Dave P

Lexington, KY

#122 Jun 30, 2013
pearl wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, it makes no difference to me what your founding fathers thought, and I would not try to claim what Washington would have thought about gay marriage. Man does not know what is in another mans heart. But, your statement, "The founding fathers roll over in their graves thinking gay couples would ever exist" is just ridiculous. Gay couples have always existed. It makes no sense that you would paint your founding fathers as so uneducated, unless of course that is your perception of them.
They were also spiritual men for the most part, and gay marriage wasn't a thought for what, 300 more years? So is it a stretch to think that they would have no thought of it? I don't believe so.

Pearl, do you have a negative attitude all the time? You seem very unhappy.
Dave P

Lexington, KY

#123 Jun 30, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
What would you think JC would think of Protestantism? You think he would of approve of everybody believing what they want. YOu think he would approve of SS?
That is what the same sex attraction groups are doing. Believing what they want.
Jesus started 1 church which is the pillar and foundation of truth. Only the CC for 1500 years. The Church created the Bible.
Make no historical blunders.
Actually Mike I don't think good ol' Julius Caesar (who pearl and I were discussing) really would give a rip either way.

Your RCC makes all kinds of scriptural and historical blunders. Oldest recorded apostacy from the faith.
R-oman C-atholic SPROUL

Wilmington, DE

#124 Jun 30, 2013
Our language is getting completely distorted. Since the time of Christ, gay did not mean homosexual for the majority of those years (approx. 95% of those years). Likewise with the statement when we look at a gay couple and say they have two children. Impossible, one of them has two children from another partner is the truth. Same sex attraction is also a misconception when one partner takes the role of the opposite sex, dressing and acting accordingly. Look at the pictures of some gay couples, if you want the opposite sex then just marry them. How complicated is that. It is not same sex attraction when the state of the partner is altered physically or mentally in ones mind. That in fact is same sex attraction.

R-oman C-atholic SPROUL

Wilmington, DE

#125 Jun 30, 2013
Opps, that is in fact opposite sex attraction in last sentence.

Since: Jul 12

Oceana, WV

#126 Jun 30, 2013
pearl wrote:
There is the interesting case of Thomas/Thomasine Hall, 1629, Virginia ,who as an intersexual lived at times as a woman and at other times as a man. Through legal prosecution, he/she was found to be both male and female. The court ordered for the rest of his/her life to wear both male and female attire so as not to fool anyone. It has since gone from a legal community deciding if an intersex person is male or female to the medical community forcing the parents of an intersexual child to decide right after birth whether they want a male or female child, not giving the other option of letting the intersexual come to terms with his or her own reality.
Yes, that is interesting - I've heard of more recent stories where teachers are confused how to treat an intersexual child, since children are often separated by gender in elementary school - most often for "bathroom breaks" and PE. You would think that teachers would discretely make an exception for such a rare condition, but when the situation makes it to the news, you know there are some adults being particularly insensitive to a child's conditions.

I used the word transgendered where you are using intersexual.

Webster says: transgender = of, relating to, or being a person (as a transsexual or transvestite) who identifies with or expresses a gender identity that differs from the one which corresponds to the person's sex at birth

Webster says: intersexual = existing between sexes - intermediate in sexual characters between a typical male and a typical female

Webster says: hermaphrodite = having both male and female reproductive organs

Webster says: asexual = lacking sex or functional sex organs

OK - you are correct - I had the terminology confused. Here is a site that explains all the gay-rights terminology you'd ever need to know:
http://www.nationalmecha.org/documents/GS_Ter...

I use "gay" to refer to any G,L,B,&T - it is short and convenient. I considered "T" to refer to anyone who does not want to specify a gender.

I'll assume MarkEden considers "T" to refer to the cross-dressers and those who have had sex-changes.

