This blog originally founded by Blogger who holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Thursday, May 24, 2012

Local Young Woman Vilified By Leftists

116 comments:

Blogger said...

Doesn't it make you proud that Boone produces bright young people like her? She looks and sounds so much like my own daughter when she was her age.
God bless her!

ITCM said...

No, I wouldn't be proud of her. She's speaking the same discriminating bible speak that her parents forced upon her. She considers gay sex and marriage an abomination as her parents have always instructed her. They're supposed to "put them to death. Their blood will be upon them". She might come over to stone me to death when I mow my grass on Sunday. Another one who takes the ancient passages literally and most likely believes in the Adam & Eve, giant whale, talking snake & Noah's ark stories. She is not able to pick and choose which stories to believe or which rules to follow if she is so firm about the "one man, one woman" rule.

I listen to my kids as well for advice many times, as they are more aware of what tolerance & understanding means for others since they deal with it every day at school. By saying that President Obama shouldn't have listened to his daughters for advice on his views concerning gay marriage shows how out of touch with reality this girl actually is. She was displaying how upset she was that others didn't listen to her beliefs. I could easily explain it to her why others aren't listening to her. People are moving away from their invisible friend in the sky and beginning to understand that we're all just a miniscule speck in a billion billion universes. It's up to us to get along equally without these dark age sensibilities.

Wolf's Head said...

Such an intelligent and beautiful young women, shows that there is hope for the future.

AND ITCM (Whatever THAT stands for), Where in the Bible is homosexuality condoned? Remember Sodom and Gomorrah? (other than in your sexual fantasies?)

NOWHERE in the Bible is homosexuality condoned, and throughout history it has only been accepted in societies of utter corruption and decline, kinda like the Democrat Party.

YOU may not believe what she does, but you are exhibiting the usual leftist trait of condemning anything you don't like, such as faith, freedom and family.

Pathetic.

Jesse Steele said...

You know Wolf any thought's on how in that same passage Lot offers his virgin daughters to the angry mob instead of the men?

Another for you

Ezekiel 16:48-50

As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done. "'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. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

See any reference to gays there?

But either way I'm loving the irony here. A young girl comes out to preach her views. And since conservatives agree with her she's bright, strong in her morals, etc.


But if a 16 year old liberal came out and tried to share her views on church state separation, how the bible is open for interpretation, or god forbid says maybe we should try that whole equality thing the law provides us? We'd need to get Johnny Rico alone a bigger Thesaurus for all the insults he'd probably use.

If she was home schooled too I'm sure we'd hear something about how the gay agenda brainwashed her as well right?

The irony is too rich for words, no wait, not irony still hypocrisy. Along with your lovely display on how intolerant you are of perceived intolerance. Along with that prideful smugness that good little Christians are the only ones who have respect for faith freedom and family.

You're like all the other patriots in name only this blog is rife with, you say the words, but you don't know the meaning.

Pathetic. =p

Jesse Steele said...

Oh and just to mess with you a little more, some fun reading, and where I got that passage from. I'm sure you'll disagree offhand though since it has gay in the name, ICKY!

http://www.christiangay.com/he_loves/sodom.htm

guy faulkes said...

I think ITCM and the banned one just proved the young ladies point concerning double standards in how the left views Yong people that speak for conservatives versus liberals.

So Jesse, is your problem with the Bible or the young lady? As far as I know, neither Blogger or the Wolf said anything derogatory about anything put forth by Obama;s daughters. Could it be you are using a double standard by making false accusations such as saying this has anything to do with the separation of church and state? Nowhere in the constitution does it say you cannot support your religion. It only keeps the government from establishing an official religion.

Anonymous said...

Just because this young lady wants all of America to conform to her views of faith, doesn't mean we should all be required to by law. What if my faith is that people should be stoned for infidelity? Does that mean we should all conform? This kind of stuff is really scary to me, and I'm very glad most young people are far past trying to force their personal religion on others.

Anonymous said...

Do not feed the troll. He has not changed.

guy faulkes said...

Anonymous 3:50, you have the right to support your religious beliefs opposing the young lady,just as she has the right to support her belief. By trying to silence her, you are doing exactly the act of which you accuse her.

Happily Married said...

This young woman seems very intelligent in her presentation and I praise her for her beliefs. I have stated on many occasions that it is not one's belief that is the problem, it is the willingness to force those beliefs on others. That is why her stance is problematic. She beliefs she should follow the teachings of the Bible and she believes America should too? If she had paid attention to history America was founded on the principles of freedom from religious persecution. This is why our US Amendment #1 reads that government will not institute a religion. We have violated that by letting the Bible dictate a definition. Billy Graham is an incredible man and, in his old age, shown himself to be an incredible bigot. I don't think he, much like this young woman, hates gays. They, however, hate the actions of gays so much they made it constitutionally acceptable to marginalize homosexuals. I am sure they just don't know better. Plenty of Christian groups tried to come out and indicate this marginalization and resulting bigotry, but they were not listened to. I am sad this woman is either so brainwashed or so selfish that she thinks everyone must live according to her beliefs and personal beliefs of others be damned. It is truly sad. I hope she does not someday find herself on the other end of that tyranny.

guy faulkes said...

So, HM, does this mean you are so selfish and brainwashed you think you should be able to tell her what she can or cannot say or how she could vote? How are you any different than what you accuse her of being?

It is interesting that you end your post by wishing harm to the young woman.

Happily Married said...

Guy,
I never wished her harm and I did not say I can tell her how to think, what to say, or how to vote. This issue is a rights issue where the majority should never be in a position to vote away the rights of the minority. I cant tell her how to vote. I can say to vote to impose your religious beliefs on others is wrong. And I ended with my hopes thye same does not happen to her. I have proposed that this vote is no different than if, in 50 years Muslims are suddenly the majority and they vote an amendment to make fasting on Ramadan legally required, should it be forced on everyone. I was not intending physical harm - just the same religious tyranny that she has praised. Don't try to make me out to be the bad guy. Address my points if you can. Praise Allah (I'm getting a head start).

Happily Married said...

Now you have pissed me off. You call me selfish and brainwashed? My vote was as unselfish as they come because the amendment does not affect me and my heterosexual marriage. I fought the rights of the minority because it was the right fight. I even praised her for her beliefs. you conveniently do not read my entire post and chastise me? Pay attention next time and call me out on something legitimate. Your approach is just unsubstantiated and typically marrow minded by only seeing (or reading) what you want to read. I made an attempt at being praising for her beliefs and I get attacked? Typical. Or is it that you just cant respond to my points in a rational way so you attack me?

Johnny Rico said...

The young lady had her say, and the left trys their usual tactics to destroy her. Happily Dumb and I Take Crazy Meds (ITCM)seem very disturbed by her personal beliefs. Perhaps I'm disturbed by your personal beliefs that you try and push onto others. The liberal mindset is hypocritical.

Remember the High School student who spoke at a conservative event a couple years back? The left did the same thing to the young man calling him stupid, bigoted and a racist - typical terms used by the left when they can't think of anything else - as they are doing today to this young woman.

