Lawmakers get both sides on gay marriage

Lawmakers get both sides on gay marriage

There are 94 comments on the www.timeswv.com story from Jul 17, 2009, titled Lawmakers get both sides on gay marriage. In it, www.timeswv.com reports that:

Evangelical Christian groups continued their drive Tuesday to convince West Virginia lawmakers to allow voters to define marriage in the state constitution as being between one woman and one man.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.timeswv.com.

hoodathunkit

Mount Vernon, OH

#42 Jul 19, 2009
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>While I generally agree with much of what you have to say, there are some people who think that even those in charge shold not even be allowed to have a Bible in view of someone who is an atheist. It may sound crazy, but there are a few fringe nut cases who want to even forbid religious expression in the workplace that is allowed by management.
Again, why whine about something that is not going to happen. People will always have the right to privately pray anywhere as long as it isn't disruptive. Why should anybody have a Bible, a romance novel, or any other non-work related material lying out at work? Are they there to read or to work?
flbadcatowner

Clearwater, FL

#43 Jul 19, 2009
allie topeka wrote:
<quoted text>
yeah, it was totally funny, but true.
The case in which an umarried man has sex with an unmarried woman, the Old Testament Law was that they get married. The commentator said that if a woman is raped by a man, he gets to marry her.-Liar liar, pants on fire, your nose is longer than a telephone wire-(quote from a 1965 hit record by the Castaways). The Old Testament law required that the rapist be stoned. The provision of the law in question quoted by that woman only applied to consentual sex. After about two minutes of that woman's blasphemy, I was so sickened by it that I could watch no more of it. the only people who could believe her are either Biblically illiterate or totally demented.
flbadcatowner

Clearwater, FL

#44 Jul 19, 2009
hoodathunkit wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, why whine about something that is not going to happen. People will always have the right to privately pray anywhere as long as it isn't disruptive. Why should anybody have a Bible, a romance novel, or any other non-work related material lying out at work? Are they there to read or to work?
Have you ever heard of break time or lunch hours? They could certainly read it then. The prohibition against Bibles was actually once considered by some freaked out government bureaucrats, but it never gained any serious traction.

“TO HATE SOMEONE SIMPLY FOR WHO”

Since: Aug 08

THEY ARE IS WRONG!!!

#45 Jul 19, 2009
Holy Cow......you can't tell WHO'S WHO without a blasted score card.

Will the REAL flbadcatowner PLEASE do something to let us know you from the guest.......unless you both are one in the same.

Thank You
flbadcatowner

Clearwater, FL

#46 Jul 19, 2009
Rose T-H wrote:
Holy Cow......you can't tell WHO'S WHO without a blasted score card.
Will the REAL flbadcatowner PLEASE do something to let us know you from the guest.......unless you both are one in the same.
Thank You
Please be reassured that there is only one flbadcatowner. I am the only one using the computor and I do not recognize anything with that mane that I did not post.

“TO HATE SOMEONE SIMPLY FOR WHO”

Since: Aug 08

THEY ARE IS WRONG!!!

#47 Jul 19, 2009
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>Please be reassured that there is only one flbadcatowner. I am the only one using the computor and I do not recognize anything with that mane that I did not post.
So why be registered and then post as a guest?.....just curious
hoodathunkit

Mount Vernon, OH

#48 Jul 19, 2009
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>Have you ever heard of break time or lunch hours? They could certainly read it then. The prohibition against Bibles was actually once considered by some freaked out government bureaucrats, but it never gained any serious traction.
And, nobody is stopping them from reading whatever they want to read during breaks or lunch, so you're whining about nothing.
flbadcatowner

Clearwater, FL

#49 Jul 19, 2009
hoodathunkit wrote:
<quoted text>
And, nobody is stopping them from reading whatever they want to read during breaks or lunch, so you're whining about nothing.
I am glad that you agree with me on that point, which means that we do not have any major points of disagreement.

“Indeed, I am!”

Since: Feb 09

As if it mattered . . .