Either way, they all deserve equal rights.
R-oman C-atholic SPROUL

Wilmington, DE

#127 Jun 30, 2013
Gay marriage is a lie being played out in the lives of man by Satan and it is happening right before our eyes. This is a very awakening period of time in history for those that God has allowed to witness the truth in the short vapor of their lifetime and that are aware of it. God has to open your eyes to the truth of your surroundings and that has not happened to some of the individuals we are observing. There is reason to thank God in all this for what the Almighty has made us aware of. Even some that claim to be Christian are blinded. By this (their fruits) we know them. Thank God again!!! The truth is not always pretty. Time is short for those who can see.
R-oman C-atholic SPROUL

Wilmington, DE

#128 Jun 30, 2013
Awesome_Steve_Monkey wrote:
<quoted text>

I use "gay" to refer to any G,L,B,&T - it is short and convenient. I considered "T" to refer to anyone who does not want to specify a gender.
I'll assume MarkEden considers "T" to refer to the cross-dressers and those who have had sex-changes.
Either way, they all deserve equal rights.
You need to add a "P" and an "BA" for pedophile and bestiality attracted individuals, so we do not discriminate against them. They will be the next to obtain their rights. God makes this simple and cuts right to the point of the matter. God sums it up in one word, the Greek word "pornia".

Since: Jul 12

Oceana, WV

#129 Jun 30, 2013
Dave P wrote:
Throughout history until now homosexuality was universally regarded as wrong, punishable by death, an abomination, etc. Only difference now is that standards have been lowered, restraints on morality are being lifted, and living life in open rebellion is in style now.
I just disagree with your opinion of homosexuality. It is NOT wrong, punishable by death, or an ABOMINATION.

Webster says: abomination = extreme disgust and hatred - loathing, abominable = worthy of or causing disgust or hatred - quite disagreeable or unpleasant

To call something an abomination is nothing more that expressing your opinion of something. It is an ABOMINATION that people can buy drugs with food stamps. That's just my opinion, not a fact. When druggies buy drugs with food stamps, their opinion is that it's just great, not an abomination at all. Who's opinion is more legitimate, mine or the druggies'? They are both opinions. I would imagine that my opinion would be more popular, but it would depend on how many druggies there are, wouldn't it?

Homosexuality does not cause extreme disgust or hatred in me and so I do not consider it an abomination. The Bible's opinion is that it is an abomination and you CHOOSE to trust the Bible's opinion. However, it is still an opinion, not a fact.

Why is homosexuality no longer punishable by death? Apparently, someone's OPINION of homosexuality decided that it was not a crime. I would agree with that opinion.

Just because an opinion has been upheld for a long, long time does not make that opinion correct. It means that the opinion was popular. Opinions change all the time - the long held, adopted opinion that homosexuality is wrong is CHANGING. You just don't want it to.

Since: Jul 12

Oceana, WV

#130 Jun 30, 2013
Dave P wrote:
*As Mark pointed out, a democrat president just a few years ago signed DOMA into law. He saw no problem with constitutionality then. It has often been said that marriage is a state's rights issue. Yet in a state that decided the issue for themselves activist judges took away the will of the people. I thought the franchise to vote was one of our most prized possessions as citizens- but now activist courts see no problem with disregarding we the people for me and my agenda.
Most certainly, DOMA is not the first or the last law that has been honored for many years and later deemed unconstitutional. The Supreme Court does not comb through our laws to throw out the ones that are conflicting - the Court addresses any law that OTHER PEOPLE present to them to assess the constitutionality since it is being challenged by citizens. Do you notice unconstitutional laws on the books? Take them to the Supreme Court so that they can agree or disagree with you. Anyone has the right to do so.

It was easy for the federal government to avoid making a judgement about gay marriage for a while because they passed the buck to the state governments. It is obvious logic that if federal laws and state laws conflict, SOMEBODY is going to have a problem with it. How can Californians have medical marijuana stores when the federal government arrests people for selling marijuana? The only reason all of the marijuana store owners have not been arrested is that the federal government has CHOSEN to ignore that they are breaking federal law since their state says its OK. They do not ignore the marijuana stores in states where the federal and state laws are in agreement. You see that this is a conflict that will eventually have to be dealt with. Pot heads are just a little slow getting to the court house.