This is the rule on most liberal sites and the liberal media (ever read Jeff Eason's attacks on Virginia Foxx). This site however doesn't allow uncontested remarks. Liberals who post here can't get away with disparaging remarks. When they do, a few simple facts, questions, and statements sends them into a high speed wobble. Today's postings are testament to the mindless insanity of the fringe left.

This country was founded on Christian principles. Our currency says "In God We Trust", much to the chagrin of liberal socialists. Separation of church and state indeed exists, and that separation is protected by the Constitution just like it protects the right to keep and bear arms (except in liberal strongholds). Constitutional protections are under attack by liberals however. Pushing government mandates (birth control) into the Catholic Church by Hussein Obama is ok with liberals, but someone's opinion isn't? Typical double standard arrogrance by the left.

A landslide majority of NC residents, not the govt. or the church, says marriage should be between a man and a woman. There is no mixing of church and state - only what the people want.

LOL!! This ought to spin them off!!

Your ole pal

Baird Jackston

Johnny Rico

Johnny Rico said...

Blogger; liberal socialist sheep wants his questions answered. Funny he/they can't answer my tough questions.

Blogger, I've a great idea. Let's do a Liberal Socialist Sheep pov/ Johnny Rico post limited exclusively to pov (notice lower case) and I (notice upper case).

The deal is, if the village idiot is able to engage me one on one - with NO questions dodged, then he can post on this site for a month without being deleted (even with his broken record syndrome). If he doesn't then he looks stupid (again) and will be unable to post for a year.

What say you pov? You against me, one on one, for the world to see. Or are you afraid of looking bad in front of the other liberal retards? My guess is there is no way you'll take the challenge. This is not surprising given you've not been challenged much in your pathetic life. Living off others hard earned taxpayer money kills desire you know.

This ought to be intersting.....


LOL

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

Sarkazein said...

Happily Married- Are you calling yourself a do-googer?

ITCM said...

The young girl in the video is approved by all the conservatives on this blog because she is saying what they refuse to admit. 61% voted for Amendment 1 due to religious beliefs. They refuse to admit that they have made a mistake, but are under the impression that they will be rewarded in the afterlife because they did their God's will and that's the important thing. Thinking beyond this life is where I differ from you. I do what I can in this life to help others because it's all any of us has.

Why do people keep saying that we are a Christian nation? That's just not true. The founding fathers were not Christians, more of Deists. They may have believed in a supreme creator, but thought that mankind was on its own as the creator had nothing else to do with us. Jefferson removed all of the mysticism from his own bible and even wrote to John Adams "And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter".

Jesse Steele said...

Dear lord guy way to miss the point as usual. And way to highlight yet another example of classic conservative projection. (You say we want to silence this girl even as you call for the left to be shut up) And your usual outright sanctimonious behavior along with a dose of utter failure when it comes to reading comprehension. As my church state issue is brought up in the context of a fictitious 16 year old talking about her view on A1 as a counterpoint to your vid. More on that in a sec though, first lets bring this up.

"Nowhere in the constitution does it say you cannot support your religion. It only keeps the government from establishing an official religion."

Way to make my point for me, as A1 was based far too much on religious grounds and literally wrote the bible into our state law, aka establishment of religion.

Anyway...

I love how you accuse me of having a double standard by wanting to silence this girl (mentioned nowhere in my post so kindly stop putting words in my mouth) Yet you do not address the very double standard that cons on this blog have.

So I'll ask it one more time. If a 16 year old liberal teen posted a video link about how she disagreed with amendment one, brought up her feeling on how it violated church state separation, and voiced her disappointment about the hateful language people are using to describe her gay friends (the way this teen bemoans those on the left calling people bigots) How fast would it take for the repubs to call her just a brainwashed liberal sheep?

It's not that hard a question, surely you have an answer?

On to point two and your other silly little attack, please point out where in my post I said I have a problem with the bible? Now wolf, him I have a problem with, specifically the hate oozing from his post. All you have to do is look at where he equates liberals and gays together in the same way that those in the 60's would say a certain n word.


Do I hate the bible? Of course not, my problem is the same others have. Worship how you want, just as your young friend above is free to say what she wants. But you cross that line when you force your worship into my life the way A1 did.


I know it's confusing when liberals quote the bible too, as conservatives seem to think they have a monopoly on scripture. Lets address the point I was trying to make.

Wolf (minus his racist hate) Sodom and Gormorrah was destroyed because of gays!

Me: Ummm no, and here is why (scripture link in the dual post)

See this is how a little thing we call a "debate" works. Side 1 makes point, side 2 brings up counterpoint with factual evidence to support said point (something there's usually an absence of here) Again, not a hard concept.

For instance I'll posit a viewpoint for you as liberal POV states.

Me: Rights should never be put up for a vote. How you would you as a christian feel if someone wished to pass a law that outlawed your religion? For the record I'd be on your side, see first amendment.

Oh even better, as you use the name we could use the V for vendetta world, where being gay or even owning a koran got you put to death as happened to Stephen Fry's character. Would you be ok with a world like that one, where a hyper christian majority was able to put everyone in their place? Just a thought.

This is the point where you offer me a response, feel free! =D

Sarkazein said...

Jesse Steele- Marriage between one man and one woman is an established institution both in religion and obviously in society. Attempts by the courts and by trendy legislators to attack that fact IS the forcing of beliefs down the throats of others.

Sarkazein said...

Jesse Steele wrote- "Now wolf, him I have a problem with, specifically the hate oozing from his post. All you have to do is look at where he equates liberals and gays together in the same way that those in the 60's would say a certain n word."

That doesn't even come close to making any sense. Unless, of course, YOU see the title liberal and gay as derogatory. Projection perhaps?

Happily Married said...

JR,

As usual, you don't read my posts. You indicated - "The young lady had her say, and the left trys their usual tactics to destroy her. Happily Dumb and I Take Crazy Meds (ITCM)seem very disturbed by her personal beliefs." I said implicitly that I thought she was intelligent and her beliefs are great. You need to take a reading comprehension course. I did not try to tear her down, except to say that trying to force her beliefs on others is wrong and selfish. Listening to a church that would say that it is alright to force beliefs on others is an issue of brainwashing and it is wrong. Let's get back to reading comprehension and understanding. You accuse me of trying to force my beliefs on her. That could not be more far from the truth. I believe in a free country with freedom of belief. That is why I think it is great that she believes what she believes. I would never try to force her to have a homosexual marriage. If she believes marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman the laws allow that and would continue to allow it, even when homosexual marriage is legalized. That is not hypocritical. It provides laws that allow everyone to belief what they want and to live according to their beliefs. I do not consider myself a do-gooder, but I do and will fight for EQUALITY. People have the equal right for their own personal beliefs - that means everyone. So if you believe marriage is between a man and a woman - then the law should allow you to live by that belief. If you believe marriage is between two consenting adults who love each pother - then you should be able to live by that belief. That is not hypocrisy, taht is not selfish, and that is not brainwashed. Please tell me how I am hypocritical again and funny how no one wants to address my majority scenario with the Muslims. As long as majority rules, would it be OK to have Muslim doctrines in our constitution? The country was founded on freedom from religious persecution - hence US amendment #1. We just enacted the same type of laws that forced so many out of Europe. JR, try to address my point directly and concisely without your typical barrage of name calling. I challenge you and i have no doubt you will fail.