#50 Jul 19, 2009
Rose T-H wrote:
Holy Cow......you can't tell WHO'S WHO without a blasted score card.
Will the REAL flbadcatowner PLEASE do something to let us know you from the guest.......unless you both are one in the same.
Thank You
I believe it's against the TOPIX TOS to use a nick registered by someone else. If the unregistered "flbadcatowner" is someone other than the registered user, they'll soon be banned and their posts will be removed. If they are the same person then they are just being too lazy to sign in before posting.

“www.benehrmann.c om”

Since: Nov 08

White Suburbia, CA

#51 Jul 19, 2009
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>I believe that you are in need of a history lesson. A fear of God was very prevalent in the early days of our nation. Thomas Jefferson, although a deist had a very high respect for the words spoken by Jesus recorded in the Bible. Homosexuality was taboo in those days.
A woman who revealed her ankle was considered promiscuous during that era, too.
flbadcatowner

Clearwater, FL

#52 Jul 19, 2009
Rose T-H wrote:
<quoted text>
Where?
Please provide chapter and verse......I think you will have difficulty finding it.
This is in reference to post #20 regarding the penalty for homosexuality; and Christ's assertion that marriage was between one man and one woman and intended to be a lifetime committment. Read Leviticus 20:13 to find out that homosexuality was punishable by death. The method of execution in that day was stoning. In Matthew chapter 19, Jesus teaches that marrige is one man, one woman, and is intended to be a lifetime commitment. Sorry I didn't respond earlier.

“TO HATE SOMEONE SIMPLY FOR WHO”

Since: Aug 08

THEY ARE IS WRONG!!!

#54 Jul 19, 2009
Emelye Waldherr wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe it's against the TOPIX TOS to use a nick registered by someone else. If the unregistered "flbadcatowner" is someone other than the registered user, they'll soon be banned and their posts will be removed. If they are the same person then they are just being too lazy to sign in before posting.
I would agree........I just found it confusing.....that's all..........mostly because of another poster who's identity was hijacked.

Hey, they can do what they want:)

Since: Jul 09

Sonora, CA

#55 Jul 19, 2009
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>This is in reference to post #20 regarding the penalty for homosexuality; and Christ's assertion that marriage was between one man and one woman and intended to be a lifetime committment. Read Leviticus 20:13 to find out that homosexuality was punishable by death. The method of execution in that day was stoning. In Matthew chapter 19, Jesus teaches that marrige is one man, one woman, and is intended to be a lifetime commitment. Sorry I didn't respond earlier.
well when you are done wiping that shrimp cocktail sauce of your lips, please tell me how we should put to death all people who eat shrimp, and work at Red Lobster.
I'll start gathering stones promptly....

“www.benehrmann.c om”

Since: Nov 08

White Suburbia, CA

#56 Jul 19, 2009
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>Read Leviticus 20:13
Why would a Christian reference the Old Testament?

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#57 Jul 19, 2009
Emelye Waldherr wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe it's against the TOPIX TOS to use a nick registered by someone else. If the unregistered "flbadcatowner" is someone other than the registered user, they'll soon be banned and their posts will be removed. If they are the same person then they are just being too lazy to sign in before posting.
For your information, I was having problems signing in and was temporarily unable to sign in before posting. Everything seems to be in order, and yes, all those posts that you attributed to a guest were mine and mine alone and I stand by them.

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#58 Jul 19, 2009
deeter1013 wrote:
<quoted text>
well when you are done wiping that shrimp cocktail sauce of your lips, please tell me how we should put to death all people who eat shrimp, and work at Red Lobster.
I'll start gathering stones promptly....
For one I very rarely eat pork or shellfish or seafood without fins and scales. There is no mention of a death penalty in the Bible for eating shrimp. It is only considered an abomination which would require a sin offering. Our country is governed by the Constitution. The punishments proscribed in the Old Testament do not apply anywhere outside of Israel. Christians are commanded to be in subjection to higher authorities which precludes us from taking vigilante activity against the "infidels".

