonthreateninggay.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/256/nonthreateninggay.jpg/)


I think a good practice for these types of people is to replace the word gay with black, or jew, woman, christian etc. if their idea holds water it should work for discriminating against anyone. If it does not, it shouldnt be used against anyone.

I bet there would be a lot of posts if a muslim cleric was stating, "We have to be able to discriminate against christians, if not it would violating our 1st amendment rights as muslims!". How would the christians feel if muslims declared their marriages were invalid? They love you, just not your sin of worshiping a false god. Religion is a choice, you are not born that way.

Kingarthurhk
06-20-2012, 17:54
How is it bigotry? No one is asking catholics to use contraception (which most do, btw), and the church does not have to pay for it. Where is the rub?

The rub is a Catholic Hospital is owned by the Catholic church. They have particular beliefs, which apparently you feel are worthy of trampling upon. Just as other denominations own other hospitals. Go to Loma Linda a Advenist Hospital and expect to find Saturday worhsip services.


Oh, and by the way I love all of you religious people, it is your faith I hate (said tongue incheek as you cant seperate one from the other. You dont kmow how condasending you are when you use that line.). I dont really hate anyone.

Clearly you do.

Kingarthurhk
06-20-2012, 17:56
I'm tired of churches thinking they deserve a free pass on everything. IMO, they should follow the same rules as everyone else. They should provide the same type of insurance and pay the same taxes as any other for profit institution.

So, you despise the First Amendment. So, what is next, are you going to shout huzzah to Obama for violating the seperation of powers? What other freedoms would you like to excise from others?

Kingarthurhk
06-20-2012, 17:59
You'd have no objection to a Muslim owned company requiring all their employees wear a veil? Or a Jewish owned company forbidding their employees to ever eat pork?

We aren't talking about companies we are talking about church owned, or in this case mosque owned institutions. If I were hospitalized there I would not expect port on the menu and would more than likely see nurses in burkas. My choice, or belief-no. But, it is theirs and their right.

Do you get to go into churches and demand they change their doctrines to suit your agenda?


Over 90% of catholics support the use of contraceptives.
Do you also believe God hates the "sin" of miscegenation?

I could care less what Catholics do. However, they should be able to run their churches as they see fit.

High-Gear
06-20-2012, 18:23
The rub is a Catholic Hospital is owned by the Catholic church. They have particular beliefs, which apparently you feel are worthy of trampling upon. Just as other denominations own other hospitals. Go to Loma Linda a Advenist Hospital and expect to find Saturday worhsip services.

so they want to force their beliefs on non-catholic employees? They are not being forced to provide anything to their employees.
Again, the insurance companies are paying for it...NOT THE CHURCH! (caps added for emphasis).

Now tell me again what the rub is?


In my community I had spoken with my doc about a vasectomy. planned on getting one this summer. Our clinic was bought out by a Catholic Hospital in another city. Now I cant have the procedure. I will have to drive to another city because of their dogma. The doctor doesnt have a problem with it, but since The name on the building changed he is prevented from offering this service.

I wonder if your wife's place of employment was purchased by a muslim company (lets say its the only place in town where her profession is employed). The company's new rule is she has to wear a burqua every day, and is forbidden from eating pork, even during her off time or face being fired. How would you feel?

Kingarthurhk
06-20-2012, 19:27
so they want to force their beliefs on non-catholic employees? They are not being forced to provide anything to their employees.
Again, the insurance companies are paying for it...NOT THE CHURCH! (caps added for emphasis).

Now tell me again what the rub is?

The church bought the land. The church built the facility. The church both owns the land and facility. The church hires the employees. Are you saying that Catholics aren't allowed to employ priests and nuns as well on their property and in their churches? I may have serious doctrinal problems with the Catholic Church; but, I will argue for their right to be "wrong" every day all day. I don't like Atheists' "values", but I stick up for your cause when you are being marginalized as well.


In my community I had spoken with my doc about a vasectomy. planned on getting one this summer. Our clinic was bought out by a Catholic Hospital in another city. Now I cant have the procedure. I will have to drive to another city because of their dogma. The doctor doesnt have a problem with it, but since The name on the building changed he is prevented from offering this service.

Okay, so you have to drive to select the best health care possible. Welcome to America. I often have to go 60 miles or more away for a specialist.

I was hospitalized once when I was nearly killed in the line of duty when I was a young man. The best hospital in town was the Catholic one. I am an Adventist, we are very much doctrinally at odds. However, I was treated very well there. I was friendly and cordial to the nurses (I do that in any hospital, I am no fool), and they treated me very well.

I was in and out of death's door, so a Nun poped her head in the door and asked if she could pray with me.

My response. "Sure, we worship the same God, don't we?"

I did eventually insist she leave. She began to pray, but it was not in English, Spanish, or Latin. It was a pagan chant. I told her to stop, because the spirit in which she chanted was not from God. I told her I did not accept New Agey things. She told me that I needed to open my mind to the New Age. I insisted she leave. She did.

Other than that it was an excellent experience, other than excrutiating pain and fading from life to death more than I was comfortable with.


I wonder if your wife's place of employment was purchased by a muslim company (lets say its the only place in town where her profession is employed). The company's new rule is she has to wear a burqua every day, and is forbidden from eating pork, even during her off time or face being fired. How would you feel?