Sarkazein said...

Happy- A correction, please, to a previous comment. Do you consider yourself a "Do-gooder" not googer?

Sarkazein said...

Happy- You write "between two consenting adults". This includes all consenting adults, unless there are some you would discriminate against, thus destroying in an Obama-like fashion, the institution of marriage.
All in the name of forced societal acceptation of the homosexuality.

Sarkazein said...

... of homosexuality. Not the homosexuality

Sarkazein said...

Happy- Over and over you comment about not being forced into a homosexual marriage. WHERE, in anyone's comment, other than yours, does anyone write that?

Happily Married said...

Sark,

The premise is that I am being hypocritical because I am trying to force my views on those that believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I am saying I am not hypocritical because I am not trying to force anything on anyone. If you believe marriage is between a man and a woman, I suggest you live that way, as the law allows. If you believe marriage can be a homosexual relationship, the law will eventually reflect that and you can live by your own set of beliefs.

Sarkazein said...

I was next to a Houston public bus by myself in my SUV yesterday, when I noticed all the gay people were sitting in the back of the bus.

Sarkazein said...

The question you NEVER answer.... only gays?

Happily Married said...

Sark,

I have answered it many times - the topic at hand is homosexual marriage. I have indicated that any two consenting adults should have the right. I believe that certain issues should be reviewed by judges - incest, etc. But that is a vary long and arduous conversation for later. Can we not just address the issue at hand. I have been chastised for going off topic - but this slippery slope idea does the same thing. The question is should homosexual couples have the right to marry? Lets address that first and then maybe we can tackle the other. I do not appreciate the tactic of derailing a topic by inserting the legal ramifications that might affect a few people into the conversation that affects thousands.

Happily Married said...

Sark,

lets address this another way. If we want equality for all, how do we accomplish that? Lets start by making it legal for homosexuals to get married, then let the courts figure out the rest. That takes equality from from 90% to 99% in one act. Conservatives have railed in other blog posts about equality for voters in Watauga County. How is this any different?

Sarkazein said...

No, the "question is" : Is marriage between one man and one woman. To which it has been answered... YES.

Anonymous said...

"The question is should homosexual couples have the right to marry?"

NC already answered that question.

Sarkazein said...

Happy- You missed the part where the Amendment is to protect the institution of marriage form all attacks, not just from the gays and the do-gooders.

Happily Married said...

Sark and Anon,

Your missing the point and avoiding answering my issues. Marriage is not only between a man and a woman in other states, and therefore the definition is not as clear cut as you would like it to be. The definition of marriage should not be put up to a popular vote when it takes rights and benefits away from a minority group. Your pat answer of "marriage is between a man and a woman" without explanation lacks intelligence and fortitude. Why is the definition that in your mind - don't tell me it is because people voted that way. People also voted early in our State's history that marriage is between white woman and white men or black women and black men. Were they right? Has NC advanced in its intelligence or citizenship at all? Please explain your basis for definition so we can talk about that.

guy faulkes said...

HM, I must admit that I misread your post. I overlooked the word not in your last sentence. This changed the semantics 9thaat you despise as you dislike the definition of marriage) of the sentence. My apologies.

However, this does not change the fact you are doing exactly the same thing of which you accuse this young lady. You want her to live under your brand of tyranny.

I have said many times that people on both sides of the issue of amendment one put religion into it in their own minds, ITCM. Please pay attention.

Jesse, I did not say anything about you trying to silence the young lady. I asked you if your problem was with her or the Bible. You appeared to be antagonistic towards both.

Finally, just what religion does a definition of marriage establish? To go farther is this religion Christian , Muslim, or what? How do the Muslims feel about homosexuality? Would their belief be better in your eyes?

Happily Married said...

Guy,

Please explain how I want her to live under my tyranny. I want her to live according to her personal beliefs. That means if she wants to marry a man then so be it. I would never try to force her to live according to any other beliefs and never indicated otherwise. You try desperately to remove religion from the discussion, but her entire reasoning was around a specific religious belief - in that way you fail. This is a religious issue ( and I have admitted that the wording does not indicate it). It was promoted through the churches and, as we are in the bible belt, approved by a majority based on religious convictions. If you removed the christian bible based voters, do you think this would have passed?

Happily Married said...

Guy,

I do appreciate the apology for the misread. This is a heated issue for most and civility is hard to come by (by me as well) - but it is greatly appreciated.

ITCM said...

Here's a video that Anderson Cooper did with a member of Charles Worley's congregation: http://youtu.be/ez0AMf2U5RU
This all came about when the good reverend Charles did not like the fact that President Obama supported equal rights and marriage for homosexuals. Now, with the mindset of this lady being common in NC, how was Amendment 1 not religiously based? How am I twisting the bible to my own ideas? Guy said "I have said many times that people on both sides of the issue of amendment one put religion into it in their own minds, ITCM. Please pay attention." I'm only saying, just as Anderson Cooper does, that if you're going to condemn homosexuality because the bible says so, then you had better follow the other rules of the bible. Why is slavery outlawed today? It's in the bible:

If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property
~Exodus 21:20-21

A rape victim must marry her attacker: If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives
~Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Do you not think there should be a law against rape?

What about mowing my yard on Sunday? For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a holy day, a sabbath of complete rest to the LORD; whoever does any work on it shall be put to death.
~ Exodus 35:2

Anyone stoned their kids lately? Stubborn children were to be stoned, and the stoning was to be instigated by their parents
~Deuteronomy 21:18-21

My point is and will always be that this vote for Amendment 1 was religiously based. It's not OK because of the separation of church, state and the principle that our country was to never have an established religion.

I'm not making this stuff up and I'm not twisting the bible for my own beliefs. Why is it OK to follow the biblical laws to kill people when one of the 10 commandments is "thou shalt not kill"?

Why are you conservatives so afraid of giving people equal rights who are LGBT? Just because it does not fit into your definition of marriage doesn't make it OK to discriminate against two loving people who would do you no harm.

guy faulkes said...

HM, you are free to disagree with her to your heart;s content, but you have no right to indicate she should not support her beliefs. In my opinion, this is how your posts read. You do not appear to be disagreeing with what she says as much as you are disagreeing with her right to say it. By doing so you are guilty of trying to put her under your tyranny.

Again, semantics are important.

Johnny Rico said...

Happily dumb (notice lower case) said:

"I did not try to tear her down, except to say that trying to force her beliefs on others is wrong and selfish"

So in actuality you did indeed tear her down because she expressed a personal opinion you disagree with. This is typical for liberals - attack someone based on a mere opinion.