Gay people are not wasting any time. I expect them to pursue some court case in EVERY state that does not recognize gay marriage and have their laws deemed unconstitutional. That is what has achieved results since states wouldn't just agree to change the laws willingly. It's WRONG to treat people unconstitutionally - even if it is the popular thing to do. Politics is based on popularity - gay people have NEVER been popular - that doesn't mean they should be disregarded. Look at the extremes these folks have gone to for the pursuit of votes. You expect them to stay in your face AFTER they get what they want - NO! Jumping around to draw attention and support is exhausting! Gay people have so many better things to do - they want this over with so they can just go on about their life happily and anxious to prove to their supporters that their new quality of life was WORTH their vote.

Another thing: Dave - if you think that your vote is one of your prized possessions - I am sorry that society has fooled you into believing this. The most insignificant thing you could do to affect the world is to press a button. You have been fooled into believing that your opinion has affected the outcome of the government process. This may have been true when our political process was pure and honest, but every choice you are allowed to vote for is a compromised, dishonest, manipulated trick aimed at convincing you to press one button or another. Politicians will do ANYTHING for votes - why are we using this process to govern our country? Well, I know.. it's the process that evolved from an originally good process - its the process that we HAVE and throwing it out and replacing it would be too much work.

Gays are playing the political process that is in place, since it was the logical route to achieve recognition and equal rights. It is YOUR fault they are doing this - you wouldn't change the laws when they politely mentioned how unconstitutional they were. And so, now gays are all into politics. I see why heterosexual politicians are annoyed.

Since: Jul 12

Oceana, WV

#131 Jun 30, 2013
Dave P wrote:
*Think back to the Obamacare garbage. The constitution is required to be upheld by the law? Wrong. The constitution is disregarded all the time, even more these days. The leader in charge of enforcing prohibition back in the day was the owner of the largest distillery in the US at the time I believe. Think he enforced prohibition?

Obama himself has said specifically some laws would not be enforced by him. Watch the news. Very few politicians care one iota of the constitution.
Let me tell you what I know about Obamacare: every time I hear that word I want to smack somebody!

Oh, no, my schedule is down 2 hours this week, I wonder why? OBAMACARE (or, a new employee was being trained..)

Look at these prices! Why is everything suddenly more expensive? OBAMACARE (or, several years ago, minimum wage was raised..)

Businesses are closing left and right? Why? OBAMACARE (or, last year's storms caused substantial damage and losses to businesses..)

Maybe this is unique to my community, but the vocal hate and disgust of our president is deafening. OBAMACARE is a generic way to say: Obama is the reason our life is getting worse. Right - none of those other things affect your life, just the president.

I couldn't stand listening to the news or discussions when Obamacare was in the works - I only know that the result was the affordable health care act that means that the government now acts as health insurance businesses, selling affordable health insurance to anyone. Look up "affordable health care" and many businesses will want you to allow a rep to call and sell you some affordable health insurance. I checked it out - it IS affordable. I am considering buying some.

So, since I wasn't paying attention back then, would you explain how Obamacare is unconstitutional? How is it that the word: OBAMACARE came to represent our failing economy? Has government sponsored insurance bankrupted us all?