I would react with with violence and extreme prejudice if that happened. Why? Because, my wife works at home, and is a wondeful house wife.:supergrin:

High-Gear
06-20-2012, 20:01
The church bought the land. The church built the facility. The church both owns the land and facility. The church hires the employees. Are you saying that Catholics aren't allowed to employ priests and nuns as well on their property and in their churches? I may have serious doctrinal problems with the Catholic Church; but, I will argue for their right to be "wrong" every day all day. I don't like Atheists' "values", but I stick up for your cause when you are being marginalized as well.
:

Ah, you dodged my question. The Church isnt paying for, nor providing the birth control, the insurance company is. If they happen to employ priests and nuns (who dont worry about birth control as they are suppose to be celebate) that is not the issue. They are fighting to force non Catholic employees to adhere to their belief.


My wife has MS, after spinal tap, a nurse asked her if she wanted someone to pray with. My wife said no. She told my wife, "If you believe enough and pray enough god will heal you.". She meant well, but what she in essence said was, "If you are not healed it is your own fault for not believing enough or praying enough.". That is a crappy thing to put on a person.

Now please get back to the point.

How does giving homosexuals equal rights take away the rights of Christians?

Animal Mother
06-20-2012, 20:21
We aren't talking about companies we are talking about church owned, or in this case mosque owned institutions. They're still companies. St. Joesph's is a local hospital, owned not by the Catholic Church but by Dignity Health (formerly Catholic Healthcare West) which is not an official part of the Catholic Church.
If I were hospitalized there I would not expect port on the menu and would more than likely see nurses in burkas. My choice, or belief-no. But, it is theirs and their right. You'd support a requirement that nurses, and all female employees wear veils, even when not at work?
Do you get to go into churches and demand they change their doctrines to suit your agenda? No, but Churches don't take a role that requires I depend on them for healthcare.
I could care less what Catholics do. However, they should be able to run their churches as they see fit. It isn't a question of running churches, it's a question of companies and corporations providing health care for their employees. But let's examine your assertion a bit more in depth in light of history. Apparently, the Catholic Church believes that "run[ning] their churches as they see fit" include abusing children and then either concealing or ignoring the acts. You really support that?

Tilley
06-20-2012, 21:54
Ah, you dodged my question. The Church isnt paying for, nor providing the birth control, the insurance company is. If they happen to employ priests and nuns (who dont worry about birth control as they are suppose to be celebate) that is not the issue. They are fighting to force non Catholic employees to adhere to their belief.


My wife has MS, after spinal tap, a nurse asked her if she wanted someone to pray with. My wife said no. She told my wife, "If you believe enough and pray enough god will heal you.". She meant well, but what she in essence said was, "If you are not healed it is your own fault for not believing enough or praying enough.". That is a crappy thing to put on a person.

Now please get back to the point.

How does giving homosexuals equal rights take away the rights of Christians?

1. The insurance company is carried by the employer (the church), to which the employee pays a co-pay. At least 80% of the premium is paid by the church. If the church objects to something the insurance covers, it is their right not to pay the premiums for services that are against our religious beliefs.

2. I do not consider one's sexual preference a civil right as is their ethnicity. The homosexuals can keep their particular brand of sex where it belongs...behind closed doors and private. Being gay is not like being asians or having red hair. To me it a deviancy I don't care to dwell on, and no, I don't consider it normal.

muscogee
06-20-2012, 22:10
So, you despise the First Amendment. So, what is next, are you going to shout huzzah to Obama for violating the seperation of powers? What other freedoms would you like to excise from others?

How is expecting churches to play by the same rules as every one else a violation of the First Amendment? Why do churches deserve special treatment? Why shouldn't churches pay property tax like everyone else? Don't they benefit from having members that can read and write?

Blast
06-20-2012, 22:27
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3rJB-xUy6MI/T0KZvfeByXI/AAAAAAAAa5w/IuBE_0LqN_U/s1600/Obama%2BCatholics.jpg

High-Gear
06-21-2012, 01:44
1. The insurance company is carried by the employer (the church), to which the employee pays a co-pay. At least 80% of the premium is paid by the church. If the church objects to something the insurance covers, it is their right not to pay the premiums for services that are against our religious beliefs.

So by your logic an employer should be able to get into the personal medical business of its employees and not pay for anything that goes against their personal religious beliefs? A Christian Scientist who owns a company which employs thousands could then conceiveably end the its employees healthcare which covers anything other than prayer? Man you guys are against Sharia Law, but are fine with imposing your religious doctrines on those who aren't Catholic.

2. I do not consider one's sexual preference a civil right as is their ethnicity. The homosexuals can keep their particular brand of sex where it belongs...behind closed doors and private. Being gay is not like being asians or having red hair. To me it a deviancy I don't care to dwell on, and no, I don't consider it normal.

Then don't get mad when people call you a bigot, and ridicule you.

Gunhaver
06-21-2012, 02:44
1. The insurance company is carried by the employer (the church), to which the employee pays a co-pay. At least 80% of the premium is paid by the church. If the church objects to something the insurance covers, it is their right not to pay the premiums for services that are against our religious beliefs.

Sounds like the Catholic church needs to get out of the health insurance business if they don't like the rules. That's a common theme with religion, sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong and then expecting special treatment because they believe in the invisible man in the sky. TFB.