And here's a good one:

"Listening to a church that would say that it is alright to force beliefs on others is an issue of brainwashing and it is wrong"

So you've attained omnipotence? You decide what others get to listen to, and if it doesn't meet your agenda, it's then wrong? These churches should be banned shouldn't they - is that what you're saying? Funny how you attack Christians for what they personally believe, yet you say nothing about Muslims who actually kill and maim thousands of non-believers each year. You know, stone women to death and that kind of thing. I haven't heard of a fellow Christian doing that, yet libertards such as yourself feel threatened by those with faith. Get over it. You fringe left wackos claim religious freedom and separation of church and state is what you want, yet you say a Christian Church (never mention Muslim extremists)is wrong for preaching their beliefs. Amazing hypocrisy!!!!! You idiots define the word "extremism". LOL! That was easy!

Then you go on to really dig a pit for yourself when you say:

"I believe in a free country with freedom of belief"

You mean except when the mass of people VOTE (the ultimate expression of freedom) to ban gay marriage and then you no longer believe in what you say you believe in. LOL!! What an IIIDIOT! My, my how the tides turn when a liberal has to live by his/her own rules!


cont'd

Johnny "Stinger" Rico said...

Cont'd from above

And here's a good one:

"If you believe marriage is between two consenting adults who love each pother - then you should be able to live by that belief"

Really? You believe in this type of freedom for real? Ok, let's put that inane statement to the test. So you believe if someone wants to marry 10 wives they should be allowed to do that? If a 70 year old wants to marry a 13 year old, it should happen simply because the 70 year old wants to do it? Or that women should be forced to wear veils because their husbans WANT the freedom to make that choice for her? Yes Happily Dumb, I already asked these questions, and you and the rest of the liberal lemmings hightailed it. Now that you've got yourself into a Rico trap specially designed to entrap minor idiots such as yourself, how do you intend to answer? I doubt you will.

Let's take your "I'm just for freedom" mantra a little further. Guns. You liberals don't seem to wish to extend the right to carry guns into public parks. Or to allow citizens to own assault weapons. Or nationwide concealed carry. If you really believe in freedom like you say, then how come you fringe left zealots don't jump on the "freedom" bandwagon any other time? Tough questions aren't they? I've still never recieved an answer after all these years. Your own hypocrisy is your greatest enemy.

This country was founded on Christian principles. You leftists need to get that through your thick skulls and quit trying to rewrite history. Our coinage says "In God We Trust" and your trying to tell me we're not a Christian nation. The Founding Fathers were Christians who injected Christian values into our legal and political frameworks. Why do we place a hand on the Bible and swear to tell the truth in a court of law? We don't put a hand on the koran (much to your chagrin I suppose) now do we.

There, my liberal gnat, I've answered your questions without making you look more stupid than you actually are. How about answering some of my tough questions for a change? I have about 20 posts on the Conservative that you liberal socialist sheep ran from. Take a shot and answer them. Will I make you look bad for doing it? Of course, but my beliefs are anchored in solid footers, unlike yours.

Stings don't it

Your best ole pal

Johnny Rico

Claire Lesman

Johnny Rico said...

I see the povs (notice lower case) didn't want to accept my challenge of a one on one thread. Just you idiots and me. How about it you slugs?

Blogger, why not put the challenge out. Me vs povs.

I win and they voluntarily ban themselves for a year. I lose and they post uncontested for a month. All questions must be answered.

JR

Johnny Rico said...

The people of NC have spoken. Gay marriage is banned in this great state.

I'll say what the povs said when Hussein Obama disgraced, I mean won, the Presidency. "You lost, get over it".

I say that back to you sore losers now. You lost so get over it.

Your trying to say the mass of people exercising the ultimate power know to a Republic, voting, are wrong in their personal beliefs. Then you go on to say you support the freedom to choose. Isn't that what the citizens of NC did - exercise their personal beliefs? LOL!!!

In God We Trust - saw it on a quarter in my purse this morning at Boone Drug. And we aren't a nation founded on Christian ideals? LOL!!!!!

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

Brooke Giggonelli

PS This ought to get you leftists spinning

Happily Married said...

Guy, This is not an issue of semantics but reading comprehension. "HM, you are free to disagree with her to your heart;s content, but you have no right to indicate she should not support her beliefs. In my opinion, this is how your posts read. You do not appear to be disagreeing with what she says as much as you are disagreeing with her right to say it. By doing so you are guilty of trying to put her under your tyranny."

I said with no uncertainty she should support her beliefs. She should live by her beliefs. She should be able to shout her beliefs from the rooftops and she is free to convince as many people as she can that they need to live by those same beliefs. That is what freedom of belief and religion mean. That is why churches have services every Sunday. The parishioners of the churches are free to accept the same beliefs - OR NOT. That should be their CHOICE. No Tyranny here - only a lack of reading comprehension.

Happily Married said...

JR - I did not tear her down because of her personal opinion. I think it is great she has opinions and values and Faith. I indicated it was selfish to force those opinions on others - plain and simple. I will repeat for those less able to comprehend. It is great she has beliefs and opinions and she should be able to live by those beliefs. The same applies to everyone else who might have different opinions.

Happily Married said...

JR

I never said a church is wrong for preaching their beliefs. I think it is great that people have faith. It is wrong to force (not preach or convince, etc.) those beliefs on others. I do not condone the actions of other religions that impose their will on others any more than I condone the imposition of belief by those that supported this amendment. Please acknowledge that you comprehend what I am saying.

Happily Married said...

JR - Again with the name calling. I am the idiot? How does voting on the rights of a minority represent freedom? If NC voted to sterilize people like you just because of your incredibly low IQ, would that be OK? Or if a majority determined that your low IQ meant you should not vote would that be OK. You seem to think that a voting majority means freedom when it takes away basic rights, and you are setting a dangerous precedent.

Happily Married said...

JR -
Here are the answers to your "Rico Trap" - Ok, let's put that inane statement to the test. So you believe if someone wants to marry 10 wives they should be allowed to do that?
I have said that needs to be determined in court and lets start with the basics - quit changing the topic.
If a 70 year old wants to marry a 13 year old, it should happen simply because the 70 year old wants to do it?
I said 2 consenting adults - you idiot.
Or that women should be forced to wear veils because their husbans WANT the freedom to make that choice for her?
No one should be forced to do anything. Restricting him from forcing someone to do something is not restricting HIS freedom to live as he chooses.
It is clear you are the idiot with your perspectives.

Happily Married said...

JR,

I have never said that the majority is wrong in their personal beliefs. I have said it is wrong for the majority to force all others to live by the majority beliefs. Personal beliefs are just that - personal - and everyone should be entitled to live by their own - not be forced to live by others. You are simply sad.

Happily Married said...

For the conservatives on this blog. Do you really want to be represented by someone as irrational and bullying as JR? Why have you not stepped in to say - Hey maybe he goes too far and does not make sense all too often. Maybe you agree with the preachers that say to beat their children or put gays in concentration camps. I would think you would try to muzzle this idiot by now.

Anonymous said...

