100,000 slavics use first amendment rights

**Logan13** · 10-20-2006, 08:28 AM

Originally Posted by Tock

Ya, same here. Actually, I hear the term "Partner" or "Life Partner" these days. "Lover" is kind of old-fashioned . . .

Anyway, Logan seems to object to gay people appearing in public as anything other than people that pass for being heterosexual. He doesn't want to see it, he doesn't want his kids to see it, doesn't want anyone's kids to see it. He just wants gays to go back into the closet and stay there.
Well, somehow I don't think that is going to happen. Just like I don't think that he's ever going to tell us just what exactly that "gay propaganda" he mentioned in the first post of this thread is.

-Tock

As I stated above, I am more than entitled to my opinion. You do not have to like it, nor do I care if you don't like it.

**Logan13** · 10-20-2006, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by scriptfactory

I think you can stop beating that particular dead horse. We all already know Logan doesn't know what he is talking about in regards to that statement... He was, to put it succinctly, talking out of his ass.

I have given you far too much credit here in the past......

**scriptfactory** · 10-20-2006, 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by Logan13

I have given you far too much credit here in the past......

Logan, do you honestly think there is some kind of gay conspiracy going on?! If you truly believe this I am very interested in knowing what it is! My aunt was a lesbian and I grew up around many, many gays/lesbians and never once did I think there was some kind of gay conspiracy to take over the world. I'm not trying to be sarcastic or funny, I would really like to know your thoughts on this.

**Logan13** · 10-21-2006, 10:04 PM

Originally Posted by scriptfactory

Logan, do you honestly think there is some kind of gay conspiracy going on?! If you truly believe this I am very interested in knowing what it is! My aunt was a lesbian and I grew up around many, many gays/lesbians and never once did I think there was some kind of gay conspiracy to take over the world. I'm not trying to be sarcastic or funny, I would really like to know your thoughts on this.

Conspiracy? Did I use that term or are you just exaggerating my position? If the 3 of you can not determine what the "agenda" is that I speak of in my long post above, I will not waste anymore time clarifying it. I will some up my position, as I did above like this: If you do not like MY decision, don't worry, I am not going to try to make you like it.

**scriptfactory** · 10-21-2006, 11:27 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

Conspiracy? Did I use that term or are you just exaggerating my position? If the 3 of you can not determine what the "agenda" is that I speak of in my long post above, I will not waste anymore time clarifying it. I will some up my position, as I did above like this: If you do not like MY decision, don't worry, I am not going to try to make you like it.

What you were calling the "gay agenda" is more like the "gay fight for equal rights." I'm sorry but I don't think that is a bad thing... There was a time when people were talking about the "female agenda" and the "black agenda" as well.

**Logan13** · 10-21-2006, 11:38 PM

Originally Posted by scriptfactory

What you were calling the "gay agenda" is more like the "gay fight for equal rights." I'm sorry but I don't think that is a bad thing... There was a time when people were talking about the "female agenda" and the "black agenda" as well.

Sorry, I do not see the "gay agenda" as being on the same level as the women and black equal rights movements. These two groups had both a moral and legal basis, who we choose to have sex with does not meet that criteria. Neither The Bill of Rights nor the Constitution gives American citizens the right to marry.....anyone.

**Tock** · 10-22-2006, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

Sorry, I do not see the "gay agenda" as being on the same level as the women and black equal rights movements.

I didn't think that you would.

Originally Posted by Logan13

Neither The Bill of Rights nor the Constitution gives American citizens the right to marry.....anyone.

For that matter, the Constitution doesn't specifically give citizens the right to go shopping, play pianos, or work out at the gym. But does that mean that the government should be free to restrict entire segments of the population from doing those things?

The 9th Amendment to the US Constitution says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This essentially means that if the Constitution is silent on marriage rights for heterosexuals, it doesn't mean that the right for straight folks to marry doesn't exist. And, as they say, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, so the same principle applies for gays as well. If you contend that there is a Constitutional exception in that right that applies only to gays, I'd like to see where you find it.

