Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-S...

Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil Unions

There are 52072 comments on the CBS2 story from Nov 30, 2010, titled Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil Unions. In it, CBS2 reports that:

The Illinois House has approved a measure to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at CBS2.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#42298 Sep 28, 2013
MirthMenace wrote:
<quoted text>Of which church do you speak? Are you referring to the Catholic Church? Whatever church you're referring to, when was that? <quoted text>I don't think that has changed much. Most married couples still do at least try to work through the ups and downs. Roughly half of them finally throw in nowadays. It was the acknowledgement of "irreconcilable differences" as legitimate grounds for divorce that may have caused the increase in the divorce rate. <quoted text>If they ever did claim that - I'm not saying they never did - they certainly know better now.<quoted text>The government was simply responding to the demands of its constituents.<quoted text> The church had little choice but to adapt its doctrines so it's membership could find ways to adapt to the changes of society.<quoted text>I don't think "intervened" is quite the right word. The government - more specifically the Supreme Court - ruled that the moment a life begins is well after the moment of conception and that any thoughts to the contrary were guided by religious beliefs and therefore not of compelling interest to the state. <quoted text>That is simply not true. No church will ever be required to call, same-sex couples married. Nor will any church ever be required to perform such marriages.<quoted text>That is also untrue. The courts are saying that all people, regardless of their orientation or gender, have the equal right to become each other's legal spouses.<quoted text>To the extent that the rights of people to become each other's legal next of kin would be hindered by religious thought, the government must step in and uphold the Constitutional rights for all of us. How is that a bad thing?<quoted text>The pope hasn't said that. He has said, though, that Catholics ought not judge homosexual people. His stance on same-sex marriage has not yet softened, however, and likely will not anytime soon.<quoted text>What is it you foresee?<quoted text>I'm afraid it's a bit unclear to me and lots of other people just how same-sex marriage affects the institution of marriage, family, or children in any meaningfully negative way. Should our laws be a reflection of church doctrines?
I have lived through these transitions. I use to save articles that recorded the arguments and the transition of views as these events occurred. You clearly are ignorant of what occurred during those events.

1. Society, not just churches, were adamantly opposed to divorce. The argument was that children would be better off not being in an unhappy marriage. In other words, the impact on children was denied, the same way it is asserted that children are not a consideration of marriage.

Just an additional note; The idea that a woman can work full time outside the home and still be a mother is the very same mind-set.

2. Do you know the divorce rate from the 60's compared to now?

3. Irreconcilable differences WERE always considered.'No fault' was the new view.

4. Kind of late for the children now, don't you think? So you want to experiment on children again by excluding them as a factor in marriage???

5. The Church has a responsibility to hold society to a better standard and protect the weak. It failed.

6. The argument was that limited abortion was a slippery slide that would lead to unlimited abortion. We now have third trimester partial birth abortion. Something that was adamantly denied when abortion was legalized.

It is adamantly denied that Churches will not be silenced or required to perform ss weddings. Something already occurring in Canada.

7. The government IS saying that ss couples are equal to marriage. If it was saying what you claim, it is clear discrimination to limit relatives and the number of partners, not to mention animals.