Happily Married,
I enjoy reading your posts, though I disagree with you. I understand your arguments, but have noticed you have been very careful to not answer a couple of questions. Do you support polygamy? Should bi-sexuals be allowed multiple spouses of each gender? This is not a diversion. I believe the basis of your position is that you believe people voted to limit the right of a certain group of people to marry because of their personal beliefs. And that this is wrong and a denial of a basic right. I don't believe you want to answer the question regarding polygamy, which ITCM has at least had the courage to do, is because you wouldn't support the right of a person to have 3, or 4 or 10 spouses. But in taking that position, you would be denying someone the right to marry as they choose. This undermines your position regarding gay marriage. You are just as willing to draw a line defining marriage, but don't like where others have drawn their line. Defining marriage as between one man and one woman affects bi-sexuals and polygamists as much as it does anyone else.

Happily Married said...

Anon,

I do believe if people want multiple spouses (regardless of gender or sexuality), they should be able to do so. I think that abuses in the past would indicate that the marriages would need some review or approval process to prevent coercion or abuse. Rights and benefits would also need to be reviewed for fairness and equity. It opens a can of worms that I have, on many occasions indicated could be considered. It is a can of worms, however, that I did not want to distract from the main topic. I avoid the stance because watch the inflammatory responses to my beliefs come out and the distraction it causes.

Happily Married said...

Anon,

Disagreeing on opinions is normal. I am willing to acknowledge the disagreement of beliefs. The problems is how do we handle disagreement of beliefs in society? How can we construct our laws to allow everyone to live according to their own beliefs? Amendment one does just the opposite. I believe your opinion is just as valid as mine and you should be able to live by your opinion or belief just as I should. This is the crux of the issue. Now ask me how a compromise would look from a legal perspective and we can have a civil discourse on a compromise.

Anonymous said...

So your goal is incremental destruction of traditional society? Gay marriage today, polygamy and multi-party bi-sexual marriages tomorrow, accomplished through judicial fiat if necessary. I support the right of people to do whatever they want in their personal lives, just don't demand that all of society condone their actions through legal recognition granted on those actions. Your contention that people will still have the freedom to believe as they wish regarding these issues doesn't work -- if I want to teach my children that marriage is between one man and one woman, but the state recognizes homosexual, bi-sexual and multi-party marriages, then eventually my children will come home from school and tell me that they have been taught that my beliefs are wrong. And this is the ultimate goal, isn't it. You say to watch how people will respond to your comments -- watch how Lib, Jesse, ITCM or perhaps even you will now chime in to say how my beliefs ARE wrong and that if my beliefs can be taught out of my children, society will be better for it.

Happily Married said...

Anon,

I will be happy to chime in and say that there is nothing wrong with your beliefs. Freedom of choice is only that - it does not mean that you have to live by others choices or teach your children anything other than what you believe. If you instill in your children that marriage is between a man and a woman, just because other arrangements are legal does not mean that our educational system is going to indoctrinate your children to believe anything different. And it is certainly not the goal. the principle is FREEDOM - to choose belief, to teach your children as you believe. Would you have the educational system teach my children that homosexual marriage is wrong? I certainly do not believe that and what makes your beliefs more important than mine? What if your child or children are gay? Are they wrong for being that way? There is no goal of incremental destruction of tradition. Traditions, however, have always evolved and my goal IS equality for all. I don't even ask that you condone gay marriage. Legalizing gay marriage will not force you to condone it. Live as you see fit for you and your family and let others do the same. Teach your children well and they will be responsible adults one day that will make their own decisions - and I hope you will respect their opinions and lifestyle - even if it does not agree with yours.

Happily Married said...

Anon,

I will teach my child that homosexual marriage is OK and should be welcomed as a blessing the same as any other marriage. I have faith that my child will listen and I have no fear that she will come home, having been taught this discriminatory and bigoted amendment and pronounce my beliefs wrong. That is not how beliefs work. Were you taught that mix race marriages were wrong? When you were taught the law that indicated that, did you think that they are wrong? Do you think they are wrong today? Beliefs transcend law. I will also teach my child that some believe that marriage is only meant for a man and a woman. I will show both sides of the issue and, when my child is an adult, the belief will be theirs to hold.

ITCM said...

JR, you need a history lesson. It was not as if "in God we trust" was on our currency from the beginning of the nation. Originally it was "E pluribus unum - Out of Many, One". It was petitioned (as usual) by forceful religious groups to be on the coins at the beginnings of the Civil War. Northern congregations to be exact as if to say that God was on their side in the fight. The founding fathers would never have allowed this phrase, as it was not in line with religious freedom of the times. In other words, just because it is on currency today does not indicate that it was designed to be that way originally. America is not a Christian nation, but a Secular one. Our government and legal system was supposed to be free from religious control - that was the whole idea behind Amendment 1 of the U.S. Constitution - no "establishment of religion".

Anonymous said...

"Were you taught that mix race marriages were wrong? When you were taught the law that indicated that, did you think that they are wrong? Do you think they are wrong today?"

The answer to your first question is, no. I like how you proceeded to assume my answer was yes and move on to the other comments above attacking what you believe to be my obviously prejudiced nature. You've asked for a civil conversation and I'm trying to engage you, but don't insinuate that I'm racist or anything else because I believe marriage should be between one man and one woman. Race and homosexuality are not the same. One cannot look at a homosexual person and know they are homosexual the way they can an Asian, African-American or any other. As someone else here stated, a gay man could physically have sex with a woman, but a black man cannot be white for a day. Do you have children in school yet? Schools do indoctrinate. While you say the goal is not incremental destruction of traditional values, the result most definitely will be. You may not like how I rephrased your comments from your previous post, but they are an accurate rephrasing, just a bit more clear. You basically said, gay marriage now, the others (polygamy,bi-sexual marriages) later, perhaps through court (your comment in response to JR - "I have said that needs to be determined in court"). You argue that, in those instances, the government would have to get involved in every situation to make certain coercion is not involved and rights are not being denied etc. Really? You've never heard of the phrase, "a shotgut wedding," I guess. And our court systems obviously have nothing else to do than examine every potential wedding, heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual, multi-party, etc for potential coercion or abuse. They don't do that now for anyone. You mentioned the possibility of a compromise -- I personally am okay with a civil union but believe that marriage should be defined as it currently is by the NC Constitution and the constitutions of 30 other states.

Anonymous said...

Leaving my computer now -- It's too nice outside. Don't think I'm trying to avoid you. :)

Happily Married said...

Anon,
For when you get back - if you look at my questions, i was not assuming that you were racist. The second question was geared at asking if the teaching of the law that said mix race marriage was wrong changed you from non racist to racist - in the same light you indicated that teaching children in school that if the law says gay marriage is OK they would come home and tell you YOU were wrong. homosexuality and race are the same when rights are considered. Gay people do not choose to be gay any more than you would choose to be homosexual. They cannot change who they are in both cases. I did not want to get into a discussion of the legal review of polygamous marriages - it is a distraction and I would like to stick to the point. A civil union would have been a good start to a compromise - but this amendment completely nullifies that prospect. Just because 30 states have this amendment does not make it good or right. Many states also had mix race marriages were illegal until Loving vs Virginia and the laws were neither good or right.

guy faulkes said...

HM, the problem is not my ability to comprehend what I read. It is your ability to write in a manner that relates what you say is what you mean. You have trouble with this.

Johnny Rico said...

