Episcopal Drama Rocks SC

Episcopal Drama Rocks SC

There are 1811 comments on the FITSNews story from Oct 17, 2012, titled Episcopal Drama Rocks SC. In it, FITSNews reports that:

The national Episcopal church has advised South Carolina Bishop Mark Lawrence that he has "abandoned" the church as a result of his refusal to accept its teachings on gay marriage and the ordination of gay and female clergy.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at FITSNews.

Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#1626 Feb 25, 2013
InHisSteps wrote:
<quoted text>
You merely reject the truth. Most fools do and rightfully will suffer the consequences for your lack of foresight! They have a team for you, it's Samarian! Who's laughing now, slackjaw?
Which slackjaw church are you wanting us to attend?
Phil McGroen

Columbia, SC

#1627 Feb 25, 2013
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
Which slackjaw church are you wanting us to attend?
Run along Skidboy, we see mommy hasn't given you your psychotrhopic medicine yet, so don't play on the internet and don't drink out of the toilet Again!

Whipe that *hit off your mouth too!

LOL! HOMOSEXUALS ARE THE BUTT OF ALL GOOD JOKES!

Skidboy, your'e so HOMOSEXUAL, not gay, that the Monkey asks you to wear the condomn! LOL!

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#1628 Feb 25, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Someone who ...
Someone called "whom"?
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#1629 Feb 25, 2013
Phil McGroen wrote:
<quoted text>
Run along Skidboy, we see mommy hasn't given you your psychotrhopic medicine yet, so don't play on the internet and don't drink out of the toilet Again!
Whipe that *hit off your mouth too!
LOL! HOMOSEXUALS ARE THE BUTT OF ALL GOOD JOKES!
Skidboy, your'e so HOMOSEXUAL, not gay, that the Monkey asks you to wear the condomn! LOL!
Oh come now!
.
Surely you have in mind a slackjaw church you want us to attend
.
(or you wouldn't be in our chat room advertising slackjaw churches every waking moment of your daze)

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#1630 Feb 25, 2013
Joe DeCaro wrote:
Prove to whom?
We've done that tangent before sweetie. You really need to expand your repertoire of avoidance tactics.
Joe DeCaro wrote:
Sure, Topix posters must reasonably back up their claims, but if you demand iron-clad courtroom evidence, then this defendant is entitled -- both legally and biblically -- to know who is making that demand.
Sweetie, the only thing I have ever asked you for is evidence that I am able to judge for myself. The only evidence I could find, proves you to be lying. You're free to offer whatever proof otherwise that you deem necessary to change my conclusion, or not.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1631 Feb 25, 2013
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove to whom?
Sure, Topix posters must reasonably back up their claims, but if you demand iron-clad courtroom evidence, then this defendant is entitled -- both legally and biblically -- to know who is making that demand.
"Joe", WE can supply "iron-clad courtroom evidence". We have and do ... regularly. In fact, we supply evidence that has stood the test of actually being through Court cases, Found to be Admissable Evidence supplied by Competent Authorities in their fields, and Adjudged and Found to be valid and contributory Evidence in those Rulings.

In support for our assertions on these threads, we generally supply links to sources which are competent and considered to meet or exceed the professional standards of their respective disciplines.

We have held ourselves to this standard.

Why won't you?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1632 Feb 25, 2013
Looking like that BOX CANYON Joe ran into is going to be his demise.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1634 Feb 25, 2013
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
Whose conclusion?
<quoted text>
... from anonymous sources?
You can't even supply your own real names.
In case you don't realize that the purpose of TOPIX is to allow for anonymity, then you need to resign your post.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1636 Feb 25, 2013
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
Whose conclusion?
<quoted text>
... from anonymous sources?
You can't even supply your own real names.
What "anonymous sources" ?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1637 Feb 25, 2013
Like this?

--Gill v. OPM--

"In sum, this court is soundly convinced, based on the foregoing analysis, that the government's proffered rationales, past and current, are without "footing in the realities of the subject addressed by DOMA." And "when the proffered rationales for a law are clearly and manifestly implausible, a reviewing court may infer that animus is the only explicable basis. Because animus alone cannot constitute a legitimate government interest, " this court finds that DOMA lacks a rational basis to support it.