2. I do not consider one's sexual preference a civil right as is their ethnicity. The homosexuals can keep their particular brand of sex where it belongs...behind closed doors and private. Being gay is not like being asians or having red hair. To me it a deviancy I don't care to dwell on, and no, I don't consider it normal.

If you don't care to dwell on it then don't. It's funny that you don't hold the same distaste for other religions when they're worshiping false gods and idols. Those are 2 of the 10 commandments being broken right there yet gay people are the ones you choose to go after for some unknown (:whistling:) reason. Being gay is like being Christian or Muslim in that it's something that someone can either be born as or choose and either way, if they do it without hurting anyone else then it's none of your business.

Just curious, should other religions "keep it behind closed doors" because you can't handle the thought of their very existence or perhaps because their acceptance by our society makes you less special?

What makes you so special that you get to set the standard?

Blast
06-21-2012, 02:49
So by your logic an employer should be able to get into the personal medical business of its employees and not pay for anything that goes against their personal religious beliefs? A Christian Scientist who owns a company which employs thousands could then conceiveably end the its employees healthcare which covers anything other than prayer? Man you guys are against Sharia Law, but are fine with imposing your religious doctrines on those who aren't Catholic.
It is gov. imposing it's will in an area it has no Constitutional authority to do so.
I'm not Catholic, but I respect their objections and understand the issue of gov. violating the COTUS.



Then don't get mad when people call you a bigot, and ridicule you.
The vast majority of the public does not accept the gay agenda.
What's next? Should NAMBLA be a legitimate and accepted organization?
Should people be allowed to marry animals?
How far will the "progressives" go in their attempts to make depravity acceptable?

High-Gear
06-21-2012, 03:28
The vast majority of the public does not accept the gay agenda.

Wrong.

A May 22 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 54% of Americans would support a law in their state making same-sex marriage legal, with 40% opposed.[11]
A May 17-20 ABC News/Washington Post poll showed that 53% believe same-sex marriage should be legal, with only 39% opposed, a low-water mark for opposition in any national poll so far.[12][13]
A May 10 USA Today/Gallup Poll, taken one day after Barack Obama became the first sitting President to express support for same-sex marriage,[14] showed 51% of Americans agreed with the President's endorsement.[15]
A May 8 Gallup Poll showed plurality support for same-sex marriage nationwide, with 50% in favor and 48% opposed.[16]
An April Pew Research Center poll showed support for same-sex marriage at 47%, while opposition fell to an all-time low of 43%.[17]
A March 7-10 ABC News/Washington Post poll found 52% of adults thought it should be legal for same-sex couples to get married, while 42% disagreed and 5% were unsure.[18] A March survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found 52% of Americans supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 44% opposed.[19]
A February 29 - March 3 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found 49% of adults supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 40% opposed.[20]
[edit]

Bren
06-21-2012, 04:09
Your president is forcing the Catholic Church to hand out condoms and abortion pills...so don't you think it's right to take it out on the gays? :cool:

No, he isn't, but that is very typical of your posts. By the way, if the catholic church decides to run businesses for $$$ they can expect to be treated like other for-profit businesses.

Blast
06-21-2012, 04:42
If I'm wrong, so be it. But there does seem to be some confusion.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/16/fox-news-poll-majority-oppose-gay-marriage-dont-want-constitutional-amendment/

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/05/polls-show-a-mixed-picture-for-legalizing-gay-marriage-122984.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57431100-503544/romney-affirms-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57442311/polls-on-gay-marriage-not-yet-reflected-in-votes/

From Australia
http://news.change.org/stories/atheists-against-gay-marriage

Woofie
06-21-2012, 07:47
It is gov. imposing it's will in an area it has no Constitutional authority to do so.
I'm not Catholic, but I respect their objections and understand the issue of gov. violating the COTUS.

I side with the church on this issue, but not because it's a religious issue. It's not. The church acting as a business is not the same as the church being a church. It's a 10th amendment issue.

The SC decision is due out today. Can't wait to see what happens.

The vast majority of the public does not accept the gay agenda.
What's next? Should NAMBLA be a legitimate and accepted organization?
Should people be allowed to marry animals?
How far will the "progressives" go in their attempts to make depravity acceptable?

Can you identify the gay agenda for me? I'd like a copy forwarded to me on official Gay Homos Inc. letterhead.

High-Gear
06-21-2012, 07:51
If I'm wrong, so be it. But there does seem to be some confusion.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/16/fox-news-poll-majority-oppose-gay-marriage-dont-want-constitutional-amendment/

Poll of Fox News viewers, what did you expect?

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/05/polls-show-a-mixed-picture-for-legalizing-gay-marriage-122984.html

Shows a 50/50 split, hardly an "Vast Majority"

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57431100-503544/romney-affirms-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/

A poll of people reading an article on Romney, hardly an accurate representation

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57442311/polls-on-gay-marriage-not-yet-reflected-in-votes/
The first few lines states poll after poll reflects americans favor same sex marriage. The churches Mormon / Catholic have spent millions to defeat ballot measures to legalize it. If it truly were the opinion of the "Vast Majority" there would be no need.

From Australia
http://news.change.org/stories/atheists-against-gay-marriage
What a foreign politician personally thinks about the topic forwards your argument how?