Since: Jul 12

Oceana, WV

#132 Jun 30, 2013
Dave P wrote:
*Yes I do. The founders roll over in their graves thinking gay couples would even exist, let alone be married. They had no inkling of such an idea. It isn't constitutionally correct nor morally correct; and there is no real political will to resist it except by voters in the majority of individual states. Slavery, discrimination vs people of color was morally wrong. People saw it, here we are. Morally, civil rights and gay rights aren't in the same ballpark. Why do you think so many African-Americans are AGAINST gay marriage? The majority don't see it as a civil rights issue.
OK - the only thing that prevents gay marriage is that the people who enter into the marriage contract must meet a certain gender requirement - one male, one female. Having a gender requirements is a form of sexual discrimination. No other legal documents have gender requirements. You are determined that THIS one must! It is unfair - unconstitutional - to allow or disallow something based on a person's gender. It is discriminatory and it has gone on long enough.

Sexual discrimination had to be ended in the workplace and now it must be ended in our court houses. Look at how long slavery was accepted socially before eventually being determined as an ABOMINATION. These gender requirements, like slavery, benefit the majority of the people (voters, at least) but disadvantage SOME people. Just because slaves, like gays, had no political voice - our government and laws were established without caring about them at all. It took a giant effort on the part of people who supported slave's (gay's) rights to CHANGE the laws. But it was only RIGHT that it finally happened. What is happening now is correcting what has been wrong for a long time.

Gay rights are CIVIL rights.

Wiki say: Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals' freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments and private organizations, and ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression.

Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples' physical and mental integrity, life and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, colour, ethnicity, religion, or disability;[1][2][3] and individual rights such as privacy, the freedoms of thought and conscience, speech and expression, religion, the press, assembly and movement.

That covers it: people, regardless of gender, are allowed not to be discriminated against because of their gender. Civil rights.
Dave P wrote:
ASM, do you believe gays will try to force churches to perform marriage ceremonies? Yes or no?
No. That will not happen. The constitution protects your right to uphold your Bible teachings. No problem, they'll go somewhere that gay marriage is welcome - like they do now.
Mike Peterson

Jackson, MS

#133 Jun 30, 2013
Awesome_Steve_Monkey wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me tell you what I know about Obamacare: every time I hear that word I want to smack somebody!
Oh, no, my schedule is down 2 hours this week, I wonder why? OBAMACARE (or, a new employee was being trained..)
Look at these prices! Why is everything suddenly more expensive? OBAMACARE (or, several years ago, minimum wage was raised..)
Businesses are closing left and right? Why? OBAMACARE (or, last year's storms caused substantial damage and losses to businesses..)
Maybe this is unique to my community, but the vocal hate and disgust of our president is deafening. OBAMACARE is a generic way to say: Obama is the reason our life is getting worse. Right - none of those other things affect your life, just the president.
I couldn't stand listening to the news or discussions when Obamacare was in the works - I only know that the result was the affordable health care act that means that the government now acts as health insurance businesses, selling affordable health insurance to anyone. Look up "affordable health care" and many businesses will want you to allow a rep to call and sell you some affordable health insurance. I checked it out - it IS affordable. I am considering buying some.
So, since I wasn't paying attention back then, would you explain how Obamacare is unconstitutional? How is it that the word: OBAMACARE came to represent our failing economy? Has government sponsored insurance bankrupted us all?
It is affordable because I am helping you pay for your insurance.

Also why should I pay for the extra healthcare that that the same sex attraction crowd creates for themselves. If everybody would be required to learn exactly what they do and all the health affects that results from this behavior, the public opinion would turn.

Do not read while eating.

http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/male-homosex...