I take crazy meds:

So the term "In God We Trust",in your misguided opinion, should be taken off coinage? Our nation was based on Christianity. The founding fathers included a healthy dose of Jesus Christ into making the country and the Constitution. Writings of the founding fathers include God as a guide in much of what they did. Separation of church and state did/does occur, however our nation sure didn't have Buddist or Islamist leanings when it was built. It's hard for you to accept we are a Christian nation, I understand that. Perhaps you should try another and see what happens when you try and build a nation on other than Christian principles. LOL!!

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

Johnny Rico said...

Happily dumb,

Again, I have not name called. If you remember correctly, it were you liberal leftist wingnut lemmings who started calling me curse words on the thread that was shut down. I do not name call. I use monikers that describe, to a tee in your case, the condition that precludes your meaningless babble on this site. Not name calling, but an accurate descriptor of your psyche. Don't take it personal HD, you earned it.

As for indicating I have a low IQ. If that's the case then my low IQ drew you into a fight you cannot win. And who has a low IQ? I control you dolts on this site. I set traps for you and then when you fall into them, I administer a coup de grace. Your just too dumb (not name calling here, just accurately describing your condition)to realize it.

Johnny Rico

Wolf's Head said...

Perhaps this is why the left hates people of faith.

De Tocqueville on American Greatness

“On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things . . . Religion in America takes no direct part in government of society, but it must be regarded as the first of their political institutions . . .

The sects (different denominations) that exist in the United States are innumerable. They all differ in respect to the worship which is due the Creator; but they all agree in respect to the duties which are due man to man. Each sect adores the Deity in its own peculiar manner, but all sects preach the same moral law in the name of God . . . All the sects of the United States are comprised within the great unity of Christianity . . .


I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors and her ample rivers, and it was not there; in her rich mines and vast world commerce, and it was not there. Not until I went to the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

Alexis de Tocqueville

The left wants to destroy America and it's traditional values and the faithful stand in their way.

Johnny Rico said...

I'd like to stay around and bulldoze you liberal dolt lemming socailists into little piles of dung dust, but I'm traveling abroad today. Going to Europe, again, on business. One of these days I hope to retire so I can pay less taxes for you lemmings to use to lead a life of luxery. It gets tiring after a while watching lazy liberals suck off of others.

At any rate, Europe is always fun. Those retards are stupid like American lemmings, and I feel it's my personal responsiblity to point out that socialism doesn't work! The last time I was in Germany, some dolt was stupid enough to try and tell me the European model for health care was superior to ours. I gave him a pearly white smile, accented with red lipstick, and asked him if he stained teeth were indiative of such a system. The dude turned red and I thought he was going to hit me! I won that arguement just like I do here with you idiots.

I make it my personal mission to put Europeans in their place. I love to bring up lend/lease program when ma and pa America donated personal shotguns, rifles and pistols to Great Britain to use in case Nazi Germany invaded. I ask them why they think it can't happen again and why they don't choose to allow their citizens to exercise personal responsiblity. The idiots are speechless (like you socialists are on this site). At any rate, rest assured I'll be an ambassador for the real America!!!!!

Dolts

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

PS Wait until I tell them that they deserved last year's riots in Manchester and London.

PSS I'll check in from time to time when I'm not sipping tea on the Champs de Elyse to ensure the liberal socialist sheep don't get too far out of line. LOL!!!!

Wolf's Head said...

Johnny, the proper term is "You're-a-Peon", not European.

Anonymous said...

It's good that a real American such as Johnny Rico will be representing us.

Sarkazein said...

JR- Be careful, they carry knives. Blade crimes are very high in Europe.

They don't have to worry about bringing a knife to a gun fight.

Anonymous said...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/29/church-sorry-for-narrow-minded-nc-ban-on-marriage-equality/

Sarkazein said...

A'mous link- "A California church is planning of placing billboards in North Carolina to apologize..."

A'mous either loves carpetbaggers, holds in high regard the action of a lone church from California, or is grasping at straws.... or all three.

Deborah Greene said...

This young lady has come to know God by the grace of God. This is not something you can force on someone; the Spirit of God is evident in this young lady. Praise be to God.

I am very proud if her.

Anonymous said...

Can't help but wonder Debbie, if she decides to attend ASU will you be just as proud? Or will she become another one of those brainwashed (read thinking for themselves) kids out there you have to keep from voting?

Also, you think the spirit of god was in that one year singing the homophobic hate his parents drilled into him? Just curious.

Happily Married said...

Deborah Greene,

Your actions by vote and by convincing others to vote for the marriage amendment forces all to behave according to God's word (as interpreted by some Christians)- yet you say this cannot be forced? I am proud of this woman for her faith. I am disappointed that she is so arrogant (much like you) as to think her faith is the end all and be all and that everyone must abide despite whatever faith they might have as individuals. You are about to learn a hard lesson about the US Constitution when the SCOTUS gets this case. When they rule against you, please do us a favor and leave your God out of my government!

Anonymous said...

HM....there are at least 30 states who have a similar marriage definition in their constitutions, plus another group of states that have laws which define marriage as between one man and one woman.

When do you expect the SCOTUS to decide that most of the country is wrong and that our founding fathers really intended for men to marry men?

guy faulkes said...

HM, will you please leave your disdain for God out of our government? You are doing the same thing you accuse Deborah Greene of doing once again.

Happily Married said...

You people really do not pay attention. I have no disdain for God as I commended the girl for her faith. I have disdain for forcing one's beliefs on others. I believe in the this country's founding principle of freedom of belief. This amendment completely goes against that. That is why the SCOTUS will rule against all 30 states in the same manner they ruled against the banning of mixed race marriages. Our country was founded on freedom of religion and equal rights for all. This amendment creates second class citizens - not equal rights. So yes, the religious zealots who have passed these laws are wrong and the SCOTUS will overrule in accordance with both US#1 and US#14. And no, I am not doing the same thing as Deborah Greene. She has forced her religious beliefs on others. I don't pretend to have answers on faith and believe you should find your own path - one that is not determined by the government. I have been accused of this many times and it is simply the fact no one reads with comprehension. My solution does not force anything on anyone. If you believe marriage is between a man and a woman, then live by that. If you believe marriage is between two loving people regardless of the genitals, then live by that. The only force applied here is by the backers and advocates of this amendment. Religious zealots put God above man and ignore the intentions of the founding fathers so much so that they force everyone to live according to their beliefs. People of faith acknowledge their God and his teachings of brotherly love and do unto others. I praise people of faith and have no use for religious zealots.

Anonymous said...

This seems to be one of those issues where everything that anyone has to say about it has already been said numerous times. Can we call it a tie or are some of you of the opinion that the last one to post an opinion is somehow the winner?

guy faulkes said...

When people keep repeating a lie, then one must keep refuting the lie in order for the old saying that "if you repeat a lie enough times,people will believe it" from coming true.

HM does exactly what he/she berates others for doing. He/she somehow thinks he/she is entitled to make the decision if your are a person of faith or a religious zealot and that if you are a "zealot" that you have no right to an opinion or the political process. This makes him/her an anti religious zealot.

