“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#554 Apr 22, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
I absolutely agree.(We could have avoided a lot if you'd said that first, instead of claiming to know what someone else knows.) Now we just have to deal with Columbus' law.
As you have admitted, the municipal law would be found to be unconstitutional.

Again, Ms. Hale's most honorable and successful recourse would be to thank Watterson for the past 19 years, acknowledge the Church's right to terminate her contract, and move on with her life.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#555 Apr 22, 2013
FKAdukechereader wrote:
<quoted text>
What a suk up
Most everybody knows who you are tweaker.
http://www.energytribune.com/70889/global-war...
Claiming a lot of knowledge for someone who wants us all to believe that have only been here a few weeks.

“Tenured Marxist Radical”

Since: Jan 13

Ivy League-ISIS

#556 Apr 22, 2013
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Carla Hale was totally ignorant of Catholic theology after being exposed to it for at least 19 years and knowing she was employed by the Diocese? She's not an ignorant person? Who is this "everyone?"
That isn't relevant.

What is relevant is that eventually there is going to be some kind of legislation written that removes the tax exemptions from people who don't toe the line.

Recall the phrase "I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison"

The progressives have won this in a rout.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#557 Apr 22, 2013
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Carla Hale was totally ignorant of Catholic theology after being exposed to it for at least 19 years and knowing she was employed by the Diocese? She's not an ignorant person? Who is this "everyone?"
The ethics and morality clauses are virtually the same as those in any public school. But you want to read in full knowledge of Catholic theology.

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#558 Apr 22, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
1) At the time of the founders, homosexual behavior was punishable by execution.
2) The term "marriage" is owned my time immemorial; it is not subject to change on the demand of 2-3% of the U.S. population.
3) "The church is not required to perform them?" Are you not at this very moment demanding that the Church abandon its doctrine in favor of the demands of a homosexual woman? As in my earlier example, homosexuals used to want privacy; now they want government mandated approval by ALL -- including religious organizations. There is no doubt that these demands will increase to include marriage on demand by all churches under threat of legal action.
4) Freedom is being allowed to voice opposition to the homosexual agenda without fear of legal recrimination.
5) The Church recognizes natural law as the basis of God's moral law. Natural law [and Darwinism] dictates that normal human sexual behavior is heterosexual in nature. Moral law dictates that normal human sexual behavior is restricted to married heterosexual partners.
Again, previous generations were not confused about these facts.
In fact, Thomas Jefferson mercifully sought to reduce the homosexual penalty from execution to:
"A Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments" reads as follows:
"Whosoever shall be guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy with man or woman, shall be punished; if a man, by castration, a woman, by boring through the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch in diameter at the least."
Most merciful.
For the one who can't see the truth for the millennial old lies and scare tactics.

1. Show me or point me to a time since the Constitution that homosexuality was punishable by death. What about President James Buchannan? Never married but always had a gentleman companion.

2. Marriage is older than than Christ or Adam himself. It is not 'owned' or 'trademarked' it's being highjacked to be exclusionary by empty headed folk like yourself.

3. A marriage in a church is nothing more than celebration. The one that counts took place when the marriage license was issued.

4. Freedom is also the right of one to engage in a partnership with the mate of their choosing.

5.(ignored because of the bull pucky. The day God speaks to me and states his law, I'll give it weight, until then it's nothing more than fearmongering by unenlightened, insecure people who can't live what they preach.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#559 Apr 22, 2013
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I will admit, you've gotten a high grade on skimming again.
You seem to know so little of Catholic theology. The teach was good to go when the Diocese believed she was living a chaste life. The Church does not teach that there is any morality associated with being a homosexual; but rather there is specific immorality attached to extramarital sex and that marriage is between a man and woman.
So smart and yet so predictable you are.
Weird catch 22. Had Ms. Hale limited her sexual experience to fleeting relationships, people met in bars and the like, all would be ok, so long as nobody told. However by choosing instead to commit to a single partner-- and ultimately not hiding this (if the obit had her approval), she is condemned.

You're right, I do not understand Catholic morality.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#560 Apr 22, 2013
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
Going off topic but can you believe one of these yo-yo's thinks we're the same person? That seems to happen about this time every year. I keep telling them you're better looking than I but they still insist.
Aw shucks!

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#562 Apr 22, 2013
FKAdukechereader wrote:
<quoted text>
What a suk up
Most everybody knows who you are tweaker.
http://www.energytribune.com/70889/global-war...
You have no clue who I am, for starters.

Second I've always given Reader the respect she derserves and admire her for forging ahead through the crowd of liars and idiots.

You obviously don't know what a tweaker is since you've misused it. It sucks when one tries to sound cool but comes off as a penisless puss.