8. A paper 'next of kin' is a vast difference from biological kin. Not to mention the lack of a parenting role that is the only way to create a genuine next of kin.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#42299 Sep 28, 2013
MirthMenace wrote:
<quoted text>Of which church do you speak? Are you referring to the Catholic Church? Whatever church you're referring to, when was that? <quoted text>I don't think that has changed much. Most married couples still do at least try to work through the ups and downs. Roughly half of them finally throw in nowadays. It was the acknowledgement of "irreconcilable differences" as legitimate grounds for divorce that may have caused the increase in the divorce rate. <quoted text>If they ever did claim that - I'm not saying they never did - they certainly know better now.<quoted text>The government was simply responding to the demands of its constituents.<quoted text> The church had little choice but to adapt its doctrines so it's membership could find ways to adapt to the changes of society.<quoted text>I don't think "intervened" is quite the right word. The government - more specifically the Supreme Court - ruled that the moment a life begins is well after the moment of conception and that any thoughts to the contrary were guided by religious beliefs and therefore not of compelling interest to the state. <quoted text>That is simply not true. No church will ever be required to call, same-sex couples married. Nor will any church ever be required to perform such marriages.<quoted text>That is also untrue. The courts are saying that all people, regardless of their orientation or gender, have the equal right to become each other's legal spouses.<quoted text>To the extent that the rights of people to become each other's legal next of kin would be hindered by religious thought, the government must step in and uphold the Constitutional rights for all of us. How is that a bad thing?<quoted text>The pope hasn't said that. He has said, though, that Catholics ought not judge homosexual people. His stance on same-sex marriage has not yet softened, however, and likely will not anytime soon.<quoted text>What is it you foresee?<quoted text>I'm afraid it's a bit unclear to me and lots of other people just how same-sex marriage affects the institution of marriage, family, or children in any meaningfully negative way. Should our laws be a reflection of church doctrines?
9. You contradict yourself and misrepresent what the Pope said. Let's say it this way; The Pope has asked the Church to be silent about their judgment. That is what I said.

10. This is what the Bible predicts and I see perfect reason to occur;

I simply and accurately point out that if you destroy the sense of value of life, and negate the closest relationships we can possess, is it any wonder children pick that value system up and return the favor?

You deny that blood is thicker than water. You assert that there is no difference between the only person in life you will know as a biological mother or father, with any Tom and Dick. And the child says,'okay'.

That is the only way to understand a prophecy that indicates the loss of that distinction with a bitter and violent response.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#42300 Sep 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Given up?
Just censor the facts and spout your denial in a gay twirl hissy fit?
Doesn't change this fact;
Ss couples are still only ever a mutually sterile, pointelessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.
A definition created by yourself and believed only by yourself, doesn't hold much intellectual weight, now does it?

Geesh.

And you are silly enough to repeat it again and again, simply because it makes you feel better about yourself. You should work on your own weaknesses and insecurity first, before you involve yourself so much in the lives of the people you dislike.

But, I guess we can't expect much rationality from an obsessive personality. Your obsessions control you and your thought processes, with an iron glove.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#42301 Sep 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesn't change this fact;
Ss couples are still only ever a mutually sterile, pointelessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
A definition created by yourself and believed only by yourself, doesn't hold much intellectual weight, now does it?
Geesh.
And you are silly enough to repeat it again and again, simply because it makes you feel better about yourself. You should work on your own weaknesses and insecurity first, before you involve yourself so much in the lives of the people you dislike.
But, I guess we can't expect much rationality from an obsessive personality. Your obsessions control you and your thought processes, with an iron glove.
Not a definition, a simple statement of fact. What part is untrue?

Smile.

“"Not all who wander are lost."”

Since: Mar 10

[email protected]

#42302 Sep 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I have lived through these transitions. I use to save articles that recorded the arguments and the transition of views as these events occurred. You clearly are ignorant of what occurred during those events.
You may have me on this. Here and now I confess my apathy for learning about it over the years.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>1. Society, not just churches, were adamantly opposed to divorce. The argument was that children would be better off not being in an unhappy marriage. In other words, the impact on children was denied, the same way it is asserted that children are not a consideration of marriage.
Just an additional note; The idea that a woman can work full time outside the home and still be a mother is the very same mind-set.
Society, the vast majority of which affiliated with churches and their opposition to divorce, didn't know then what it knows now about the effects of divorce on children. But neither did society have much of a handle on the effects of a dysfunctional marriage on a child. Every case is unique.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>2. Do you know the divorce rate from the 60's compared to now?
Oh yeah; it spiked. It was almost as high immediately following WWII, but it has remained fairly constant since it spiked. It sucks.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>3. Irreconcilable differences WERE always considered.'No fault' was the new view.
The traditional alternatives to "no-fault", for the most part, had their roots in religious beliefs, and therefore were not of interest to the state.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>4. Kind of late for the children now, don't you think? So you want to experiment on children again by excluding them as a factor in marriage???
Excluding children as a factor in marriage is not an experiment on children. Plenty of people have gotten married with no goal of procreation. But when children do become a reality of any particular marriage, the welfare of the children can suffer in many ways; both from dysfunction and from dissolution.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>5. The Church has a responsibility to hold society to a better standard and protect the weak. It failed.
This is sort of where the rubber meets the road in our discussion (the civility of which has taken a refreshing turn for the better, I notice). The "Church" failed in many ways to hold much sway over government. That is as it should be. That's not to say that the views of religious organizations are completely discounted when we, as a society evolve our laws, but no law can exist in this country and lots of others that denies rights to citizens based on a religious tradition.