Happily Married said...

Once again,
I never said that people of faith are not entitled to an opinion or access to the political process and I don't believe that is true. I have said that people do not have the right to force their religious views on others - that is totally different from having an opinion, expressing an opinion or voting one way or the other. The problem here is that the vote should have never happened as the amendment violates the US Constitution (which NC is bound by). Having an opinion and FORCING someone to live by your own personal belief system are two different things.

Anonymous said...

HM,
You are definitely a one-trick pony -- and you've beat that pony to death. You say that the vote was to force others to live by someone else's belief system. Voting the other way is the same thing. If you don't like that marriage IS defined by the state as between one man and one woman, you can still live a homosexual life. If the state recognized homosexual and multi-party marriages, it would have forced everyone who believes that is wrong to legally accept those arrangements, especially given that the state government and laws are expressions of the moral standards of a community (see NC Blue Laws on sale of alcohol on Sunday mornings). People can live their lives however they choose, but they don't get the right to force legal recognition from others for a sexual preference. If gay marriage is recognized, I may choose to morally be opposed to it, but will be forced to LEGALLY accept it. If the SCOTUS takes up a case (which I don't think they will), there is no guarantee that they will overturn so many state constitutional amendments. Heck, even the European Court of Human Rights (you know, those more progressive minded Europeans) recently ruled that legally recognized gay marriage is not a human right.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2117920/Gay-marriage-human-right-European-ruling-torpedoes-Coalition-stance.html

As the other anonymous has stated, enough already. It has been interesting to me that, when Rico asked you about other issues, you summarily dismissed them by saying you didn't know enough about them (Waco, Ruby Ridge, Fast and Furious, others). Your priorities are demonstrated by what you choose to educate yourself on and what you choose to vociferously discuss. Government killing people -- don't care enough to talk about or educate yourself on; Gay marriage, spend countless hours discussing on a blog?

guy faulkes said...

As the only person ever banned from this site supports HM (as he did with terrorism, voter fraud, and pedophilia) I think my point has been made.

HM is actually incapable of seeing the irony of his/her using the same tactics He/she objects to in others. He/she is incapable of seeing that disagreeing with a religious opinion is a religions opinion. After all, an opinion concerning religion can be nothing else. This is pitiful.

Sarkazein said...

Happily married wrote-"That is why the SCOTUS will rule against all 30 states..."

At least now you admit it is the courts trying to force gay marriage on society. That is what this is all about... forced acceptance by society. It has nothing to do with rights.

Anonymous said...

http://minnesotaforequality.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Cartoon_001.jpg

Thought of you when I saw this one Sark.

One of these days maybe you'll get it through your closed little mind that equality means we're both free to believe what we want without one of us imposing it on the other.

But I doubt it.

Sarkazein said...

Just the opposite A'mouse. It is the government telling us we have to believe marriage is between two men. Someday perhaps your closed mind will see that. 2+2=5

Sarkazein said...

Still none of you sheeple have said why a bi-sexual should't be allowed one of each.

Anonymous said...

Sark , you continue to mock and derive anyone who posts as "anon". What makes you choosing a screen name of Sarkazein" any less anonymous?

You claim to be a male from TX.
If i claim to be a non sexual being from mars and i any more or less anonymous on this blog then you ?

Last time i checked there was no way to verify the real identity of any poster here.

Sarkazein said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sarkazein said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Sark, buddy, this is why I love ya (in a purely platonic way of course) Good try but I think you need a remedial course in insult 101.

You said maybe some day my closed mind will believe that 2+2=5 So, were you stating your wish that someday I will believe in a totalitarian future where every movement and aspect of my life is controlled by an all seeing govt? (AKA what every con thinks Obama is trying to put into place)

I believe what you should have said is maybe someday I'll stop believing in it, and possibly come around to your viewpoint which seems to boil down to. It's not imposition if I force my beliefs on someone else, it's protection! Double speak at it's finest there.

But having to just merely accept someone else might have a different belief means I'm suddenly forced to incorporate it into my life! Which of course you aren't. Gay marriage wouldn't have harmed you personally in the slightest unlike the way A1 just impacted a whole mess of people.

Well... unless you're afraid your SO was going to suddenly run off with a tub of ice cream without making gay marriage double plus illegal.

As I said before, equality means there's room for your belief and my belief. The problem with people like you and the girl in this video is your total inability to accept that someone might have a different viewpoint then yours. As long as your freedom is free everyone else can piss off? How very American.

Gonna be a real shock too for little miss home school when she hits the real world.

As the cartoon showed, govt should stay out of your life, but it should be intruding on those who disagree with me?

Way to show those small govt repub creditals, or just your usual rank hypocrisy.


Another fun nugget for you from a 1984 Synopsis

"The Party also forces individuals to suppress their sexual desires, treating sex as merely a procreative duty whose end is the creation of new Party members."

How many times did we hear it was just about procreation from the pro A1 side as one of their many flawed arguments?

Seriously I know you were attempting to look smart there by bringing up Orwell, but if you're going to try it, study your source material a bit better first.

Either way you're still all too easy to get a rise out of. (Translation: Make you respond to taunts like the fool you are. What were you thinking before?)

Just keep on going though, I think I've still got some rope left. ^_^

Anonymous said...

Sark , I have a honest question for you that i will address the rational of if you would be forthright enough to answer.

Have you ever viewed or watched any heterosexual porn or magazines or photos?

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous asked- "Have you ever viewed or watched any heterosexual porn or magazines or photos?"

Sorry Anonymous, I have other plans.

Sarkazein said...

Again A'mouse, it is the government at the request of others attempting to force society through the courts to accept gay marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman and no matter how hard you try to get the government to force 2+2=5, on society, it is still 4 and always will be 4.
A1 changed nothing. It only showed you, 61% will not be told by the government how they should believe that 2+2 is anything but 4.

Anonymous said...

Sark my question was a simple yes or know. You may have plans, but they seem to be to avoid answering anything you do not care to. You immediately posted again to a different question.

Anonymous said...

Hey Sark here is one for you. You and the Marion preacher belive 2+2 must equal 4. Is that not wrong as only according to you two only straight couples can reproduce.

To possibly make two be gay or straight offspring when they grow up.

So would that not really be 2+2 +6 2 being yet to be determined sexuality. If both of the two couples that made up the 4 had kids who might grow up to be gay ?

Anonymous said...

Of the people who call them self Sark here, can any of you answer this ? Sark , you continue to mock and derive anyone who posts as "anon". What makes you choosing a screen name of Sarkazein" any less anonymous?

You claim to be a male from TX.
If i claim to be a non sexual being from mars and i any more or less anonymous on this blog then you ?

Last time i checked there was no way to verify the real identity of any poster here.

guy faulkes said...

Anonymous, is there any point to your posts? To put it the way my dad would, you seem to be talking to hear your head roar. You have said nothing relative to the thread.

Sarkazein said...

Guy Faulkes- The Anonymous comment at 5:42 is probably LPOV. I am not sure about the other Anonymouses

Anonymous said...

