Rick in Kansas

Gay/Lesbian

Question for Gay Men...

Until he can prove he's right, no amount of "he's sure" is worth the risk. Trust isn't a synonym for stupid.  (33 min ago | post #5)

Christian

Homosexuals are going to hell.

Ezekiel 16:49-50 (New International Version) 49 " 'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. Ezekiel 16:49-50 (English Standard Version) 49Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. 50They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it.  (44 min ago | post #659)

Gay/Lesbian

Question for Gay Men...

No test results, no bareback, no exceptions. This is your life you're playing with, unless you're in a completely monogamous relationship and have both been tested, no amount of begging gets a man out of a condom, period.  (12 hrs ago | post #2)

Gay/Lesbian

Churches targeted by 'gay' intimidation campaign

What really amuses me is that you still imagine yourself to be included in that holier than thou "we" you keep using. The reality is that to that "we" you are so desperate to be included among, you are nothing more than a useful idiot, a quisling who despite his protestations that he is keeping his legs crossed for Jebus, is still one of us who are unworthy of their heterosexuals only club. When they finally have their final solution to their "ho-mo-SEX-u- al problem" they'll have no more use for your closeted ass than they did for us. You can keep parroting their self-righteous propaganda if you want, hoping against all hope that it'll qualify you for their straights only heaven, but there may come a day when you want to kick down that closet door of yours and you'll find we have no use for you either...  (13 hrs ago | post #18)

Gay/Lesbian

Pro-Gay marriage hypocrisy?

Reality #1: No Court is ever, EVER going to rule that there is a right to plural marriage. As there is both a rational basis (the laws are not written to accommodate them) and a clear and compelling state interest (the state cannot sanction a relationship that is inherently unequal for the participants) against such a right existing. Reality #2: The laws necessary to accommodate the infinite possibilities of plural relationships would have to be so mind bogglingly complex that to make sure that all rights, benefits, protections and responsibilities are addressed for all parties involved that it is doubtful that they could ever successfully be written by any legislature anywhere. Sure there are some countries which more or less formally permit polygamous relationships, but they fall back on religious laws to regulate them and they are nothing more than property ownership agreements where a father sells off his daughter to some man to be his wife. The reason why they "work" for the state is that they don't have to be concerned about the women and children from such a relationship, because they afford them no rights. Plural "marriages ", just like incestuous "marriages ", child "marriages " and people who want to marry the nearest barnyard animal are nothing more than red herrings to the issue of marriage equality for people who wish to marry someone, who is otherwise legally qualified to be married, except for the fact that they happen to be of the same sex. If someone wishes to fight for a plural marriage "right", then go for it, but simply because we don't support a right which can't be rationally proved to exist is not hypocrisy, it's just not our fight. Who would actually be hypocritical are all these supporters of so-called "traditional " marriage who oppose plural marriage, because after all, if anything, plural marriages are definitely traditional...  (14 hrs ago | post #12)

Christian

ACLU mum on this church-gov't lawsuit

Paranoid much? You may want to look at my post again, it wasn't in response to you. But since you chimed in anyways, given the "quality " of that last post of yours which I did respond to, you might want to find another hobby, maybe one you might be good at. Research clearly ain't your bag....  (15 hrs ago | post #21)

Christian

ACLU mum on this church-gov't lawsuit

So many conspiracy theories, so little time. Since its inception, the primary focus of the ACLU has been the defense of the freedom of speech and the reality of that is that in order to ensure that it is protected for all of us, sometimes you have to stand up for the right of free speech of extremely unpopular groups such as the Klan and others. In the government's attempts at curbing the Klan's more violent tendencies, actions have been taken which violate their and of course all of our right to free speech and the ACLU, though in a largely unpopular move, stepped up to defend them, just as they have the free speech rights of many other groups such as the Catholic Church, which I evidenced above. For you to warp their defense of the KKK into their being indistinguishable from them is nothing short of tin foil hat silly. One last point, while Hugo Black had joined the Klan in 1923 (as had large percentage of the White male population in that era), he had submitted his resignation before his Senate election in 1926 and by 1930 severed all ties with them to the point that the Klan opposed him in his re-election bid in 1932: http://www.america nheritage.com/arti cles/magazine/ah/1 968/3/1968_3_60.sh tml So no, he was not a lifelong member of the Klan. As for him being anti-catholic, that much was true as was just about every other Southern Evangelical Christian and a rather sizable percentage of the population as a whole. What can I say, it was an era when the Catholic Church wasn't the most popular of religious groups... If all you really have to offer are unsubstantiated and easily proved as untrue paranoid conspiracy theories, save your breath, your brain clearly needs as much oxygen as it can get...  (15 hrs ago | post #20)

Gay/Lesbian

Pro-Gay marriage hypocrisy?

What people who bring up the issue of polygamous, polygynous and polyandrous marriages is that unlike same sex marriages which would fit under existing laws with minor adjustments for gender, relationships of this sort do not and would require an extensive revision of the law in many areas in order to accommodate them. What you have to realize is that no legislature is ever going to take on such a monumental task of their own free will and it is incredibly doubtful that any court in this country will ever recognize the existence of such a right, the laws against such recognition not only clear the rational basis but can be said to serve a clear and compelling interest in that with each additional participant to a marriage in a system geared only to couples, the rights benefits and protections available to those in such a relationship will diminish. if you want and can maintain a plural relationship, knock yourself out, but if you ask me, the last thing you would ever want is the government even attempting to regulate its structure and the rights, benefits and protections associated with it...  (18 hrs ago | post #7)

Gay/Lesbian

Conservative group says gay activists 'mull terrorism'

Does this mean we can discriminate against people behaving like idiots? If it does, you should be very, very afraid...  (18 hrs ago | post #615)

Gay/Lesbian

Conservative group says gay activists 'mull terrorism'

I really don't mind breaking this to you, but the federal courts first identified marriage as a fundamental right of the people more than a century ago and has consistently affirmed it as a right ever since. Although the regulation of this right is left to the states, since it has been determined to exist under the federal constitution, those regulations cannot abrogate that right of the people without a clear and compelling governmental interest. This is why such restrictions such as prohibiting miscegenation between the races in marriage, prohibiting deadbeat parents from re-marrying and prohibiting state prisoners from marrying have all been shot down by the Supreme Court as unreasonable restrictions. Although the Court has yet to expand the right to same sex couples, it is an inevitability that they will now that there are states which allow such marriages. It's no longer a matter of if, but when.  (19 hrs ago | post #613)