**Logan13** · 10-22-2006, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by Tock

I didn't think that you would. Sure you didn't. Again you need to work on your comprehension skills........
For that matter, the Constitution doesn't specifically give citizens the right to go shopping, play pianos, or work out at the gym. But does that mean that the government should be free to restrict entire segments of the population from doing those things?

The 9th Amendment to the US Constitution says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This essentially means that if the Constitution is silent on marriage rights for heterosexuals, it doesn't mean that the right for straight folks to marry doesn't exist. And, as they say, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, so the same principle applies for gays as well. If you contend that there is a Constitutional exception in that right that applies only to gays, I'd like to see where you find it.

Where do you think that the foundation of marriage comes from? It comes from religion, this is why it is not in the BOR or Constitution. The foundation for marriage, especially in the US, has always been through religion. How can a group embrase one part of religion for the purpose of marriage and yet not respect religions' thoughts on homosexuality. This country was founded on Judeo-Christian philosophy, you do not have to like it, but it is most certainly fact!

**scriptfactory** · 10-22-2006, 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

Where do you think that the foundation of marriage comes from? It comes from religion, this is why it is not in the BOR or Constitution. The foundation for marriage, especially in the US, has always been through religion. How can a group embrase one part of religion for the purpose of marriage and yet not respect religions' thoughts on homosexuality. This country was founded on Judeo-Christian philosophy, you do not have to like it, but it is most certainly fact!

Come one, Logan. This is the same group of individuals that conviently forget their prophets were slave-owning polygamists...

**Logan13** · 10-22-2006, 08:06 PM

Originally Posted by scriptfactory

Come one, Logan. This is the same group of individuals that conviently forget their prophets were slave-owning polygamists...

It seems that you use a large brush when describing particular groups of people script. I have stated my opinion thoroughly, I have not asked that you adopt my ideals nor have I asked you to bless them.....

In regards to your slave-owning comment, why are there no longer any slaves in the US? Is it because it was the right thing to do and many whites took the lead in abolishing it because it was not in line with their religious convictions?

**Tock** · 10-22-2006, 09:13 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

Where do you think that the foundation of marriage comes from? It comes from religion . . .

How about in officially atheist countries like China and the former Soviet Union (and whatever other countries have been or currently are predominantly atheist)? They seem to be able to bond people together just fine without religion.

The notion of marriage comes from two folks making clear to the community that they are a "social unit." Which essentially means to other guys, to stop hitting on the woman, and to businesses that debts incurred by one is a debt incurred by both.

Originally Posted by Logan13

How can a group embrase one part of religion for the purpose of marriage and yet not respect religions' thoughts on homosexuality.

Lots of people don't take religion seriously.

The Bible endorses slavery, and killing witches and homosexuals for example. You gonna take that seriously?

No, I didn't think so.

Originally Posted by Logan13

This country was founded on Judeo-Christian philosophy, you do not have to like it, but it is most certainly fact!

FACT: In colonial Massachusetts, it was illegal to celebrate Christmas, because the protestants considered it a "Catholic" holiday, and anyone observing it was presumed to be a papist. They were expelled from the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and if they returned, they were put to death.
They also ran roughshod over Quakers, Baptists, and others (remember the Salem Witch Trials?) who thought to disagree with the official Judeo-Christian religious philosophy.

People nowadays who are familiar with early American religious persecution perpetrated by our founding fathers regard it as a black mark on our history, and resolve to do better than that early "Judeo-Christian philosophy" you so revere.

FACT is -- that the folks who bankrolled the early settlers did so out of a desire for profit. Ya, organizations like the . . .

Plymouth Company
London Company http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Company
Virginia Company

. . . were formed by investors, with the King of England's authority, not for the purpose of spreading the Gospel, but for Profit. No doubt the leaders of the new settlements found the harsh threats of hellfire and damnation useful to keep the citizenry under control, but their primary concern was to keep their bosses back in England happy with investment returns. Read history, mon petite . . .