Guy or Sark, or any of the other anon right wing posters. If you and your spouse managed to reproduce and that offspring turned out to be gay, would you tell them they do not deserve the right to have a legally recognized marriage ?

guy faulkes said...

Anonymous, I absolutely would because that is what the rule of law and the state constitution says. I would also tell them to secure a private contract that did the same thing, if they so desired, or to work to change the constitution and law if that was what they thought they should do. Neither Sark nor I have ever said they did not have the right to use the political process.

Sark defends the classical definition of marriage, but that does not say others cannot disagree. He only defends his point of view.

I maintain it does not matter because other contracts are available. If there is a problem it is not with the definition of marriage, but with tax codes, etc. These are not the same thing as the definition of marriage and can be changed through the political process if need be. I do not know how many times I have to say this.

What did your question or my answer have to do with the topic of the thread? Nothing.

Anonymous said...

Outstanding post, Guy Faulkes! Many people have made the same point, but you have made it the best!

Sarkazein said...

A'mouse wrote- "Guy or Sark, or any of the other anon right wing posters. If you and your spouse managed to reproduce and that offspring turned out to be gay, would you tell them they do not deserve the right to have a legally recognized marriage ?"

Couldn't I have the choice to abort them? Just as the liberals want to abort for convenience and now gender/sex, why not for being gay? It is said they are born gay, why not an amnio test?
(for Anonymouses, this is sarcasm in case you don't know which Sark made this comment)

Happily Married said...

Sark and Guy,

I have trouble being called a liar. I am probably a one trick pony when the one trick is the truth. Two references for context: In 1991, the federal Government passed the ADA which basically set up standards so that handicapped people are not discriminated against. The standards included requirements that main entrances be accessible. See, the people in the wheelchairs were treated like second class citizens when they were told they had to use a back entrance or use a loading ramp. New buildings are required to have entrances available for everyone and not treat people like second class citizens. So for Guy - to make people come up with contracts in order to get the same rights and privileges is the same. It is treating people differently and making them do something others are not required to do - and that is wrong. Sark, this is entirely about rights and I can only believe you call me a liar just to deflect. When the SCOTUS ruled that blacks and whites were legally entitled to be married in all states, did the government send out goon squads to force people to accept it? Does everyone still accept it today? (probably not). This is not about forced acceptance as much as it is equal rights. This is the exact same scenario from a legal and government perspective no matter how much some here will deny it. I do not wan to force anyone to accept gay marriage. I just want gay people to have the same rights.

Happily Married said...

Sark,

Your 2+2=5 comments are nonsensical. It seems to imply that marriage is only for reproduction. So if couples are in their 70's and on their second spouses, they should not be allowed to be married because marriage is about reproduction? As several states and countries now legally recognize same sex marriage it obviously exists and the definition of marriage in those locations includes those of the same sex. Once again the arithmetic is flawed if you think the definition is only one way. It is already different in states and countries of tolerance. The pending SCOTUS decision is also part of the political process. So, in the end, people will be protected. The government will not force anyone to accept gay marriage - it will simply allow gay marriage to exist so that rights are equal. If you refuse to accept gay marriage - to each his own. I don't care to force anything on anyone. I simply fight for equal rights.

Happily Married said...

Guy,

I have previously posted that an opinion about a religious perspective does not have to be based on religion and you conveniently chose to ignore it. If one goes to a public university to study religion and then forms an opinion about a particular religion, it could simply be about the study of that religion and not be formed because of a religious bias. So an opinion concerning religion can be something else. And maybe your the pitiful one.

Sarkazein said...

Happily- "2+2=5 has nothing to do with reproduction, and as I have never said in any of my comments marriage is for reproduction only, I will link for you an explanation to the meaning of 2+2=5 (and for A'mouse also who thinks he is an expert on the term).

Click here for obscure phrases form a little known movie and author

Sarkazein said...

2 + 2 = 5
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the phrase (or the statement in mathematics). For the song by Radiohead, see 2 + 2 = 5 (song).
The phrase "two plus two equals five" ("2 + 2 = 5") is a slogan used in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four[1] as an example of an obviously false dogma one must believe, similar to other obviously false slogans by the Party in the novel. It is contrasted with the phrase "two plus two makes four", the obvious—but politically inexpedient—truth. Orwell's protagonist, Winston Smith, uses the phrase to wonder if the State might declare "two plus two equals five" as a fact; he ponders whether, if everybody believes it, does that make it true? The Inner Party interrogator of thought-criminals, O'Brien, says of the mathematically false statement that control over physical reality is unimportant; so long as one controls their own perceptions to what the Party wills, then any corporeal act is possible, in accordance with the principles of doublethink ("Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once").[2]

Happily Married said...

Sark, I appreciate the explanation and reminder from a book that I read over 30 years ago. The phrase, not about reproduction, would seem to indicate that your "truth" is absolute. The truth also used to be that the earth was flat. The truth was that marriage was about arrangements for dowries or political purposes. Marriage used to be between a white man and white woman. In 100 years, the truth about marriage will undoubtedly be different and maybe 2+2 will equal 5. To use a mathematical equation in the same fashion as a word definition in terms of absolute truth is also nonsensical.

Sarkazein said...

Point being, a government entity (courts or trendy legislature) will NEVER get me to believe 2+2=5. You write-"... the truth about marriage will undoubtedly be different and maybe 2+2 will equal 5."

Sheeple

Anonymous said...

Race does not equal homosexuality. Physical handicap does not equal homosexuality. You continue to compare apples to oranges.

Anonymous said...

That's more like comparing apples to orangutangs!

guy faulkes said...

HM, try to pay attention. An opinion about religion is a religious opinion regardless of the belief system you base it on. An opinion that opposes the religious beliefs of another is a religious opinion, no matter how you justify it.

I believe that you are truly unable to understand this and are not deliberately being dense. I pity you.

Happily Married said...

Sark,

My point is that I don't expect you to believe 2 + 2 = 5. People who are close minded will often insist that things have to be they way they perceive them. Blacks can marry whites and the earth is not flat, whether you believe it or not. I don't think the government should be in the business of convincing close minded dolts like you of anything. They should be in the business of providing equal rights to all. Race, handicap and homosexuality are the same when it comes to equal rights - everybody deserves them - period. Guy, I have paid attention and you are an idiot as I have explained how it can be true.

Sarkazein said...

Happy- If gay "marriage" is forced on society by the courts, then as a member of society I will have to accept. If I own a company and my CFO Bernard says he wants to add his new husband/wife Butch to his benefits package, then I am forced by the courts to accept their "marriage".

You tell me why a different term wasn't picked for a union between two people of the same sex. There is only one answer.

Anonymous said...

Since when was McAulay a local name? I think she might be one of those folks David Blust doesn't want to vote on campus.

Such Opportunists...."We like what she says!! Let her vote!" and then "Oh no, he disagrees with me, we should take away his voting site".

Not tricking me.

guy faulkes said...

Since when was McAulay a local name? I think she might be one of those folks David Blust doesn't want to vote on campus.

Incredible! Such idiocy.

Anonymous said...

Blust is not a very common local name either. What does your name have to do with anythign Blust has said?