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#563 Apr 22, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
The ethics and morality clauses are virtually the same as those in any public school. But you want to read in full knowledge of Catholic theology.
Post #237 and the discussion surrounding a google docs link in that region.

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#564 Apr 22, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Claiming a lot of knowledge for someone who wants us all to believe that have only been here a few weeks.
Honey, when they suddenly change name and come back with the old attacks it's pretty obvious. It's the internet, anyone can lie about anything. I've poked plenty of holes in both George and Spook's false claims.

I personally think they all resent you because you are truly a free thinker and don't spout what's been spoon fed to your ears.

“Tenured Marxist Radical”

Since: Jan 13

Ivy League-ISIS

#565 Apr 22, 2013
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no clue who I am, for starters.
Second I've always given Reader the respect she derserves and admire her for forging ahead through the crowd of liars and idiots.
You obviously don't know what a tweaker is since you've misused it. It sucks when one tries to sound cool but comes off as a penisless puss.
Yet you claim to not be a leftist, you love the forum's biggest leftist...

“Tenured Marxist Radical”

Since: Jan 13

Ivy League-ISIS

#566 Apr 22, 2013
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>

1. Show me or point me to a time since the Constitution that homosexuality was punishable by death. What about President James Buchannan? Never married but always had a gentleman companion.
Probably don't want to defend that. We had Civil War round 1 after him.

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#567 Apr 22, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Weird catch 22. Had Ms. Hale limited her sexual experience to fleeting relationships, people met in bars and the like, all would be ok, so long as nobody told. However by choosing instead to commit to a single partner-- and ultimately not hiding this (if the obit had her approval), she is condemned.
You're right, I do not understand Catholic morality.
And you're obscuring the issue with a lot of what-ifs and maybes.

I am not condemning her, I am simply explaining the side of the issues that you refuse to accept or tolerate. I do suggest you speak with a Catholic priest and question, thoughtfully.

“Tenured Marxist Radical”

Since: Jan 13

Ivy League-ISIS

#569 Apr 22, 2013
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
And you're obscuring the issue with a lot of what-ifs and maybes.
I am not condemning her, I am simply explaining the side of the issues that you refuse to accept or tolerate. I do suggest you speak with a Catholic priest and question, thoughtfully.
This was an issue that came down from the diocese. At Watterson, 90% chance they knew.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#572 Apr 22, 2013
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
For the one who can't see the truth for the millennial old lies and scare tactics...
1) English law, upon which our country was based, maintained the death penalty for homosexual behavior up until 1861. Several colonies adopted the same. Interestingly, Benjamin Franklin was responsible for the execution of a homosexual in Pennsylvania in 1785, just four short years before the the Constitution was ratified. George Washington had a homosexual soldier "drummed out of camp...never to return," showing great mercy. And, in fact:

"..It is also noteworthy that the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (the Fourteenth Amendment being ratified in 1868) did nothing to prevent all 50 U.S. states, including each state that entered the union after 1868, from enacting laws against homosexual behavior. As recently as 1962, sodomy was a felony in every state in the U.S.

In other words, for nearly 200 years and without any constitutional conflictions or any serious debate, homosexual behavior in America was seen as immoral and therefore illegal. Thus, we see that the Founders do nothing but support the traditional (biblical) view of marriage."

www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/04/how_the_...

Buchanan? LOL. Don't forget, Kosmo...the leftist revisionists also claim that Old Abe was a sodomite.

2) The word is "hijacked" -- and is an appropriate description of the homosexual agenda to redefine a term whose definition has held steady since time immemorial. How ironic that you view the situation arsebackwards.

3) Obviously, legal processes have been put into place to protect the inheritance and financial support rights of spouses and children of married couples; hence, the state-issued marriage license. The license does not affect the definition of marriage.

4) "mate of their choosing"? A father may choose a daughter? A man may choose multiple mates? A woman may choose her cat? Definitions matter. That's why we have one.

5) The whole of English law, upon which all Western civilization is based, is founded upon biblical principles. No historical revisionist can rewrite those facts. Read Blackstone yourself. Oh, you won't...so I'll quote him:

"What has been here observed ...[is] the infamous crime against nature committed either with man or beast. A crime which ought to be strictly and impartially proved and then as strictly and impartially punished.... I will not act so disagreeable part to my readers as well as myself as to dwell any longer upon a subject the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature [sodomy][.]... A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans:...(where that crime is found, which is unfit even to know, we command the law to arise armed with an avenging sword that the infamous men who are, or shall in future be guilty of it, may undergo the most severe punishments).

THIS the voice of nature and of reason, and the express law of God, determined to be capital. Of which we have a signal instance, long before the Jewish dispensation, by the destruction of two cities by fire from heaven: so that this is an universal, not merely a provincial, precept."