Since: Jul 12

Oceana, WV

#134 Jun 30, 2013
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
All people sin, so the sin of illicit sex is a sin that God can and will forgive, but the person must want to do what is right in God's eyes. If they admit that it is a sin and want to obey God in the matter, then the church will accept them and work with them. We do that all the time for alcoholics. If they decide to continue in that sin because they do not believe it is sin, that becomes a matter of faith. We cannot change what God says in the bible just to accommodate their lifestyle. If we did, that would be opening the door for any and all sin including murder to be ok and pretty soon we would be in danger of being no different from those who do not know Christ Jesus as their Lord and Savior.
We cannot compromise our faith to appease everyone, like the liberals do. There is a right and wrong and we know the difference.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...
That's it exactly! Gay people are going to get married, even if you don't want them to, even though its against God's teachings, they are going to do it anyway. You can't help it and you can't stop it. You are wrinkling your brow for no good reason - they want to sin, it is their right to sin, it is not illegal to sin, and you will stand by and allow people to sin just like you always have. You have no RIGHT to prevent people from sinning - you only have a WISH that they will. You can wish for their lifestyle to change all day, everyday, but you have to allow them to CHOOSE that change for themselves. You can work hard to convince them to CHOOSE God's law, but they are already very passionate about ignoring God's law and there is not a thing you can do about it.

Hold fast to your faith, no one expects you NOT to. The gays are not trying to harm or change you - they are pursuing changes for themselves - they don't need you (unless you're going to vote for them.. then, they need you desperately!)

Since: Sep 08

Neon City Oh.

#135 Jun 30, 2013
Even young Christians see that the churches are spending way too much time crying about gay marriage.
Which is nothing more than a minor issue.

Since: Jul 12

Oceana, WV

#136 Jun 30, 2013
pearl wrote:
<quoted text>Not that it matters, but your founding fathers were not unworldy men. They surely knew of such things. Homosexuals have always been around, don't you claim it is addressed in The Bible? Do you think ole Jefferson or Madison weren't aware of what was in The Bible? Julius Ceaser was said to be "a husband to the all the wives and a wife to all the husbands." Your claim that your founding fathers had "no inkling" paints them as very uneducated men.
I agree that there have traditionally been no laws to accommodate gay people so, it may seem as if they didn't exist. Gay people do not reproduce MORE gay people - gay people have naturally represented 5% of people ALWAYS, at least logic would lead us to guess so, since no one has particularly kept a tally. It is easy to overlook such a small group of people - look at how long they have been overlooked. It has taken a massive effort for them to be as noticed as they are now.

In the same way that our society encourages people to appear heterosexual while keeping homosexual activities hidden and secret - Caesar's society did not hide homosexual behavior and that is the only reason you could know about it now.

Since: Jul 12

Oceana, WV

#137 Jun 30, 2013
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
Pearl do you really think good ol' JC was getting hitched to both men and women back then? Of course not and it wouldn't happen. Homosexuals have been around since the beginning; gay marriage not so. Do you think George Washington would have thought gay marriage even possible. Perhaps you should stop and think as well. Make no historical blunders.
You are wrong - gay marriage has existed - it has never before been recognized or acknowledged by government or by Christianity. Why do you think gay people never devoted their life and love to one another - because it was illegal? No, that's why they were secretive about it - again, society expected homosexuals to remain hidden and they have obeyed for SO LONG - they don't WANT to - they shouldn't HAVE to.

During Washington's age, gay people stayed hidden in their closets like society expected them to. Therefore, they were unable to elect a politician who would consider their rights when laws were drawn up. Washington and company were busy trying to consider the rights of the population as a whole - specific issues would have to be dealt with later. And here we are: later has finally arrived.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#138 Jun 30, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
It is affordable because I am helping you pay for your insurance.
Also why should I pay for the extra healthcare that that the same sex attraction crowd creates for themselves. If everybody would be required to learn exactly what they do and all the health affects that results from this behavior, the public opinion would turn.
Do not read while eating.
http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/male-homosex...
I went to Washington DC twice to protest Obamacare. Anyone claiming it will be "affordable" has a screw loose and the "train wreck" is about to happen. As for the rest of your post I think it's important to realize, and some folks really and truly don't, that heterosexuals engage in the identical sexual activities as some gay men. Not all heterosexuals do and, funny thing, not all gay people do either. What I resent like hell is having to help pay for abortions for women who are behaving like cats in heat.