“"Not all who wander are lost."”

Since: Mar 10

[email protected]

#42303 Sep 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>6. The argument was that limited abortion was a slippery slide that would lead to unlimited abortion. We now have third trimester partial birth abortion. Something that was adamantly denied when abortion was legalized.
As irrelevant as this tangent is to this discussion, it would probably shock you to know I am very pro-life.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>It is adamantly denied that Churches will not be silenced or required to perform ss weddings. Something already occurring in Canada.
Also irrelevant because this discussion is about what is happening here, in our country.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>7. The government IS saying that ss couples are equal to marriage. If it was saying what you claim, it is clear discrimination to limit relatives and the number of partners, not to mention animals.
Our government is coming to the realization that same-sex couples cannot be denied the right to enter into a legally-binding domestic partnership wherein its contracted parties will be governed by all of the same laws that currently govern traditional marriages. There is a genetic reason that close relatives are not allowed to marry. There are lots of self-described "Christians" who practice polygamy and polyandry. They do not "marry" in a legal sense, but are free to live as they see fit within the law. When they step outside of the laws (ie. Warren Jeffs) of our land, enforcement kicks in. Yeah, lets leave animals out of this because they can't enter into legal contracts, such as marriage.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>8. A paper 'next of kin' is a vast difference from biological kin. Not to mention the lack of a parenting role that is the only way to create a genuine next of kin.
My wife and I have no biological link whatsoever. I am as biologically related to her as I am to you. Our marriage has produced - intentionally - no offspring, although our previous marriages did. The circumstances surround the each of our previous marriages were such that the children involved ended up in a far better situation that they could have, had they those marriages been preserved by some misguided devotion to keeping a marriage intact at all costs. My four step-children call me "Dad" by their choice, but I had to - and wanted to - earn that status in their eyes. I consider my wife - as does the state - my next of kin. Why would it be any different if I had married a man with custody of his four children?

“"Not all who wander are lost."”

Since: Mar 10

[email protected]

#42304 Sep 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
9. You contradict yourself and misrepresent what the Pope said. Let's say it this way; The Pope has asked the Church to be silent about their judgment. That is what I said.
Actually, among the quotes attributed to Francis,“If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>10. This is what the Bible predicts and I see perfect reason to occur; I simply and accurately point out that if you destroy the sense of value of life, and negate the closest relationships we can possess, is it any wonder children pick that value system up and return the favor?
The Bible is irrelevant to discussions about laws in this country. How exactly does a same-sex marriage destroy the sense of value of life? How does it negate anything? How does it affect children who are not born gay? Does it somehow make them predisposed to jumping ship?
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>You deny that blood is thicker than water. You assert that there is no difference between the only person in life you will know as a biological mother or father, with any Tom and Dick. And the child says,'okay'.
I deny no such thing. But there is no evidence to show that children raised by same-sex guardians are in any way harmed or rendered predisposed to being gay themselves.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>That is the only way to understand a prophecy that indicates the loss of that distinction with a bitter and violent response.
Prophecy is irrelevant to this discussion. Religion is irrelevant, too.

“"Not all who wander are lost."”