Ya, I grew up in Massachusetts, and they made sure you knew about this sort of stuff -- state history & etc. Now you know it, too . . .

**Logan13** · 10-22-2006, 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by Tock

How about in officially atheist countries like China and the former Soviet Union (and whatever other countries have been or currently are predominantly atheist)? They seem to be able to bond people together just fine without religion.
Actually, if you would have paid attention to what this thread was originally about, you would know that the situation in Russia is so bad that Slavics are standing in line to get to the US. Russia seems to be violently anti-religion in many parts.
The notion of marriage comes from two folks making clear to the community that they are a "social unit." Which essentially means to other guys, to stop hitting on the woman, and to businesses that debts incurred by one is a debt incurred by both. Then why has it become tradition here to get married in a church? You can have your "social unit", we heteros will stick with the term marriage.

The Bible endorses slavery, and killing witches and homosexuals for example. You gonna take that seriously?
I have never in my life read where the bible speaks about witches.... That is just silly, please tell me where in the Bible I can find that passage.

Recently, there was a show on TV where they went around to every major historical sight in Washington D.C. pointing out all of the references to "GOD" on major landmarks. The Founding Fathers obviously envisioned a future America that believed what they believed...."In God We Trust".
What a sad world it is that you live in, I seriously pity you Tock.

**Carlos_E** · 10-22-2006, 11:39 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

Recently, there was a show on TV where they went around to every major historical sight in Washington D.C. pointing out all of the references to "GOD" on major landmarks. The Founding Fathers obviously envisioned a future America that believed what they believed...."In God We Trust".
What a sad world it is that you live in, I seriously pity you Tock.

More people pity you. It's a damn shame not everyone in the world is just like you Logan. Sorry there is such a thing as diversity.

**Tock** · 10-23-2006, 12:08 AM

Originally Posted by Tock
How about in officially atheist countries like China and the former Soviet Union (and whatever other countries have been or currently are predominantly atheist)? They seem to be able to bond people together just fine without religion.

Originally Posted by Logan13

Actually, if you would have paid attention to what this thread was originally about, you would know that the situation in Russia is so bad that Slavics are standing in line to get to the US.

Seems to me that most people who come to the USA do so for economic reasons.
And, no, not all Slavs are standing in line to get to the US. The original story was merely about a bunch of Pentecostal Slavs in California who had been whipped into a paniced frenzy when their preacher told them that gays were trying to turn their children gay.

Tock Wrote:
The notion of marriage comes from two folks making clear to the community that they are a "social unit." Which essentially means to other guys, to stop hitting on the woman, and to businesses that debts incurred by one is a debt incurred by both.

Originally Posted by Logan13

Then why has it become tradition here to get married in a church?

Oh? Has it really? Aren't lots of people getting married by JP's? Or just eloping? Or driving to Las Vegas and going to a drive-through wedding chapel? Or just living in common-law relationships? Or just living together?

By the way, churches say that the number of weddings they're doing are decreasing:
--------
from: http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturd...07/blues.shtml
Catholic church marriages declined by 48 percent over the last 20 years, said a Catholic bishops' Web site, citing the 2004 Official Catholic Directory.

During that same time period, the marriage rate in the United States. dropped by 24 percent, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.

A resource paper from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops blamed some of the church marriage drop in part on an increase in couples living together outside marriage. Cohabitation climbed an estimated 45 percent from 1970 to 1990, according to sources cited in the report.

A 1995 national study of Catholic-sponsored marriage preparations found that almost 44 percent of couples were living together when they attended pre-marriage sessions.

It isn't only the U.S. Catholicism wrestling with dwindling church marriages.

The U.S. Episcopal Church also is having fewer weddings. There were 25,989 Episcopal church marriages in 1997. The number has dropped each year since to 18,260 in 2003, the most recent year figures are available.