See red text above

Gunhaver
06-21-2012, 09:20
http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/403453_484271788265550_1273244805_n.jpg
:rofl:

nmk
06-21-2012, 11:34
http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/403453_484271788265550_1273244805_n.jpg
:rofl:

:rofl:

nmk
06-21-2012, 11:35
No, he isn't, but that is very typical of your posts. By the way, if the catholic church decides to run businesses for $$$ they can expect to be treated like other for-profit businesses.

Of course he isn't, but when you don't have a good position you make one up.

Schabesbert
06-21-2012, 13:21
No, he isn't, but that is very typical of your posts. By the way, if the catholic church decides to run businesses for $$$ they can expect to be treated like other for-profit businesses.
Businesses? You mean like not-for-profit schools, hospitals, and orphanages?

Bren
06-21-2012, 14:32
Businesses? You mean like not-for-profit schools, hospitals, and orphanages?

Do you mean that you think they aren't making money because they file as a "non-profit" or "not for profit.":rofl:

Woofie
06-21-2012, 15:40
Having been to Baptist and Catholic non profit hospitals and a private hospital for similar services in a short time frame and received the bills from all three, I can tell you that the charges are about the same for them all.

Kind of throws the not for profit business out the window. The Baptist hospital, however, did give me a very deep discount for paying before being discharged. I suppose they could justify charging more that way if they give that discount to a lot of people.

Schabesbert
06-21-2012, 16:53
Having been to Baptist and Catholic non profit hospitals and a private hospital for similar services in a short time frame and received the bills from all three, I can tell you that the charges are about the same for them all.

Kind of throws the not for profit business out the window.
You guys seem to have very low bars for evidence. Most of the time a single piece of anecdotal evidence, comparing "similar services", wouldn't be seriously considered as persuasive.

... unless, apparently, it serves your argument.

I can tell you for sure that the schools operate at quite a loss.

Gunhaver
06-21-2012, 17:17
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v642/shakespeares_sister/jesuschrist.bmp

https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTPk4c2OXUQHL8wO9zJu1bNYJ39pGqGohm6qZ4Sl4xDCj6WNvagMw

http://archpaper.com/uploads/mega_church_meltdown_02.jpg

http://crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2012/04/pope.jpeg

http://static.flickr.com/43/84301656_d8638b4193.jpg

http://i1.trekearth.com/photos/25255/vatican_museum_ball_2.jpg

Looks like some serious profit going on to me. I think it's laughable to suggest otherwise. Just google "megachurch" or "vatican gold" and there's more than I could ever link to.

What's that verse about giving everything to the poor?

Woofie
06-21-2012, 20:47
You guys seem to have very low bars for evidence. Most of the time a single piece of anecdotal evidence, comparing "similar services", wouldn't be seriously considered as persuasive.

... unless, apparently, it serves your argument.

I can tell you for sure that the schools operate at quite a loss.

Provide some finance sheets that disprove my observations. I'll admit I'm wrong if I am.

Woofie
06-21-2012, 20:54
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v642/shakespeares_sister/jesuschrist.bmp

https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTPk4c2OXUQHL8wO9zJu1bNYJ39pGqGohm6qZ4Sl4xDCj6WNvagMw

http://archpaper.com/uploads/mega_church_meltdown_02.jpg

http://crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2012/04/pope.jpeg

http://static.flickr.com/43/84301656_d8638b4193.jpg

http://i1.trekearth.com/photos/25255/vatican_museum_ball_2.jpg

Looks like some serious profit going on to me. I think it's laughable to suggest otherwise. Just google "megachurch" or "vatican gold" and there's more than I could ever link to.

What's that verse about giving everything to the poor?

You should see what Jimmy Swaggert has going on, or the Bethany cult, both right here in Baton Rouge. The amount of money they throw around is impressive.

But they are outright liars, swindlers, cheats, and tax frauds only out to get money from the old and the poor. I can't compare them to any of the real churches and maintain a level of intellectual honesty.

Kingarthurhk
06-21-2012, 21:17
How is expecting churches to play by the same rules as every one else a violation of the First Amendment? Why do churches deserve special treatment? Why shouldn't churches pay property tax like everyone else? Don't they benefit from having members that can read and write?

Because they are non-profit organizations. Do you despise all non-profits, or just don't like people freely excercising their First Amendment rights?

muscogee
06-21-2012, 21:35
Because they are non-profit organizations. Do you despise all non-profits, or just don't like people freely excercising their First Amendment rights?

I don't despise non profits, just tax cheats that don't pay their share which means the rest of us have to pay our share and theirs as well. Why does the First Amendment give them a pass on property tax? Everyone else has to pay it.

Syclone538
06-21-2012, 21:56
I don't like sales tax on guns or ammo.

Animal Mother
06-21-2012, 22:03
Because they are non-profit organizations. Do you despise all non-profits, or just don't like people freely excercising their First Amendment rights?Why do you see the First Amendment as a license to exclude and discriminate? For the majority of its history, the LDS church's doctrine excluded blacks from the priesthood. Should that policy also be protected on first amendment grounds?

Blast
06-21-2012, 22:53
I side with the church on this issue, but not because it's a religious issue. It's not. The church acting as a business is not the same as the church being a church. It's a 10th amendment issue.