Since: Mar 10

[email protected]

#42305 Sep 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesn't change this fact;
Ss couples are still only ever a mutually sterile, pointelessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.
<quoted text>
Not a definition, a simple statement of fact. What part is untrue?
Smile.
The words "pointlessly" and "half" make the statement untrue.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#42307 Sep 28, 2013
MirthMenace wrote:
<quoted text>You may have me on this. Here and now I confess my apathy for learning about it over the years.
<quoted text>Society, the vast majority of which affiliated with churches and their opposition to divorce, didn't know then what it knows now about the effects of divorce on children. But neither did society have much of a handle on the effects of a dysfunctional marriage on a child. Every case is unique.
<quoted text>Oh yeah; it spiked. It was almost as high immediately following WWII, but it has remained fairly constant since it spiked. It sucks.
<quoted text>The traditional alternatives to "no-fault", for the most part, had their roots in religious beliefs, and therefore were not of interest to the state.
<quoted text>Excluding children as a factor in marriage is not an experiment on children. Plenty of people have gotten married with no goal of procreation. But when children do become a reality of any particular marriage, the welfare of the children can suffer in many ways; both from dysfunction and from dissolution.
<quoted text>This is sort of where the rubber meets the road in our discussion (the civility of which has taken a refreshing turn for the better, I notice). The "Church" failed in many ways to hold much sway over government. That is as it should be. That's not to say that the views of religious organizations are completely discounted when we, as a society evolve our laws, but no law can exist in this country and lots of others that denies rights to citizens based on a religious tradition.
Alternatives to 'no fault' did not have their roots in religion.

It IS in the interest of the state to maintain biological families, or are you unaware of the the fiscal and social cost?

As to divorce you are ignoring the number of couples living out of wedlock.

At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. The lack of considering children has led to divorce, living out of wedlock and single parenting. Attempting to equate a clearly distinct relationship is only possible because children are completely discounted.

You are confused over traditions and moral duty. The Church has no call to hold traditions over a society. It does have a call to protect morality and the weak. Both are involved in this issue.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#42308 Sep 28, 2013
MirthMenace wrote:
<quoted text>As irrelevant as this tangent is to this discussion, it would probably shock you to know I am very pro-life.<quoted text>Also irrelevant because this discussion is about what is happening here, in our country.
<quoted text>Our government is coming to the realization that same-sex couples cannot be denied the right to enter into a legally-binding domestic partnership wherein its contracted parties will be governed by all of the same laws that currently govern traditional marriages. There is a genetic reason that close relatives are not allowed to marry. There are lots of self-described "Christians" who practice polygamy and polyandry. They do not "marry" in a legal sense, but are free to live as they see fit within the law. When they step outside of the laws (ie. Warren Jeffs) of our land, enforcement kicks in. Yeah, lets leave animals out of this because they can't enter into legal contracts, such as marriage.
<quoted text>My wife and I have no biological link whatsoever. I am as biologically related to her as I am to you. Our marriage has produced - intentionally - no offspring, although our previous marriages did. The circumstances surround the each of our previous marriages were such that the children involved ended up in a far better situation that they could have, had they those marriages been preserved by some misguided devotion to keeping a marriage intact at all costs. My four step-children call me "Dad" by their choice, but I had to - and wanted to - earn that status in their eyes. I consider my wife - as does the state - my next of kin. Why would it be any different if I had married a man with custody of his four children?
I'm sorry, you are responding to a post I made. You are not at liberty to disqualify what is pertinent.

Abortion, like divorce affects children. Divorce communicates to a child that children are not important. Abortion communicates that life is cheap. How the issue of ss couples being called married is certainly applicable since the very issue is argued based on what other countries are doing.

The fact that you attempt to dismiss these things off the cuff only exposes your bias and lack of sincerity. You throw children off the bus without a thought!

Close relatives; NOW you want to involve children??? Are you serious? However, ignoring your hypocrisy, procreation could be forgone or abortion used to eliminate faulty fetus's, right?

Polygamy; You excuse discrimination and allow a religious exemption? How do you excuse that hypocrisy?

Animals; Why can't animals enter into a contract?

As to your situation. You have no way of proving any such claim of being better off. Moreover, you DO have real kinship through your previous mates.