In denominations where marriage is not a sacrament, it is difficult to get records that show a trend.
--------------

Tock wrote:
The Bible endorses slavery, and killing witches and homosexuals for example. You gonna take that seriously?

Originally Posted by Logan13

I have never in my life read where the bible speaks about witches.... That is just silly, please tell me where in the Bible I can find that passage.

I agree, it IS silly. And I'm glad you think it is, too.
Here's the reference:

English translations of Exodus 22:18
King James Version: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."
New King James Version: "You shall not permit a sorceress to live."
English Standard Version: "You shall not permit a sorceress to live."
New International Version: "Do not allow a sorceress to live."
New American Standard Bible: "You shall not allow a sorceress to live."
Amplified Bible: "You shall not allow a woman to live who practices sorcery."
New Living Translation: "A sorceress must not be allowed to live."
Contemporary English Version: "Death is the punishment for witchcraft."
American Standard Version: "Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to live."
Young's Literal Translation: "A witch thou dost not keep alive."
Septuagint, English translation by Sir Lancelot Brenton: "Ye shall not save the lives of sorcerers."
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures: "You must not preserve a sorceress alive."
Revised Standard Version: "You shall not permit a sorceress to live."

This was the Bible verse that prompted Christians to burn witches throughout history.

Get yourself a Bible concordance, look up other references. Sheesh, you say you beleive what's in that book -- why don't you know what's in it?

-Tock

**Tock** · 10-23-2006, 12:36 AM

Originally Posted by Logan13

Recently, there was a show on TV where they went around to every major historical sight in Washington D.C. pointing out all of the references to "GOD" on major landmarks.

So what? I can point to major landmarks where protractors and compasses are prominantly displayed. So what? That doesn't mean everyone is obligated to study geometry.

Originally Posted by Logan13

The Founding Fathers obviously

Obviously?

Originally Posted by Logan13

envisioned a future America that believed what they believed...."In God We Trust".

The founding fathers beleived in "In OUR version of God We Trust -- everyone else better watch out!"
Lucky for us, American law is based on the US Constitution and not on "In God We Trust." Elsewise, we'd have horrible things going on like
witch trials -- www.salemwitchtrials.com -- where the government put 20 people to death, based on flimsy evidence, for practicing witchcraft.
If American law was based on "In God We Trust" instead of the US Constitution, we'd still be paying taxes to the government to support an official church. Thanks to some left-leaning fellow, that practice was ruled unconstitutional in 1833 www.macucc.org/ucnews/Oct00/off-history.htm
But of course, you already knew that.
If American law was based on "In God We Trust" instead of the US Constitution, kids in public school would still be required to pray a Christian prayer every morning, regardless if they were Jewish, Muslim, Buddist, or whatever. Thankfully, the Supreme Court put an end to that back in 1961.

Originally Posted by Logan13

What a sad world it is that you live in, I seriously pity you Tock.

Well, you and I co-exist in the same world.
I guess you do have it better than I do . . .

-Tock

**scriptfactory** · 10-23-2006, 02:32 AM

Originally Posted by Logan13

It seems that you use a large brush when describing particular groups of people script. I have stated my opinion thoroughly, I have not asked that you adopt my ideals nor have I asked you to bless them.....

In regards to your slave-owning comment, why are there no longer any slaves in the US? Is it because it was the right thing to do and many whites took the lead in abolishing it because it was not in line with their religious convictions?

The slave topic is a strange one. Did you know that when the USA was still in its infancy there were several places (including Georgia) that made owning slaves illegal. The white Christians that lived there thought it was immoral and wanted to live in a righteous manner. Here comes the funny part. After a while the morally strong white Christians who were living without slaves realized they were a lot poorer than their slave owning neighbors so they forced their local governments to allow them to use slave labor. Religious convictions had little to do with the freeing of slaves. Don't give me that bullshit.