The SC decision is due out today. Can't wait to see what happens.



Can you identify the gay agenda for me? I'd like a copy forwarded to me on official Gay Homos Inc. letterhead.
The gay agenda is to establish gaydom as a normal aspect of society. It is not.

Blast
06-21-2012, 23:04
See red text above
I believe Fox news is the more accurate. But Fox is still MSM even though they don't lean left like those others.
Polls are funny things because they are often stacked by those making the polls.
Take a poll on gay marriage in San Francisco and one in say Dallas or Atlanta, or Birmingham Alabama and the polls will be very different.
Very easy to manipulate polls in one's favor.

I included Australia because of the atheist angle.
An atheist Prime Minister says NO to gay marriage in Australia.
Good for her.

Animal Mother
06-21-2012, 23:08
The gay agenda is to establish gaydom as a normal aspect of society. It is not.Of course it is, it's been an aspect of society as long as there has been societies.

Syclone538
06-21-2012, 23:17
Of course it is, it's been an aspect of society as long as there has been societies.

Off topic, but this made me wonder, why hasn't evolution eliminated homosexuality?

steveksux
06-21-2012, 23:21
Off topic, but this made me wonder, why hasn't evolution eliminated homosexuality?
Because GOD created homosexuality. What God hath created, evolution can not destroy. :rofl:

Randy

Blast
06-21-2012, 23:37
Of course it is, it's been an aspect of society as long as there has been societies.
No it isn't.
But yes, it has been an aspect of society as long as there has been societies... an aberration.
It has been shunned by society throughout history with isolated exceptions. In most other societies even non Christian societies, many have been killed for "gaydom".
Try counting the other modern societies today that reject "gaydom"... even to the point of killing gays.
If you want to blame a religion for persecuting gays, try Islam.
They deal far more harshly with gays than any Christians.

Animal Mother
06-21-2012, 23:37
Off topic, but this made me wonder, why hasn't evolution eliminated homosexuality?
I don't think that's a question that's been conclusively answered. I've seen it hypothesized that it provides additional males to the society without increasing competition for females.

Animal Mother
06-21-2012, 23:46
No it isn't. Yes. It is.
But yes, it has been an aspect of society as long as there has been societies... an aberration. If it's always been part of society, then it isn't an aberration. Especially when we take into consideration that it has frequently been an accepted part of those societies.
It has been shunned by society throughout history with isolated exceptions. No, it hasn't. The societies which have shunned it are the exceptions, not the norm.
In most other societies even non Christian societies, many have been killed for "gaydom".
Try counting the other modern societies today that reject "gaydom"... even to the point of killing gays. Have at it, how does that prove a point about historical norms?
If you want to blame a religion for persecuting gays, try Islam.
They deal far more harshly with gays than any Christians.Agreed, what does that have to do with either world history or modern US society?

Blast
06-22-2012, 00:35
Yes. It is.
If it's always been part of society, then it isn't an aberration. Especially when we take into consideration that it has frequently been an accepted part of those societies.
No, it hasn't. The societies which have shunned it are the exceptions, not the norm.
Have at it, how does that prove a point about historical norms?
Agreed, what does that have to do with either world history or modern US society?
No it isn't.

Crime has always been part of society. Crime is an aberration.
What about beastiality? It has been around as long as gay.
Is it normal too?

In case you confused...

ab·er·ra·tion   [ab-uh-rey-shuhn]
noun
1.
the act of departing from the right, normal, or usual course.
2.
the act of deviating from the ordinary, usual, or normal type.
3.
deviation from truth or moral rectitude.
4.
mental irregularity or disorder, especially of a minor or temporary nature; lapse from a sound mental state.


History is historical norms. Past history leads to current history
List the societies in history that have regarded gay as normal.
Show kingdoms and nations that had openly gay leaders that pushed a gay agenda. Show a nation of gays anytime in history.

You are living in a fantasy world. You are believing your own delusions.

Animal Mother
06-22-2012, 01:44
No it isn't. Yes, it is.
Crime has always been part of society. Crime is an aberration. No, it isn't. Being a criminal is an aberration, crime is normal. Crime is always present.
What about beastiality? It has been around as long as gay. Is it normal too? Why is the anti-gay crowd so obsessed with bestiality?
In case you confused... No worries. I'm not, though I am curious which definition you believe fits homosexuality.
History is historical norms. Past history leads to current history
List the societies in history that have regarded gay as normal. Egypt, Rome, Greece, Various African kingdoms, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, Mayans, Aztecs, Japan, China, Southeast Asians, and Persians. That's just off the top of my head though.
Show kingdoms and nations that had openly gay leaders that pushed a gay agenda. Show a nation of gays anytime in history.Why would this be required?
You are living in a fantasy world. You are believing your own delusions.Odd that I find it so easy to defend by position with facts then, isn't it?

Tilley
06-22-2012, 01:44
Well said Mr. Blast.

Gunhaver
06-22-2012, 02:20
Well said Mr. Animal Mother.

Gunhaver
06-22-2012, 02:36
Off topic, but this made me wonder, why hasn't evolution eliminated homosexuality?