You COULD have kinship with your wife, and choose not to. A ss couple can NEVER have kinship. A vast difference and a clear distinction between relationships.
Behold in fear

Saint Louis, MO

#42309 Sep 28, 2013
you backwards thinkers. The 21 century is rapidly closing in on you.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#42311 Sep 28, 2013
MirthMenace wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, among the quotes attributed to Francis,“If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”
<quoted text>The Bible is irrelevant to discussions about laws in this country. How exactly does a same-sex marriage destroy the sense of value of life? How does it negate anything? How does it affect children who are not born gay? Does it somehow make them predisposed to jumping ship?
<quoted text>I deny no such thing. But there is no evidence to show that children raised by same-sex guardians are in any way harmed or rendered predisposed to being gay themselves.
<quoted text>Prophecy is irrelevant to this discussion. Religion is irrelevant, too.
Actually, I don't judge homosexuality. I do judge immorality and calling ss couples married.

However, my point has been that in regards to divorce, abortion and now the desecration of marriage, the Church is being pressured to be silent about an issues that every time the Court system has intervened there have been horrendous unintended consequences for children. This IS an interest and business of the Church in society!

Calling ss couples married REQUIRES the elimination of children from consideration. The same has been true of divorce and abortion.

My point about blood being thicker than water has NOTHING to do with 'turning straight kids gay'! Where did that come from???

When divorce, abortion and then the claim that anyone can fulfill not just the place of a kin parent, but even either gender, it does have a profound impact on familial relations.

A Biblical prophecy that warns about those familial bonds being breached is a supernatural warning that anyone with common sense would take into consideration. Should it dictate anything? No. Should it be considered on the platform of discussion or censored? What do you think since you believe religion is irrelevant?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#42312 Sep 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesn't change this fact;
Ss couples are still only ever a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.
<quoted text>
Not a definition, a simple statement of fact. What part is untrue?
Smile.
MirthMenace wrote:
<quoted text>The words "pointlessly" and "half" make the statement untrue.
Because you said so?

In the context of mating behavior, duplicate genders are pointless.

In the context of the constraint of marriage on mating behavior, confirmed by the practice of every culture in recorded human history,'half' is being generous.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#42313 Sep 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
Actually, I don't judge homosexuality. I do judge immorality and calling ss couples married.
So, you admit from the start that you are a hypocrite? You claim not to judge, but in the very next sentence you pass judgment.
KiMare wrote:
However, my point has been that in regards to divorce, abortion and now the desecration of marriage, the Church is being pressured to be silent about an issues that every time the Court system has intervened there have been horrendous unintended consequences for children. This IS an interest and business of the Church in society!
KiMare, the church can't have it both ways. The state is prohibited from passing laws respecting an establishment of religion, as such, their input is irrelevant as a matter of law. However, the crux of the matter lies even deeper than that. You see, in order to maintain it's status as a tax exempt organization, a church is very limited in any intervention in politics that it may participate in.
"To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates."
http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profit... (c)(3)-Organizations
http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profit...
http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profit... (c)(3)-Tax-Exempt-Organization s

If you think that churches should be able to participate in the political process, perhaps they should give up their tax exempt status as well?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#42314 Sep 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
However, my point has been that in regards to divorce, abortion and now the desecration of marriage, the Church is being pressured to be silent about an issues that every time the Court system has intervened there have been horrendous unintended consequences for children. This IS an interest and business of the Church in society!
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you admit from the start that you are a hypocrite? You claim not to judge, but in the very next sentence you pass judgment.
<quoted text>
KiMare, the church can't have it both ways. The state is prohibited from passing laws respecting an establishment of religion, as such, their input is irrelevant as a matter of law. However, the crux of the matter lies even deeper than that. You see, in order to maintain it's status as a tax exempt organization, a church is very limited in any intervention in politics that it may participate in.
"To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates."
http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profit... (c)(3)-Organizations
http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profit...
http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profit... (c)(3)-Tax-Exempt-Organization s
If you think that churches should be able to participate in the political process, perhaps they should give up their tax exempt status as well?
You confuse my words. I don't condemn homosexuality as a orientation.

No law restrains the Church from being censored from public free speech. In fact, the Constitution puts the bulk of restraint on the government!

