tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post2976253581215530611..comments2023-11-02T03:10:39.674-07:00Comments on GeeeeeZ!: Gay Celebrations in California........"The judge decided against the will of the PEOPLE! HURRAH!"Zhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15989573357446569262noreply@blogger.comBlogger164125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-60996102219313407172010-08-10T00:30:33.479-07:002010-08-10T00:30:33.479-07:00'circuit party'? I'm afraid to ask. I ...<i>'circuit party'? I'm afraid to ask. I THINK I know and probably shouldn't ask, but......(be nice)! xx</i><br /><br />A circuit party is basically miniature Sodoms and Gommorrahs with a 4/4 dance beat instead of a fiery judgement from an angry God.<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_party" rel="nofollow">Circuit party</a><br /><br />Basically a target rich environment if one were looking to acquire "Gay Bowel Syndrome" by the end of the week. A veritable shopping mall for sexually transmitted diseases.<br /><br />Apparently "Anonymous" has nothing but a cockroach's courage for criticism of homosexuality on its lack of merits.(((Thought Criminal)))https://www.blogger.com/profile/17311656184275255223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-60461142604627256572010-08-09T23:02:13.780-07:002010-08-09T23:02:13.780-07:00Beamish, I should have read more carefully your or...Beamish, I should have read more carefully your original comment about the shrinks and homosexuality; thanks for clearing that up.<br />Thanks.<br />Some network did a thing on two or three gay men all of whom tried to <br />get straight....two of them definitely didn't 'take'..one did; for a while...the network seemed to take great joy in announcing that "Harold, TOO, finally had to succumb to his gayness again!" Oh, goody.<br /><br />'circuit party'? I'm afraid to ask. I THINK I know and probably shouldn't ask, but......(be nice)! xxZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15989573357446569262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-1673041487269445222010-08-09T22:43:41.140-07:002010-08-09T22:43:41.140-07:00Anonymous,
Beamish.
thou dost protest too much....Anonymous,<br /><br /><i>Beamish. <br /><br />thou dost protest too much.</i><br /><br />I'll turn out the light so you can move your circuit party back out from under the fridge.(((Thought Criminal)))https://www.blogger.com/profile/17311656184275255223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-76353525956628520412010-08-08T19:28:28.648-07:002010-08-08T19:28:28.648-07:00Beamish.
thou dost protest too much.Beamish. <br /><br />thou dost protest too much.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-40134241798858883852010-08-08T13:34:52.023-07:002010-08-08T13:34:52.023-07:00Heather, I purposefully softened my comment to you...Heather, I purposefully softened my comment to you, as you can see I deleted the original one to which you replied.<br />I did that for many reasons, but one was that I was so sure you'd say that nobody's arguing.. ..and you did. I'm trying to prevent yet another argument here, okay? it's a terrible witness; just trust me that my opinions are valid, too, alright?<br /><br />Please just respect my wishes. I have no need to go back and forth about this. All of us are entitled to our own feelings and I don't feel at all angry or insulted by you. I only ask that you respect my wishes. <br /><br />By the way, I'm having trouble keeping my words and emotions to a minimum here...but suffice it to say I don't think ANYBODY here has asked anyone to not speak joyfully about the Lord.<br /><br />I've said enough. Thanks.Zhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15989573357446569262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-40162401183678380892010-08-08T13:25:24.215-07:002010-08-08T13:25:24.215-07:00Z
Heather, as a matter of fact, yes THIS Christi...Z<br /><br /><br /><i>Heather, as a matter of fact, yes THIS Christian IS bothered. It's my blog and I reach out to nonChristians here, trying not to let Christians argue so much that the whole Body of Christ is BROKEN at geeeZ in the terrible example of fighting over Scripture, etc., okay?</i><br /><br />Yes, it is your blog and I have much appreciated your desire to reach out to non-believers here. I'm not criticizing you for the way your have chosen to run your own blog site, and have tried to the best of my ability to honor your wishes while still being honest about the foundation of the opinions I've offered here. <br /><br />By way of clarification, I wasn't arguing, and I didn't see that Beamish was, either. We made an honest attempt to try to understand where the other was coming from as we discussed the difference in approach to a commonly shared concern. <br /><br />If Scripture had never been brought up, but we had been actually mistreating each other and parted ways with no resolution whatsoever over a completely <b>secular</b> matter, that would be a far worse example of professing Christians fighting amongst ourselves, don't you think? <br /><br /><br /><i><b>YOu said "What I'm not understanding is why Christians should be expected to leave Jesus standing on the outside of such discussion when scripture clearly defines marriage and points us to what it is meant to reflect."