It's usually not a matter of 100% homosexual with no interest in the opposite sex. There's a Kinsey scale,
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Bl3gxeN_Ovg/Tybyj8ZFlbI/AAAAAAAAC_E/DrowH6sYwPE/s1600/aaa.jpg

Only people that are a hard 6 will not have any (consensual) sexual contact with the opposite sex leaving all the 0-5s to carry on the gay gene. And that only works in societies where females have some say in sexual partners. Given the way most guys feel about girl on girl I'm sure a good number of the female 6s were forced into reproduction in the less civilized societies that have existed for most of human history.

And that's only if there really is a gay gene. It cold be something that's developmental rather than genetic.

Blast
06-22-2012, 04:33
Yes, it is.
No, it isn't. Being a criminal is an aberration, crime is normal. Crime is always present.
Why is the anti-gay crowd so obsessed with bestiality?
No worries. I'm not, though I am curious which definition you believe fits homosexuality.
Egypt, Rome, Greece, Various African kingdoms, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, Mayans, Aztecs, Japan, China, Southeast Asians, and Persians. That's just off the top of my head though.
Why would this be required?
Odd that I find it so easy to defend by position with facts then, isn't it?
No, it isn't.

There goes the double speak BS again. Crime is not a normal function of society. Your word games are boring and pointless... like your arguments.

Not obsessed with beastiality. Merely using it as an example.
Interesting you don't say beastiality is an aberration.
And what about NAMBLA... legitimate or not in your opinion?
Are you implying those should be rights as well?
Should farmer Joe be allowed to marry his sheep?
Should adult men be allowed to have physical relations with juvenile boys?

Show the evidence what you claim was widespread and dominant in those societies.
You may think it's easy to defend your position, but you are relying hopes, wishes, and falsehoods. Not reality.

BTW homosexuality is the attraction between members of the same sex and physical coupling of same. It is unnatural.
And don't pull that animals choose to be gay BS. That has already been covered. you choose to ignore real evidence.

GAY IS NOT NORMAL. If it was, the population would reflect that. It would basically be a "third sex" so to speak with proportionate numbers. Gay is significantly rare when looking at the overall.

Kingarthurhk
06-22-2012, 04:40
Because GOD created homosexuality. What God hath created, evolution can not destroy. :rofl:

Randy

That makes no sense.

Animal Mother
06-22-2012, 05:06
No, it isn't. Yes, it is. Man this is fun.
There goes the double speak BS again. Crime is not a normal function of society. I never claimed it was a normal function of society, I claimed it was a normal part of society. A claim I stand by and which you've yet to address, much less refute.
Your word games are boring and pointless... like your arguments. You wound me.
Not obsessed with beastiality. Are you certain about that?
Merely using it as an example. Yet you always choose the "example" of bestiality. Perhaps there's something subconscious there.
Interesting you don't say beastiality is an aberration. I don't see the need to indulge your obsessions.
And what about NAMBLA... legitimate or not in your opinion? You'd have to explain what you mean by legitimate.
Are you implying those should be rights as well?
Should farmer Joe be allowed to marry his sheep?
Should adult men be allowed to have physical relations with juvenile boys? Reductio ad absurdum so quickly? You must be truly desperate.
Show the evidence what you claim was widespread and dominant in those societies. Show where I claimed it was dominant and I'll give it a shot. But wait, I didn't claim that did I. You're having to misrepresent my position too, your desperation is palpable.
You may think it's easy to defend your position, but you are relying hopes, wishes, and falsehoods. Not reality. The reality is that my position is that homosexuality has been an aspect of all societies, and frequently an accepted aspect. That position is quite easy to defend thanks to all the documentation supporting it. But you apparently need to rely on misrepresenting the position you oppose. Who's relying on falsehoods again?
BTW homosexuality is the attraction between members of the same sex and physical coupling of same. Thanks for the update.
It is unnatural. Please do share your evidence of this.
And don't pull that animals choose to be gay BS. That has already been covered. you choose to ignore real evidence. No I don't, though I do wish you'd present some.
GAY IS NOT NORMAL. If it was, the population would reflect that. It would basically be a "third sex" so to speak with proportionate numbers. Gay is significantly rare when looking at the overall. Kathoey, hijra, kojja, quariwarmi, etc.

Your argument is now reduced to there aren't enough homosexuals?

muscogee
06-22-2012, 05:51
The gay agenda is to establish gaydom as a normal aspect of society. It is not.

So???

Woofie
06-22-2012, 16:29
The gay agenda is to establish gaydom as a normal aspect of society. It is not.

So the gay agenda is to be treated equally? The nerve . . .

Schabesbert
06-22-2012, 16:43
It's usually not a matter of 100% homosexual with no interest in the opposite sex. There's a Kinsey scale,
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Bl3gxeN_Ovg/Tybyj8ZFlbI/AAAAAAAAC_E/DrowH6sYwPE/s1600/aaa.jpg

Only people that are a hard 6 will not have any (consensual) sexual contact with the opposite sex leaving all the 0-5s to carry on the gay gene.
But not in the same proportion as heterosexuals. That's the point of natural selection; it doesn't mean that the less desirable genes (as far as species propagation goes) will select itself out immediately, but that it will be passed on less often, leading to its eventual extinction.

So, the question remains ...

And that's only if there really is a gay gene. It cold be something that's developmental rather than genetic.
That seems to be the conclusion required, if natural selection has any credence.

void *
06-22-2012, 16:55
But not in the same proportion as heterosexuals. That's the point of natural selection; it doesn't mean that the less desirable genes (as far as species propagation goes) will select itself out immediately, but that it will be passed on less often, leading to its eventual extinction.