Since: Jul 12

Oceana, WV

#139 Jun 30, 2013
pearl wrote:
<quoted text>Out here, you know the LDS church rules and the bishops on down to stake leaders are volunteers and told when to volunteer. Of course this leads to a difference in each wards understanding of their own gospel. Also as a Mormon, you don't choose which church to attend, you are designated by what neighborhood you live in. What better way to keep an eye on each other.
Folks in my town keep an eye on each other for FUN! Before and after (perhaps during) church is a great time for women to exchange gossip. I wonder if they think God doesn't notice?

I have never participated within a church with very strict rules - I am used to church rules being "strong suggestions" but have always felt free to just attend a different church if they ever got to be too controlling or concerned about my activities. I've always considered a "church" to be a group of people and one group is as good as the next, except for individual attitudes and personalities. I have only heard about Mormons from television - it is true that their beliefs are different from what I am used to and they are passionate about remaining in close control of their members.

That Jodi Arias sure made Mormons look bad. Her boyfriend and she were active in the Mormon church but they agreed that their anal sex was not considered actual "sex" by the Bible and so their year long sexual relationship was OK by the Mormons. But, then she killed him for no reason, so.. well, I'm not blaming the Mormons, but her judgement WAS flawed, the Mormon church had every opportunity to better influence her - she was an ACTIVE member.

Since: Jul 12

Oceana, WV

#140 Jun 30, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
What would you think JC would think of Protestantism? You think he would of approve of everybody believing what they want. YOu think he would approve of SS?
That is what the same sex attraction groups are doing. Believing what they want.
Jesus started 1 church which is the pillar and foundation of truth. Only the CC for 1500 years. The Church created the Bible.
Make no historical blunders.
Hey Mike - The Catholic church is clear and precise about what gay people should do about being gay - remain single and celibate or engage in a heterosexual marriage - correct?

Are YOU threatened by the "gay agenda"? Do you think that gay rights ARE constitutional and should be legal while reserving the right to disapprove and uphold your own religious beliefs? Do you think they gays and their rights will in any way affect your church, the original church if what you claim is true, the church that remains constant while society constantly changes around it?

I understand that you support the Bible and the Bible says: no gay marriage. Do you support the rights of people to act against the Bible's teachings if they choose to?
pearl

Salt Lake City, UT

#141 Jun 30, 2013
MarkEden wrote:
<quoted text>
I wouldn't throw around the word "ignorant" if I were you. We are not talking about birth defects. I'm guessing you have never been around many drag queens and cross dressers who do this for "fun." So what do you think of a biologically intact male who dresses as a woman being allowed to use a women's restroom? This issue doesn't seem to involve women wishing to use men's restrooms while dressed as males although many Lesbians do so dress.
I'm not talking about birth defects either. An intersexual birth is no more of a defect than a child born left-handed, once also considered a birth defect. As far as being around drag queens, I grew up in Vegas, pretty much seen it all. The drag queens I know are good people. Many many decades ago when my parents married, they went to San Francisco for their honeymoon, being from Utah they were amazed with the drag culture of the area and kept much memorabilia from the drag shows. As children, the photos they had kept just looked like really beautiful men to all my siblings. As far as bathrooms go, there are now family restrooms, feel free to use one, all are welcome. Personally, I've used mens restrooms, when I wasn't willing to stand in the lines that seem to always exist for the womens restrooms.

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.

Martinsville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
“Thus Saith Johnny” (Jul '12) 2 hr Ernie 122
Hell is a lie Dec 26 Jesus Saves Everyone 10
Catholics (Feb '14) Dec 26 Mike_Peterson 2,000
Identifing the Early Church Dec 24 Jesus Saves Everyone 425
How does the Spirit teach? Dec 24 Jesus saves everyone 5
5 Acts of Worship: The error of The Church of C... (Sep '11) Dec 23 Jerry Taylor 274
Sexy Massage Service 00971567675758 Dec 22 IceBlue1985 3
Martinsville Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Martinsville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Martinsville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Martinsville

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 6:00 pm PST