</b><br /><br />How am I supposed to take that? I know, you're sorry.</i><br /><br />Actually Z, It wasn't intended to be a slam against you, so I'm not sure I need to be sorry about that. My statement is referring to a general observation I've made and it happened to touch on this subject as I was discussing with Beamish. <br /> <br /><br />I've seen Christians elsewhere voluntarily muzzle themselves concerning their faith--to the point you'd never even guess they are believers. I truly don't understand why "we" as a group don't seem to enjoy speaking freely about our love for the Lord. That never has to be viewed as a source of contention among those of us who have claimed His name.<br /><br />I enjoy reading blogs that make me think, and when I think, I generally appreciate being able to discuss with other thoughtful people. My commentary here has never been meant to be argumentative, inflammatory or hurtful to you or anyone else.<br /><br />HeatherCraig and Heatherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11962442989291080899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-48701808862475618672010-08-08T13:12:52.367-07:002010-08-08T13:12:52.367-07:00Heather, as a matter of fact, yes this Christian ...Heather, as a matter of fact, yes this Christian is bothered. <br /><br />YOu said "What I'm not understanding is why Christians should be expected to leave Jesus standing on the outside of such discussion when scripture clearly defines marriage and points us to what it is meant to reflect."<br /><br />Please know that you might not be happy with things here or agree with my stance, but Jesus is NEVER STANDING ON THE OUTSIDE OF ANY DISCUSSION here, whether you think so or not. Everyone knows that most Christians do not support gay marriage, let's try to stay on the secular side, as Faith so well puts it in her comment...so we stay adrift of yet another fight showing that Christians can't agree on anything. My blog is to bring people TO the Lord in tender, easy ways...<br />thank you.<br /><br />Beamish, you know, I ADORE you and I'm trying to be 'tolerant' at the language...what the??<br /><br />You said "Now homosexuality is only defined as a "deviant behavioral disorder""<br />Are you SURE? BY SHRINKS? I'd have thought it would be, by this time, "A cooler, hipper way to go!" :-) xxxZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15989573357446569262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-83234891363694526482010-08-08T05:47:37.680-07:002010-08-08T05:47:37.680-07:00Please note that I'm not trying to invalidate ...<i>Please note that I'm not trying to invalidate the religious argument against homosexuality. I agree with it. Truth compliments truth.<br /><br />I'm merely focusing on the true-on-sight...</i><br /><br />No worries, then. It appears we don't actually disagree so much as emphasize different aspects of the same argument.<br /><br /><br /><i>It's not "bigotry" or "hatred," as the mealymouthed left would have it, to desire not wanting to be infected by Hepatitis-C...</i><br /><br />Of course it's not. But the charge of "hater" is more vague and a lot more difficult to address that either concrete scientific evidence or calmly introduced scriptural reference.<br /><br />These days, "bigotry" is all about an individual's perception of what someone might be thinking rather than an actual crime that has been committed. Same goes for workplace "harassment". <br /><br />I know someone who was acting supervisor and offered specific correction to one woman about the way she was doing her job and she shot back that she felt as though she was being "singled out". <br /> Of course, she was being "singled out", as he couldn't very well instruct her without pointing out that she was doing a poor job. But what she meant was "I don't <b>feel</b> like improving my performance and am threatening to interpret this situation as hostile if you don't leave me to continue in my mediocrity". He called her bluff and told her to knock it off, because they both knew it wasn't true. And she straightened right up. <br />But not all situations are like that and there are plenty of unethical people who would push the "hate" button for all it's worth, simply because they couldn't get someone's full approval of what they're doing.<br /><br />It's rather childish, but fairly effective at confusing the real issue if you aren't prepared for it.<br /><br />HeatherCraig and Heatherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11962442989291080899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-84479594013684247722010-08-07T23:53:58.684-07:002010-08-07T23:53:58.684-07:00Wasn't it the American Psychiatric Association...