So, the question remains ...


That seems to be the conclusion required, if natural selection has any credence.

Actually, there's a study showing that women who produce homosexual offspring may have higher fertility than women who don't. If the conclusions of that study are correct, then there is reproductive benefit to whatever mix of genes there are in the mother that give that boosted fertility, and the fact that some offspring may not reproduce does not mean that those genes will eventually die out, because the mother gets a reproductive advantage even though her homosexual offspring do not - and her heterosexual female offspring will likely *also* have that reproductive advantage.

Much like the recessive gene for sickle cell anemia. Having one gives resistance to malaria. Having two gives you a disease. The resistance to malaria means the gene still propagates, even though there are individual offspring that have a reinforcement of the gene which causes negative consequences.

Gunhaver
06-22-2012, 16:59
But not in the same proportion as heterosexuals. That's the point of natural selection; it doesn't mean that the less desirable genes (as far as species propagation goes) will select itself out immediately, but that it will be passed on less often, leading to its eventual extinction.

So, the question remains ...


That seems to be the conclusion required, if natural selection has any credence.

It could be either way. I don't see why it matters. Either it's inherited and there's nothing they can do about it or it's something that develops and there's nothing they can do about it or it's a personal choice (about as easy a choice to go straight as it would be for you or I to start fooling around with men) and it's still not your choice to make for them and none of your business.

And there's nothing about natural selection that requires it to completely eliminate anything that would be a mild detriment to reproduction. If that were true then the ugly gene would have been eliminated a long time ago along with any genetic disorders that strike before reproductive age. Not to mention that humans aren't subject to natural selection anymore and haven't been for quite some time. In species that need all the reproduction they can get to continue on there might be an elimination of the gay gene. That would be an interesting study. I wonder if there are gay pandas?

void *
06-22-2012, 17:14
Not to mention that humans aren't subject to natural selection anymore and haven't been for quite some time.

I wouldn't say that. I'd say our big brains have managed to overcome a ton of things that would have killed various individuals a long time ago. That doesn't mean that natural selection doesn't operate, it means we've changed the environment somewhat.

High-Gear
06-22-2012, 22:48
No, it isn't.

There goes the double speak BS again. Crime is not a normal function of society. Your word games are boring and pointless... like your arguments.
.

I always found it odd god commanded people not to kill, unless it was to slaughter wntire races of people, or to send a she bear to kill children for making fun of Paul, or really anyone who pissed him off.

God also says not to steal, unless it is from another tribe who is competing against you. He also says not to covet your neighbors wife, or to commit adultry, unless you just killed an entire tribe, then you could keep the virgins for yourself.

I guess crime is not only normal, but condoned by god.

Animal Mother
06-22-2012, 23:16
I always found it odd god commanded people not to kill, unless it was to slaughter wntire races of people, or to send a she bear to kill children for making fun of Paul, or really anyone who pissed him off.That was actually Elisha, not Paul.

Kingarthurhk
06-23-2012, 06:20
So the gay agenda is to be treated equally? The nerve . . .

Yes, the polgyamists, what nerve. Quietly trying to live their existance until their familes are boken up, and children sent to foster homes because daddy had too many wives. I notice they don't protest and throw glitter bombs either.

I notice there is never a poly-day or a poly-march. What gives?

Animal Mother
06-23-2012, 07:04
Yes, the polgyamists, what nerve. Quietly trying to live their existance until their familes are boken up, and children sent to foster homes because daddy had too many wives. I notice they don't protest and throw glitter bombs either.

I notice there is never a poly-day or a poly-march. What gives? I don't think the problem with the FLDS was the polygamy, which has been largely ignored for a century since the mainstream Mormons gave up on it. The problem there was the forced marrying of underage girls and attendant molestation. Hopefully, something you're against, despite the Biblical support for the practice.

Woofie
06-23-2012, 08:30
Yes, the polgyamists, what nerve. Quietly trying to live their existance until their familes are boken up, and children sent to foster homes because daddy had too many wives. I notice they don't protest and throw glitter bombs either.

I notice there is never a poly-day or a poly-march. What gives?

I don't really care if someone wants to have multiple wives. I'd question the the mental health of all the adults involved, especially the man who would willingly put up with that much nagging.

They probably don't have parades because polygamy is illegal.

The government usually won't get involved until the polygamists start marrying 13 year olds and consummating their marriage.

Tilley
06-23-2012, 09:58
I don't really care if someone wants to have multiple wives. I'd question the the mental health of all the adults involved, especially the man who would willingly put up with that much nagging.

:number1:WINNER of Tilley Quote of the Day Award!!!:number1:

steveksux
06-23-2012, 10:01
I don't think that's a question that's been conclusively answered. I've seen it hypothesized that it provides additional males to the society without increasing competition for females.
Yes, they make fierce warriors.... Or maybe they just make fierce uniforms.... :tongueout::supergrin: Takes the proper accessorizing to make your army look mean and dangerous...

Randy

steveksux
06-23-2012, 10:14
That makes no sense.