Politics and the public platform are two distinct things.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#42315 Sep 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
You confuse my words. I don't condemn homosexuality as a orientation.
Sorry, KiMare, the hate the sin, not the sinner logic simply doesn't stand up as even being rational. If you pass judge on the sin, you pass judgment on the sinner, and you are being a hypocrite.
KiMare wrote:
No law restrains the Church from being censored from public free speech. In fact, the Constitution puts the bulk of restraint on the government!
And the IRS puts restraints on churches participating in political discourse if they wish to be tax exempt. I'm not making this up, and if you don't know about, perhaps you should do some reading and make yourself less ignorant on the topic.
http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profit...
Check out the tax guide and tax exemption requirements. You will start to see why it is unwise for a church to enter the political arena.
KiMare wrote:
Politics and the public platform are two distinct things.
Sorry charlie, if they want to participate in political debate, then they can also pay taxes like everyone else. Religious individuals may freely participate in political debates, although the constitution prohibits religion from being the basis of any law, but the institutions themselves may not.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#42316 Sep 28, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, KiMare, the hate the sin, not the sinner logic simply doesn't stand up as even being rational. If you pass judge on the sin, you pass judgment on the sinner, and you are being a hypocrite.
<quoted text>
And the IRS puts restraints on churches participating in political discourse if they wish to be tax exempt. I'm not making this up, and if you don't know about, perhaps you should do some reading and make yourself less ignorant on the topic.
http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profit...
Check out the tax guide and tax exemption requirements. You will start to see why it is unwise for a church to enter the political arena.
<quoted text>
Sorry charlie, if they want to participate in political debate, then they can also pay taxes like everyone else. Religious individuals may freely participate in political debates, although the constitution prohibits religion from being the basis of any law, but the institutions themselves may not.
No, it is a very rational discretion.

You are equating a political candidate to any public discourse. Fail.

Your opinion is 0 for 2.
Huh

Faribault, MN

#42317 Sep 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
However, my point has been that in regards to divorce, abortion and now the desecration of marriage, the Church is being pressured to be silent about an issues that every time the Court system has intervened there have been horrendous unintended consequences for children. This IS an interest and business of the Church in society!
<quoted text>
You confuse my words. I don't condemn homosexuality as a orientation.
No law restrains the Church from being censored from public free speech. In fact, the Constitution puts the bulk of restraint on the government!
Politics and the public platform are two distinct things.
Does a church of lets say this...CHURCH OF EVERLASTING GAYNESS....Does that church have same rights as your church?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#42318 Sep 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
No, it is a very rational discretion.
It is a mindless rationalization to justify your own bigoted hypocrisy. You say you are not judging, and then immediately prove that you are lying by passing judgment.
KiMare wrote:
You are equating a political candidate to any public discourse. Fail.
No, I am saying that political participation by any church is highly regulated, and could jeopardize their tax exempt status, which is a matter of fact.
KiMare wrote:
Your opinion is 0 for 2.
In your opinion.
I Won't judge yours, as their lack of rational foundation is self apparent.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#42319 Sep 28, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a mindless rationalization to justify your own bigoted hypocrisy. You say you are not judging, and then immediately prove that you are lying by passing judgment.
<quoted text>
No, I am saying that political participation by any church is highly regulated, and could jeopardize their tax exempt status, which is a matter of fact.
<quoted text>
In your opinion.
I Won't judge yours, as their lack of rational foundation is self apparent.
I never said I don't judge. I do.

I did say, I don't condemn a orientation, I judge a behavior.

I wasn't talking about political discourse, I was always talking about public discourse.

You were deceptively trying to equate the two to deceive.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Joliet Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Trumps A Punk 55 min Sharky 2
Will the REAL Lway taxpayers unite! (Nov '15) 1 hr sickos 3,980
Benghazi: Trey Gowdy Clears Hillary Clinton 1 hr Shark News 1
fairmont school board's failing leadership 1 hr Fairmont Questioner 52
haha 1 hr Still laughing 14
Lory Lynch Meets Privately w Bill Clinton 3 hr Look in the mirror 2
Say NO to Syrian Refugees 3 hr Some guy 29

Joliet Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Joliet Mortgages