<i>Wasn't it the American Psychiatric Association that altered the definition of homosexuality as being considered a "mental disorder" — back in the '70's I believe. Since that time it's opened the floodgates to the deluge of today in which sexuality is used as a blunt instrument to advance agendas which usually result in name calling and labeling of those in opposing camps in the most vulgar way possible.</i><br /><br />It was in 1973 that the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its listings of deviant behavioral disorders. Their reasons for doing so were not based in science whatsoever, but rather a bowing to political pressures (and perhaps an emergence of a large number of fags in the pyschiatry profession). <br /><br />Now homosexuality is only defined as a "deviant behavioral disorder" if a fag can't rouse the self-esteem to make himself comfortable with his deviant behavior.<br /><br />It's just made psychiatry / psychology more of a quack hucksterism than it always has been.(((Thought Criminal)))https://www.blogger.com/profile/17311656184275255223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-12942193871013778112010-08-07T23:36:41.527-07:002010-08-07T23:36:41.527-07:00H,
I'm not dismissing the theological view (o...H,<br /><br />I'm not dismissing the theological view (or "a" theological view) out of hand. In fact, we're on the same page vis a vis the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality. Being something of a lay etymologist when it comes to examining the best translation of of the Greek used in the New Testament, I have found that Paul in his first epistle to the Corinthians was extremely graphic (and decidedly "vulgar") in his listing of those that will not inherent the kingdom of God. Translating "effeminate ass-f*ckers" as "homosexuals and sodomites" for a more demure reading of the text to me seems to blunt Paul's razor sharp intent. Greek was a language of precision. Paul wasn't out to be "politically correct" and "non-offensive" to those considered an abomination to God's sight. He just threw it out there in plain sight. Today's left-wing audience would consider Paul a "bigot" and a "racist" but that has more to do with the left's absolute opposition to demonstrating a capacity for rational thought than actually addressing Paul's words to the Corinthians as written.<br /><br />Please note that I'm not trying to invalidate the religious argument against homosexuality. I agree with it. Truth compliments truth.<br /><br />I'm merely focusing on the true-on-sight. It's a lot harder to demonstrate "who's inheriting the kingdom of God" than it is to point out that homosexual behaviors keep exotic and venereal diseases afflicting the general population as a known, preventable epidemiological disease vector.<br /><br />It's not "bigotry" or "hatred," as the mealymouthed left would have it, to desire not wanting to be infected by Hepatitis-C from eating a sandwich prepared by a faggot or acquiring AIDS from a transfusion harvested from a faggot blood donor.<br /><br />I'm not the one swimming in sewage in this debate (and neither are you!) to be "tolerant," after all.(((Thought Criminal)))https://www.blogger.com/profile/17311656184275255223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-57691672678819160572010-08-07T21:13:04.262-07:002010-08-07T21:13:04.262-07:00Beamish,
I just don't think resorting to theo...Beamish,<br /><br /><i>I just don't think resorting to theology is particularly poignant. ... Saying homosexuality is unacceptable because it puts lives at risk beyond the bounds of the sexual couplings - many homosexually-origined pathogens can spread by non-sexual contact, thus putting the public at risk - is far more relevant than the "you're gonna burn in hell" tactic.</i><br /><br />My theology is not a replacement for sound reason, but rather the dye that colors my thinking. <br />Really, everyone has a theology. Even atheists have ideas about God which either prompt them to ignore Him or try to prove He does not exist. I don't see the question to be so much <i>whether</i> theology enters the picture, but <i>which</i> theology is informing the view. <br /><br />I could probably make a decent argument based solely on a secular foundation, if I tried. Biological incompatibility of body parts and general health concern are definitely factors. Some might also argue from a social standpoint and still others could cite a potential increase in health care costs (financial argument) that high-risk sexual behavior could place on a strongly socialized medical system.<br /><br /><br /><br />What I'm not understanding is why Christians should be expected to leave Jesus standing on the outside of such discussion when scripture clearly defines marriage and points us to what it is meant to reflect.<br /><br />If you developed an absolutely spectacular, life-enhancing invention and those who you commissioned to advertise for you either never mentioned your name or used the tiniest possible print in an obscure location, wouldn't you be at least a little miffed?<br /><br /><br />Why must we allow non-believers determine for us the terms by which we may build a case for the traditionally defined understanding of marriage?