Of course it does. The question was why doesn't evolution eliminate homosexuality. The obvious answer is GOD created homosexuality, and being more powerful than mere evolution, which is constrained by facts, physical laws of nature and whatnot, therefore evolution can not undo what God has created. Homosexuality. Its God's will.

Randy

Tilley
06-23-2012, 11:09
The question was why doesn't evolution eliminate homosexuality.

Randy
Prior to the 1970's gays were viewed as negatively as pedophiles. There were laws prohibiting sodomy even in your own home.

Through conditioning by the media gay's were looked at as funny-kooky people and that helped make it more acceptable. Playboy made two girls making out look sexy...

What would have happened if these two gentlemen were the stars of "Brokeback Mountain":

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee55/G19mm/150px-Ernest-Borgnine_2004.jpghttp://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee55/G19mm/220px-BWbuono.gif

Or perhaps Playboy showed a pictorial of these two making-out:

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee55/G19mm/rosie-tm.jpghttp://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee55/G19mm/sandra-tm.jpg

Oh yeah...what a fine mental picture that leaves ya.


Now if you all will excuse me while I seek therapy or perhaps pour acid in my eyes...

Gunhaver
06-23-2012, 15:20
Prior to the 1970's gays were viewed as negatively as pedophiles. There were laws prohibiting sodomy even in your own home.

Through conditioning by the media gay's were looked at as funny-kooky people and that helped make it more acceptable. Playboy made two girls making out look sexy...

What would have happened if these two gentlemen were the stars of "Brokeback Mountain":

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee55/G19mm/150px-Ernest-Borgnine_2004.jpghttp://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee55/G19mm/220px-BWbuono.gif

Or perhaps Playboy showed a pictorial of these two making-out:

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee55/G19mm/rosie-tm.jpghttp://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee55/G19mm/sandra-tm.jpg

Oh yeah...what a fine mental picture that leaves ya.


Now if you all will excuse me while I seek therapy or perhaps pour acid in my eyes...

The thought of fat disgusting hetero couples getting it on grosses me out too so I don't think about it.

And really? Playboy started all that? You sure nobody ever thought the girl on girl was interesting until they pointed it out?

steveksux
06-24-2012, 08:13
Prior to the 1970's gays were viewed as negatively as pedophiles. There were laws prohibiting sodomy even in your own home. Blacks used to be viewed negatively too. Those that did so were quite sincere about it, invoked God's will to boot. I recall mixed marriages even requiring a Supreme Court ruling to make sure they were legal. Much to the chagrin of those convinced God considered race mixing an abomination.


Through conditioning by the media gay's were looked at as funny-kooky people and that helped make it more acceptable. Playboy made two girls making out look sexy...Cosby show, Julia helped make black people more acceptable too. Sometimes the media does get it right.



What would have happened if these two gentlemen were the stars of "Brokeback Mountain":

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee55/G19mm/150px-Ernest-Borgnine_2004.jpghttp://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee55/G19mm/220px-BWbuono.gifWould have been just as cringeworthy only with more jiggly jello-ey bits.



Or perhaps Playboy showed a pictorial of these two making-out:

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee55/G19mm/rosie-tm.jpghttp://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee55/G19mm/sandra-tm.jpg

Oh yeah...what a fine mental picture that leaves ya.


Now if you all will excuse me while I seek therapy or perhaps pour acid in my eyes...After Roseanne and Tom Arnold got married, the sanctity of marriage argument was null and void, as well as any "imagine how disgusting it would be" arguments... :tongueout:

Randy

Gunhaver
06-24-2012, 09:48
Oh yeah...what a fine mental picture that leaves ya.


Now if you all will excuse me while I seek therapy or perhaps pour acid in my eyes...

So now the standard for what makes a relationship valid and legal should be if the thought of it doesn't gross you out?

You should send me a picture of you and your wife so I can decide if you two are too ugly for me to have to suffer the indignity of thinking about the both of you getting it on. If the ick factor is too high then I'll immediately start lobbying to have your marriage dissolved.

Or I could mind my own damn business and act like it doesn't concern me, you know, since it really doesn't, and focus instead on where I put my own **** while you do the same. Which would you prefer?

nmk
06-26-2012, 12:48
So now the standard for what makes a relationship valid and legal should be if the thought of it doesn't gross you out?

You should send me a picture of you and your wife so I can decide if you two are too ugly for me to have to suffer the indignity of thinking about the both of you getting it on. If the ick factor is too high then I'll immediately start lobbying to have your marriage dissolved.

Or I could mind my own damn business and act like it doesn't concern me, you know, since it really doesn't, and focus instead on where I put my own **** while you do the same. Which would you prefer?

:rofl:

Tilley
06-26-2012, 20:12
...and focus instead on where I put my own **** while you do the same.

:wow:Really? You need to focus?:wow:


















Perhaps a magnifying glass would help...:tongueout::rofl::supergrin::wavey:

Tilley
06-26-2012, 20:26
Would have been just as cringeworthy only with more jiggly jello-ey bits.
Cringeworthy...yes. Hilarious? Oh yeah.

After Roseanne and Tom Arnold got married, the sanctity of marriage argument was null and void, as well as any "imagine how disgusting it would be" arguments... :tongueout:

Randy

I tried to get a really good picture from the internet on Roseanne because she would have made a perfect wife for Rosie, but oddly enough I couldn't find one.