Looks like you're SOL.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#573 Apr 22, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
1) At the time of the founders, homosexual behavior was punishable by execution.
And it was changed (Much to the church's chagrin I'm sure) because it was found to violate basic human rights.
2) The term "marriage" is owned my time immemorial; it is not subject to change on the demand of 2-3% of the U.S. population.
The term has been used in many instances that have nothing to do with people (I believe the line where a double-wide manufactured home goes together is called a marriage line... I've seen medicines advertized as a marriage between one and another, etc.). Why aren't you up in arms over those uses?
3) "The church is not required to perform them?" Are you not at this very moment demanding that the Church abandon its doctrine in favor of the demands of a homosexual woman?
Absolutely not. I only want them to follow the law. There is no law that requires a church to marry anyone they don't want to marry.
As in my earlier example, homosexuals used to want privacy; now they want government mandated approval by ALL -- including religious organizations. There is no doubt that these demands will increase to include marriage on demand by all churches under threat of legal action.
Cross those bridges when (if) you come to them. Even hetero couples can't "demand" that any church marry them, so that's something of a straw man.
4) Freedom is being allowed to voice opposition to the homosexual agenda without fear of legal recrimination.

Yes. Opine all you like. Chastise all you like, but don't deny them rights they ought to have.

5) The Church recognizes natural law as the basis of God's moral law. Natural law [and Darwinism] dictates that normal human sexual behavior is heterosexual in nature. Moral law dictates that normal human sexual behavior is restricted to married heterosexual partners.
And that's fine, but society (as well as government) is secular, containing both religious and non-religious (as well as DIFFERENT religions). For these sectors of society to co-exist, there must be a pact of non-interference... live and let live... and a government to enforce the peace.
Again, previous generations were not confused about these facts.
Then what prompted the bible verses? SOMEONE must have had a reason for mentioning it... could it be that homosexuals existed in biblical times?
In fact, Thomas Jefferson mercifully sought to reduce the homosexual penalty from execution to:
"A Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments" reads as follows:
"Whosoever shall be guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy with man or woman, shall be punished; if a man, by castration, a woman, by boring through the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch in diameter at the least."
Most merciful.
I'm sure you think so.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#574 Apr 22, 2013
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
Honey, when they suddenly change name and come back with the old attacks it's pretty obvious. It's the internet, anyone can lie about anything. I've poked plenty of holes in both George and Spook's false claims.
I personally think they all resent you because you are truly a free thinker and don't spout what's been spoon fed to your ears.
Reader...a "free thinker"?
Not a chance.

She is an utter slave to her political ideology, refusing even to condemn terrorists and their horrific acts carried out against innocent Americans...and denying truths contained in the Bible she purports to believe.

When truth conflicts with Reader's ideology, she abandons truth.
Even eternal truth.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#575 Apr 22, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
As you have admitted, the municipal law would be found to be unconstitutional.
That's not the same as agreeing that it SHOULD be.

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#576 Apr 22, 2013
FKAdukechereader wrote:
<quoted text>
he he
You're fun.
WOLF
I can be, all it takes is a small mind like yours and I can have a blast for hours.

When did Topix become 'toddler town'?

“Tenured Marxist Radical”

Since: Jan 13

Ivy League-ISIS

#577 Apr 22, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>

And that's fine, but society (as well as government) is secular, containing both religious and non-religious (as well as DIFFERENT religions). For these sectors of society to co-exist, there must be a pact of non-interference... live and let live... and a government to enforce the peace.
And thus why heterogenity destroys societies. There is no point to defending this government when it is virulently against many things I believe in.

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.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
North Korea 1 hr No Power No Threat 50
Obama slams Christianity at prayer breakfast 2 hr Leabrand 674
Cat Don't Go 3 hr d pantz 4
What ails the black family? Hard realities! 3 hr d pantz 185
School Funding Facts 4 hr They cannot kill ... 3
Pam BizzyBee Linda Catman and all other nice pe... 5 hr d pantz 96
Mistaken Identity May Have Been Factor In Fatal... 5 hr Columbus Cow Town 1
America needs Jesus Christ and the Word of God 6 hr d pantz 61
Columbus Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 8:50 am PST

NFL 8:50AM
Josh McCown: I want to help Manziel as much as I can
CBS Sports 2:08 PM
Josh McCown signing with Browns puts Bills in tough spot at QB
Bleacher Report 3:30 AM
Bengals' Blueprint for Winning Free Agency
Bleacher Report 4:00 AM
Browns' Blueprint for Winning Free Agency
ESPN 9:25 AM
McCown expects to start at QB for Browns