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#59 Jul 19, 2009
ActsOfBeauty wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would a Christian reference the Old Testament?
It sounds like another case of someone who turns to the GLBT for Bible instruction. One thing that hasn't changed from the Old Testament to the new is God's hatred of sin. Nearly everything that was considered sin in the Old Testament remains sinful in the New Testament. Many sins listed in the Old Testament are found in the book of Revelation.

“TO HATE SOMEONE SIMPLY FOR WHO”

Since: Aug 08

THEY ARE IS WRONG!!!

#60 Jul 19, 2009
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>For one I very rarely eat pork or shellfish or seafood without fins and scales. There is no mention of a death penalty in the Bible for eating shrimp. It is only considered an abomination which would require a sin offering. Our country is governed by the Constitution. The punishments proscribed in the Old Testament do not apply anywhere outside of Israel. Christians are commanded to be in subjection to higher authorities which precludes us from taking vigilante activity against the "infidels".
You sir are a HYPOCRITE.
You state that in Leviticus "HOMOSEXUALITY" is punishable by stoning........YET, YOU JUST STATED THAT OUR COUNTRY IS GOVERNED BY THE CONSTITUTION.

NO WHERE IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION IS IT AGAINST THE LAW TO HAVE SEX WITH SOMEONE OF THE SAME GENDER.

Homosexuality is NOT PUNISHABLE BY ANY MEANS ACCORDING TO OUR CURRENT LAWS.

The bible and G-D DO NOT APPLY TO THOSE WHO HAVE A DIFFERENT RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION.

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#61 Jul 20, 2009
Rose T-H wrote:
<quoted text>
You sir are a HYPOCRITE.
You state that in Leviticus "HOMOSEXUALITY" is punishable by stoning........YET, YOU JUST STATED THAT OUR COUNTRY IS GOVERNED BY THE CONSTITUTION.
NO WHERE IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION IS IT AGAINST THE LAW TO HAVE SEX WITH SOMEONE OF THE SAME GENDER.
Homosexuality is NOT PUNISHABLE BY ANY MEANS ACCORDING TO OUR CURRENT LAWS.
The bible and G-D DO NOT APPLY TO THOSE WHO HAVE A DIFFERENT RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION.
LIAR!!!!! I said that our nation's laws preclude (the last time I checked, preclude meant to prevent or make impossible) the possibility of the enforcement of Bible laws by vigilanteism. I never said homosexuality is forbidden in our country. Are all of your kind like this in that whenever one makes Constitutionally protected speech that you don't like, you go and twist his words around in any manner you see fit and make slanderous accusations? Unbelievable!!!!!!!

“TO HATE SOMEONE SIMPLY FOR WHO”

Since: Aug 08

THEY ARE IS WRONG!!!

#62 Jul 20, 2009
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>LIAR!!!!! I said that our nation's laws preclude (the last time I checked, preclude meant to prevent or make impossible) the possibility of the enforcement of Bible laws by vigilanteism. I never said homosexuality is forbidden in our country. Are all of your kind like this in that whenever one makes Constitutionally protected speech that you don't like, you go and twist his words around in any manner you see fit and make slanderous accusations? Unbelievable!!!!!!!
You might want to go re-read YOUR POST.

What you are saying now is not exactly what you said when I responded.

Have a good day:)

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.

Transgender Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 21 min Frankie Rizzo 8,042
gay/bi skype fun (Jul '13) 22 min hi hi 243
shemale bbm pins (Apr '14) 1 hr 282319a7 add me 140
News Elkhart mayor asks city council to withdraw LGB... 3 hr Fa-Foxy 11
1000SR for anyone who is looking for me lady wo... 4 hr i dont care about... 17
News Dennis Hastert Apparently Had Sex With Male Stu... 6 hr Poverty Sucks 39
meet here gays.(. jeddah) (Feb '10) 6 hr azarkpa 13,883
Massage in Jeddah ASAP (Sep '13) 12 hr mkhanz 354
lookin for top jeddah (Jul '10) 23 hr Jeddahboi 1,997
More from around the web