<br /><br />I'll have to re-read my comments to be sure, but I don't think I used the "your gonna burn" tactic and hope others have not felt I was talking down to them. I just happen to love the symbolism and it's hard to not talk about it.<br /><br />Anyway, in my mind, adding the spiritual dimension to the secular does not alter demonstrable facts and allows for credit to be given where it is due.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><i>You'll have to try harder. Try to sell me on the idea that Pepsi-Cola tastes better than Coca-Cola. ;P</i><br /><br />DRAT!<br /><br />Sheesh, you're hard to offend.<br /><br />Okay then, I'll go work on my technique. <br /><br />But I'm drawing the line at joining the communist party. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Z</i><br /><br />I do hope this comment doesn't appear to be a blatant disregard for your previous statement about this not being the place for theological debate about this issue.<br /><br />My intention is not to continue to push a religious view here, but only to try to explain my perspective to Beamish. <br /><br />HCraig and Heatherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11962442989291080899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-69224483806525209072010-08-07T17:36:13.745-07:002010-08-07T17:36:13.745-07:00The fact that I can't seem to be "unevang...<i>The fact that I can't seem to be "unevangelical" about such things doesn't mean I expect everyone else to be like me.</i><br /><br />I jsut don't think resorting to theology is particularly poignant. You can tell someone an act is an abomination to God's sight, but there are many acts that fall into that category. Arguing against homosexuality from biology, physiology, and epidemiology seems more to the point. Saying homosexuality is unacceptable because it puts lives at risk beyond the bounds of the sexual couplings - many homosexually-origined pathogens can spread by non-sexual contact, thus putting the public at risk - is far more relevant than the "you're gonna burn in hell" tactic.<br /><br />My argument is from self-defense.<br /><br /><i>You've obviously read up on the subject, and I'm okay with your making the practical health-concern-related argument. To be honest, human health and nutrition has been a bit of a hobby of mine for years and I've read some interesting (and rather graphic) information concerning a valid biological reason for the increased risk of disease proliferation that attends homosexual activity. I believe more people ought to become educated in this area.</i><br /><br />Or at least made to realize the stigmas associated with homosexuality didn't perpetuate theologically. Homosexuality is a disease vector. It is what it is. Science is universal.<br /><br /><i>Remember, we're still looking for your upper tolerance level concerning the tone of my commentary. If at some point I've provoked you to the point of punching your computer screen, we'll know we've arrived. If not, I'll keep trying.</i><br /><br />You'll have to try harder. Try to sell me on the idea that Pepsi-Cola tastes better than Coca-Cola. ;P(((Thought Criminal)))https://www.blogger.com/profile/17311656184275255223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-33240040779423465092010-08-07T15:27:46.050-07:002010-08-07T15:27:46.050-07:00Faith, we HAVE lost the meaning of marriage, or so...Faith, we HAVE lost the meaning of marriage, or some have; maybe most have. <br /><br />Waylon, there's a commercial on TV now for a dating service..a young woman with a bunch of friends standing around her as she sits at her computer. She picks some guy in a picture and then there's a fantasy footage of them in a bedroom, his shirt's off, she's wearing a kind of body suit that would imply she's naked, and they bang her head on a cabinet as he lunges at her, then she bangs her head on a bed stand or something...the girls all then decide that's not for them ...not the sex but the way to meet a guy, I think? I get so furious at the graphic portrayal and lame attempt to show them having sex while somehow meeting federal TV guidelines that I'm not sure what the end is, frankly.<br />It's shown CONSTANTLY and it's so metaphorical of everything that's wrong in America in re to morality.<br /><br />There IS none anymore.And, if you suggest there SHOULD be, you're a dinosaur who wants to keep young people in the 18th century.Zhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15989573357446569262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-60711927971668772942010-08-07T15:04:26.641-07:002010-08-07T15:04:26.641-07:00Wasn't it the American Psychiatric Association...Wasn't it the American Psychiatric Association that altered the definition of homosexuality as being considered a "mental disorder" — back in the '70's I believe. Since that time it's opened the floodgates to the deluge of today in which sexuality is used as a blunt instrument to advance agendas which usually result in name calling and labeling of those in opposing camps in the most vulgar way possible.