**Logan13** · 10-23-2006, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by scriptfactory

The slave topic is a strange one. Did you know that when the USA was still in its infancy there were several places (including Georgia) that made owning slaves illegal. The white Christians that lived there thought it was immoral and wanted to live in a righteous manner. Here comes the funny part. After a while the morally strong white Christians who were living without slaves realized they were a lot poorer than their slave owning neighbors so they forced their local governments to allow them to use slave labor. Religious convictions had little to do with the freeing of slaves. Don't give me that bullshit.

I was speaking about here in the US, as you well know. Fact is, the US did not revert back to slavery, even in light of the arguement that you posed in regards to the economic loss from outlawing slavery. There are examples of everything......somewhere and at sometime.

**Logan13** · 10-23-2006, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by Carlos_E

More people pity you. It's a damn shame not everyone in the world is just like you Logan. Sorry there is such a thing as diversity.

Sure they do, Carlos.....Diversity is great, just don't shove it in my face and than get mad when I tell you to remove it. I have explained that this is my opinion. I do not expect anyone to embrase my ideals nor do I care if you approve of them.

**scriptfactory** · 10-23-2006, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

I was speaking about here in the US, as you well know. Fact is, the US did not revert back to slavery, even in light of the arguement that you posed in regards to the economic loss from outlawing slavery. There are examples of everything......somewhere and at sometime.

Georgia is a state in the USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(U.S._state)

The US as a whole didn't revert back, but certain states did... 'nuff said.

**Carlos_E** · 10-23-2006, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

Sure they do, Carlos.....Diversity is great, just don't shove it in my face and than get mad when I tell you to remove it. I have explained that this is my opinion. I do not expect anyone to embrase my ideals nor do I care if you approve of them.

You seem like a very bitter man.

**Logan13** · 10-23-2006, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by Carlos_E

You seem like a very bitter man.

I am not the one TRYING to make everyone agree with my way life.......

**Logan13** · 10-23-2006, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by scriptfactory

Georgia is a state in the USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(U.S._state)

The US as a whole didn't revert back, but certain states did... 'nuff said.

That's why slavery is alive and well today in the US, right?

**scriptfactory** · 10-23-2006, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

That's why slavery is alive and well today in the US, right?

I was just messing with you, man.

**Carlos_E** · 10-23-2006, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

I am not the one TRYING to make everyone agree with my way life.......

Neither am I. I could give 2 shits. I just find you very amusing.

**Tock** · 10-23-2006, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by Tock

And, Logan, I notice that you again declined to respond to my question regarding children being " . . . force-fed the gay propaganda," What exactly is this gay propaganda you are speaking of?
Your refusal to respond is evidence that you know of no gay propaganda.
Agree?
-Tock

Ordinarily I wouldn't quote myself, but still, I sure would like to know what propaganda Logan thinks is being force-fed to children. And if he has any insight into what "The Gay Agenda" is, I'd appreciate knowing what that is, 'cause no one else seems to know exactly what that is.

I suppose making this request again is just beating a dead horse, but I figure since we're beating lots of other dead horses here, why not this one too?

**Logan13** · 10-23-2006, 09:18 PM

Originally Posted by scriptfactory

The slave topic is a strange one. Did you know that when the USA was still in its infancy there were several places (including Georgia) that made owning slaves illegal. The white Christians that lived there thought it was immoral and wanted to live in a righteous manner. Here comes the funny part. After a while the morally strong white Christians who were living without slaves realized they were a lot poorer than their slave owning neighbors so they forced their local governments to allow them to use slave labor. Religious convictions had little to do with the freeing of slaves. Don't give me that bullshit.

BTW, nice upper arm picture script.

**Logan13** · 10-23-2006, 09:19 PM

Originally Posted by Carlos_E

Neither am I. I could give 2 shits. I just find you very amusing.

glad that I could bring a smile to your face.

**Logan13** · 10-24-2006, 11:39 PM

Originally Posted by Carlos_E

More people pity you. It's a damn shame not everyone in the world is just like you Logan. Sorry there is such a thing as diversity.