This court simply "cannot say that DOMA is directed to any identifiable legitimate purpose or discrete objective. It is a status-based enactment divorced from any factual context from which this court could discern a relationship to legitimate government interests. Indeed, Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves. And such a classification, the Constitution clearly will not permit.

In the wake of DOMA, it is only sexual orientation that differentiates a married couple entitled to federal marriage-based benefits from one not so entitled. And this court can conceive of no way in which such a difference might be relevant to the provision of the benefits at issue. By premising eligibility for these benefits on marital status in the first instance, the federal government signals to this court that the relevant distinction to be drawn is between married individuals and unmarried individuals. To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning. And where, as here, "there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects" from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification. As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution."

http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/dist...

(Thanks "N.Y.E.")

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#1638 Feb 26, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
What "anonymous sources" ?
You are an "anonymous source".
Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:
<quoted text>
In case you don't realize that the purpose of TOPIX is to allow for anonymity ...
... but anonymous posters shouldn't make demands of others that they're not willing to make themselves, and for the record, Topix terminated your "post" for cause.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1639 Feb 26, 2013
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
You are an "anonymous source".
<quoted text>
... but anonymous posters shouldn't make demands of others that they're not willing to make themselves, and for the record, Topix terminated your "post" for cause.
I rarely offer details of my own life or experience as evidence in these discussions so I am not a "source", anonymous or otherwise.

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#1640 Feb 26, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I rarely offer details of my own life or experience as evidence in these discussions ...
... as I already posted, anonymous posters shouldn't make demands of others that they're not willing to make themselves.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1641 Feb 26, 2013
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
... as I already posted, anonymous posters shouldn't make demands of others that they're not willing to make themselves.
Another Straw Man fallacy? That's the best you can come up with?

The issue appear to be providing valid support for one's assertions.

We do.

Why won't you9?

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#1642 Feb 26, 2013
snyper wrote:
The issue appear to be providing valid support for one's assertions ...
Another Straw Man fallacy?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1643 Feb 26, 2013
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
You are an "anonymous source".
<quoted text>
... but anonymous posters shouldn't make demands of others that they're not willing to make themselves, and for the record, Topix terminated your "post" for cause.
Are you going to subject us to the sodomy test Joe? This is how they used to do it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-simpson/ho...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1644 Feb 26, 2013
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
Another Straw Man fallacy?
"Straw man: A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresenting an opponent's position so as to more easily refute it." *

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

http://www.dougwalton.ca/papers%20in%20pdf/96...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy#Straw_ma...
InHisSteps

Columbia, SC

#1645 Feb 26, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
"Straw man: A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresenting an opponent's position so as to more easily refute it." *
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html
http://www.dougwalton.ca/papers%20in%20pdf/96...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy#Straw_ma...
Thanks for the redirect on this thread....it was going nowhere!

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#1646 Feb 26, 2013
Joe DeCaro wrote:
Whose conclusion?
That of Google, sweetie. It proved you a pathological liar, I just passed along what it said and agreed with it, because I couldn't find any proof it was wrong, remember?

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#1647 Feb 26, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
"Straw man: A straw man argument is ...
If I wanted an explanation, I would have googled it myself.
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>
That of Google, sweetie. It proved you ...
Google is a search engine; it doesn't "prove" anything.
Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you going to subject us to the sodomy test Joe?...
Im not here to gratify your pervese desires.
Why don't you try the Topix GLBT forums?

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.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 4 hr NoahLovesU 34,825
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 4 hr NoMo 7,209
News Court: Baker who refused gay wedding cake can't... 4 hr DaveinMass 1,070
News 4 GOP candidates sign anti-gay marriage pledge 4 hr Fa-Foxy 215
News Reluctant Kentucky clerk gets time for gay marr... 9 hr troe 11
News Episcopalians vote to allow gay marriage in chu... 10 hr Bugs Bunyak - Car... 15
News End of Boy Scouts' ban on gays prompts elation ... 10 hr VeganTiger 126
More from around the web