<br /><br />Hell, this is just another attack on the foundations of Western Civilization, IMO. It may sound "conspiratorial" but I believe it was John Maynard Keynes and his "boys" in Fabian Socialism who had dreams of the world being their "oyster" in just this way. <br /><br />Today's culture is overrun with sexual and societal depravity of with homosexuality is but one of the more obvious symptoms.<br /><br />WaylonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-33177438011461104562010-08-07T12:34:34.291-07:002010-08-07T12:34:34.291-07:00The secular argument against homosexual marriage t...The secular argument against homosexual marriage that I prefer is the recognition that marriage in all cultures and all times irrespective of religion is the union of heterosexuals. It may include many wives or rarely, many husbands, but it's always heterosexual. The idea of gay marriage is an innovation in the history of humanity and it makes no sense, it contradicts everything all people have known about the meaning of marriage.<br /><br />However, in our time we HAVE lost the meaning of marriage -- what with easy divorce, easy cohabitation, "sexual freedom" outside marriage, socially supported single parenting and so on and so forth, and that is why it's even possible for the idea of gay marriage to occur to anyone.Faith https://www.blogger.com/profile/00064746447414555577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-73161405827719761152010-08-07T09:20:05.081-07:002010-08-07T09:20:05.081-07:00FB..not even close :-)
As a matter of fact I&quo...FB..not even close :-)<br /><br /><br />As a matter of fact I"m losing people who feel discriminated against because I let beamish use the language I asked him to try to avoid after deleting others who'd used it and worse.:-( So, maybe we'd have had more good stuff to comment to.<br /><br />I am glad Beamish is concentrating on the secular arguments against homosexuality; we've talked the Christian aspects SO many times over these couple of years here and most of these adults are very aware of all of that and, if they're Christians they already get it, if they're not, they're given a perfect entree to insult and demean. I don't want that here.<br />Another EXCELLENT site, a Lutheran site, discusses topics like this in depth, where a few VERy grounded, mature Christians are saying "After years of study, I see there really IS no admonition against homosexuality in the Bible.."!!!<br />Fascinating stuff over there, showing we're certainly not going to put this issue to bed HERE and it only confuses many, which is NOT why I have my blog.Zhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15989573357446569262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-48703480935628646852010-08-07T08:43:23.099-07:002010-08-07T08:43:23.099-07:00Beamish
Well, personally I'm not even trying ...Beamish<br /><br /><i>Well, personally I'm not even trying to be evangelical or make a theological argument against homosexuality. I'm merely pointing out the ludicrousness of defining and defending a vile and disgusting disease-triggering behavior and lifestyle as being a trait akin to skin color.</i><br /><br />The fact that I can't seem to be "unevangelical" about such things doesn't mean I expect everyone else to be like me.<br /><br /> You've obviously read up on the subject, and I'm okay with your making the practical health-concern-related argument. To be honest, human health and nutrition has been a bit of a hobby of mine for years and I've read some interesting (and rather graphic) information concerning a valid biological reason for the increased risk of disease proliferation that attends homosexual activity. I believe more people ought to become educated in this area. <br /><br /><br />And yeah, having a particular level of skin pigmentation does not automatically land an individual in the same realm as that of one who deliberately violates the obvious intention of natural design.<br /><br /><i>why it's "hate" to not want turds on the buffet.</i><br /><br />I generally avoid buffets anyway. Have you seen how some people serve themselves? :P<br /><br />It is neither hateful nor racist to desire to maintain a healthy environment, if possible. <br />Lying makes me crazy and I believe we all need to be willing to look honestly at this issue.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Remember, we're still looking for your upper tolerance level concerning the tone of my commentary. If at some point I've provoked you to the point of punching your computer screen, we'll know we've arrived. If not, I'll keep trying.<br /><br /> :)<br /><br />HCraig and Heatherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11962442989291080899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-45457638975811241562010-08-07T08:01:19.819-07:002010-08-07T08:01:19.819-07:00If you believe the "in your face" approa...<i>If you believe the "in your face" approach is justifiable by way of the language used in Scripture, I'm not at this time prepared to launch an argument to the contrary.