It is ironic that you speak on diversity and yet you wish to deminish my opinion. Is not my opinion part of this "diversity" for which you speak? Tolerance is reciprocal, not a toy that only those who hold a minority view get to play with..........

**Tock** · 12-07-2006, 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

The problem is in your comprehension skills my friend, my Mensa membership will validate that. -Logan13

BTW, are you really a member of Mensa?

**Logan13** · 12-07-2006, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by Tock

BTW, are you really a member of Mensa?

141 is my number.............

**Tock** · 12-07-2006, 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

141 is my number.............

That wasn't the question.
Are you really a memer of Mensa?

**Logan13** · 12-07-2006, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by Tock

That wasn't the question.
Are you really a memer of Mensa?

I said yes in my post title. Why are you as well?

**Tock** · 12-07-2006, 11:18 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

I said yes in my post title. Why are you as well?

Hmm . . . I didn't notice the post title.
Nope, I never looked into Mensa. I've known a few Mensans, never thought I'd want to bother.

I am, however, a proud Subgenius -- the only church that offers Eternal Salvation, or Triple Your Money Back!
http://www.subgenius.com

**Logan13** · 12-07-2006, 11:32 PM

Originally Posted by Tock

Hmm . . . I didn't notice the post title.
Nope, I never looked into Mensa. I've known a few Mensans, never thought I'd want to bother.

I am, however, a proud Subgenius -- the only church that offers Eternal Salvation, or Triple Your Money Back!
http://www.subgenius.com

Anymore the membership is a little too liberal for my taste.

About 1 in 50 people qualify for Mensa, so it is hardly an elitist club. But it is worth the $50/year to maintain membership.

**Tock** · 12-07-2006, 11:35 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

Anymore the membership is a little too liberal for my taste.

About 1 in 50 people qualify for Mensa, so it is hardly an elitist club. But it is worth the $50/year to maintain membership.

Huh . . . so you're saying that liberals are smart people?

**Tock** · 12-07-2006, 11:41 PM

Oh, and by the way, and if you don't mind, I'm still curious to know if you have a response for my post #20 on this thread . . . You made a rather provocative and, IMHO, groundless assertion regarding an entire class of people . . .

**Logan13** · 12-07-2006, 11:46 PM

Originally Posted by Tock

Huh . . . so you're saying that liberals are smart people?

Really ever since 2002, it has become this way. Liberals are just more flamboyant than Conservatives as they think that everyone wants/needs to know there political thoughts. Conservatives tend to only perk up to rebut a lib. The thing that I like the most about Mensa is the wide array of people who are members. Many races, gay/hetero, men/women, rich/poor/middle class, libs/conservatives. There is a lack of athletic individuals though, board games and puzzles only go so far. These people would never be in the same room at the same time were it not for Mensa.
.......If only they would get rid of the gays and libs, I would go more often...

I am kidding bro!

**Tock** · 12-08-2006, 07:42 PM

Originally Posted by Tock

Oh, and by the way, and if you don't mind, I'm still curious to know if you have a response for my post #20 on this thread . . . You made a rather provocative and, IMHO, groundless assertion regarding an entire class of people . . .

. . . still curious . . .

**BgMc31** · 12-12-2006, 06:37 PM

Originally Posted by gixxerboy1

I don't think the should teach gay history. If a great gay scientist found the cure for cancer he should be in our history books. But it shouldn't say the gay scientist. just like it shouldn't say the white or Jew scientist. Have separate months for different groups just separate us more. Its teaching that we are different yet the minorities want to have the same right and be treated as equal. And they should be.
When will it end. What about Italian history month. Or Scientology month.

The day American history is taught with respect to the contributions of all ethnicities then we won't need individual months or weeks in order to focus on these groups. I do believe that some of this PC is getting ridiculous. But unfortunately we can't say we'll recognize this group and not recognize another group. Sucks, but just the way of the world.