</i><br /><br />Well, personally I'm not even trying to be evangelical or make a theological argument against homosexuality. I'm merely pointing out the ludicrousness of defining and defending a vile and disgusting disease-triggering behavior and lifestyle as being a trait akin to skin color. <br /><br />Imagine the trendy arguments in other contexts:<br /><br />"Opposition to self-mutilation is racist"<br /><br />"Opposition to coprophagia is racist."<br /><br />"Opposition to mass murder is racist."<br /><br />I'm merely throwing the onus back on faggotry for them to provide why their voluntarily engaging in behaviors that lead to becoming the carriers of exotic, epidemic diseases in a society should be overlooked, why it's "bigotry" to want to keep biological perils away from the healthy, why it's "hate" to not want turds on the buffet.<br /><br />"Being nice about it" doesn't stop the negligent and purposeful spread of diseases. A faggot that donates blood is committing homo-terrorism, not a community service.(((Thought Criminal)))https://www.blogger.com/profile/17311656184275255223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-75411404971718721202010-08-07T07:13:39.518-07:002010-08-07T07:13:39.518-07:00Soap soap soap a government has the right to set t...Soap soap soap a government has the right to set the terms of any contract so how are a brother and sister's rights being violated if they aren't allowed to marry? If you see this as some kind of injustice then you ain't reading government correctly.Z-manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158941102166215285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-81640249505765105982010-08-07T01:57:26.306-07:002010-08-07T01:57:26.306-07:00Beamish
Paul's language was very salty street ...Beamish<br /><i>Paul's language was very salty street Greek</i><br /><br />Yes,it appears Paul (and the OT prophets, as well) said some things that American Christians don't typically hear on Sunday mornings. There are definitely some intensely relayed concepts in Scripture that are intended to make a person sit up and take notice. <br /><br /><br /> We did have a pastor once who explained what was meant when Isaiah recorded that all our own righteousness is as "filthy rags". <br />I'm guessing Paul uses a similarly offensive word picture when counting his own efforts at righteousness as "skubalon".<br /><br />I'm not about to give active homosexual behavior a silent "pass", just because someone might become offended at hearing that the behavior is offensive to God.<br /><br /><br /><i>Paul pulled no punches. Why should I?</i><br /><br />Not sure if that's directed at me or the general audience, but my own reasoning for not feeling a need to go into graphic detail is that I figure it's possible to determine that the contents of an outhouse stinks without having to yank open the door and dive down the hole for samples to pass around. <br /><br />But that's just me <br /><br />I guess there are others whose sense of smell is less finely tuned and who might benefit from a good verbal slap upside the head. You might even be able to build onto your case by way of Ephesians 5:11-13--if you can reconcile your approach with the instruction to reprove (expose) the works of darkness while still acknowledging the additional statement that it is a shame to even speak of such things. <br /><br />If you believe the "in your face" approach is justifiable by way of the language used in Scripture, I'm not at this time prepared to launch an argument to the contrary.<br /><br /><br />I just don't personally feel the need to go that deep.<br /><br /><br />Stinky outhouses have always made me retch pretty violently.<br /><br />HCraig and Heatherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11962442989291080899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-36992091802503686832010-08-06T23:23:48.767-07:002010-08-06T23:23:48.767-07:00Soapy,
Ron Paul's defense of the anecdotal ra...Soapy,<br /><br />Ron Paul's defense of the anecdotal racist screeds that have appeared in his newsletters is that he didn't write them, but that they were written "by a staffer" in his name (and presumably fictionalized to be a tale from Ron Paul's 1st person persepctive) and that he didn't know what they said.<br /><br />Than's Presidential material there. Dude doesn't kow his own staff is posing as him, or even what they're telling his own constituents in his name via newsletter? <br /><br />I'm sure orbital mind control lasers may have something to do with it. It is a vast conspiracy to make poor Ron Paul look stupid, hatched by blood drinking Masonic lizard people in the basement of the Hotel de Bilderburg.<br /><br />Or, maybe, just possibly, the guy is a twit making himself look stupid.<br /><br />When confronted that they in fact have very large amounts of contributions from known racist and white supremacist neo-Nazi groups, Ron and Rand Paul neither repudiate the views of these contributors nor refuses to reject their contributions. The "Pauls will take money from anyone that gives it" defense doesn't wash, especially given Ron Paul's newsleter racism and both of the Paul's disturbing inseperable from leftists foreign policy vis a vis Israel in specific and the war on terrorism as a whole. <br /><br />Candidates that won't address concerns about the people that bought and paid for them, can't be honest about either their own words or their inability to control evn the "staff" speaking for them, and distinguish themselves by being inseperable in foreign policy from the points national socialists and international socialists meet in agreement. Nothing libertarian or conservative in that swamp.<br /><br />I did not bring up the civil rights issue of Rand Paul's longing for the days of Jim Crow segregation.<br /><br />The Pauls' views enable alot - Islamic terrorism, the white supremacist agenda, etc. but nothing good.<br /><br />My only question is why aren't the Pauls running as Democrats?<br /><br />I believe the Pauls mistake libertarian for libertine. They can't even be held responsible for their own words.<br /><br />Again, they're twits, unworthy of the needless gratuity of the fruitless search for redeeming qualities. <br /><br />You take money from actively open racists and anti-Semites, and preach policies amenable to racists and anti-Semites in both foreign and domestic endeavors, your going to have to answer why 2 + 2 = 4 and not 5. <br /><br />The Pauls are racists. Sickeningly so.(((Thought Criminal)))https://www.blogger.com/profile/17311656184275255223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-59331327867199273442010-08-06T21:11:57.989-07:002010-08-06T21:11:57.989-07:00Z, did you beat your record on this post as far as...Z, did you beat your record on this post as far as comment number?FrogBurgernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-42073100359747192782010-08-06T09:31:34.840-07:002010-08-06T09:31:34.840-07:00All that said Beam, you still haven't made a r...All that said Beam, you still haven't made a rational argument why a <b>private</b> business owner should not be permitted to dictate the use and disposal of his/her property inclusive of whom to hire and whom they wish to voluntarily conduct business with.<br /><br />Because government holds a monopoly on the service it provides, there is no alternative if one wishes to acquire a driver's license, obtain a permit or license, etc. Therefore, unless government is willing to relinquish its monopoly on those and other services and turn them over to private entities, they cannot descriminate because there is not recourse as a citizen requiring said services.<br /><br />BUT, if I should wish to patronize a private establishment (let's say a restaurant) as a minority or a homosexual or what have you, I most certainly do have recourse in that I can patronize a different establishment where the owner is less concerned about racial or sexual classification and far more concerned about turning a profit.<br /><br />The suggestion is not to infer that one is racist or condones discrimination based on race, sexual orientation, or otherwise. It merely is a subject of private property and whether a free individual has the right to dictate the use and disposal of their private property so long as it does not violate the rights of another. Be it known there is no right to employment or the right to patronize a private establishment.cwhiatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00492547034803381135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-64820575662912117992010-08-06T08:45:20.406-07:002010-08-06T08:45:20.406-07:00Really? Then why are we (or rather, y'all) afr...<b><i>Really? Then why are we (or rather, y'all) afraid to push back against that "being opposed to disgusting behaviors is just like being a racist" meme?</i></b><br /><br /><b> Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 1 Corinthians 6:18</b><br /><br />Not much wiggle-room in that statement, although I tend to prefer a bit less graphic approach myself ;)<br /><br /><br />Racism is pretty disgusting, too, though.<br /><br />HCraig and Heatherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11962442989291080899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5516627478339613810.post-72197051589002253012010-08-06T07:45:31.860-07:002010-08-06T07:45:31.860-07:00Beamish..Also, yes, I have heard that Walker IS ga...<i>Beamish..Also, yes, I have heard that Walker IS gay. It's a fact. But, he has voted AGAINST gay issues in the past, too.</i><br /><br />Well, if Judge Walker is in fact a faggot, then his impartiality in the case doesn't pass muster.<br /><br /><i>And, what am I supposed to do with what you wrote? There's NO NEED, we get the graphic stuff.</i><br /><br />Really? Then why are we (or rather, y'all) afraid to push back against that "being opposed to disgusting behaviors is just like being a racist" meme?<br /><br />I'm too busy firing on the enemy to worry if his body falls on a pillow.(((Thought Criminal)))https://www.blogger.com/profile/17311656184275255223noreply@blogger.com