WATCH: Ted Cruz tells Iowa group that gays are waging ‘jihad’ against Christians

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: Granite

So you believe there's a Gay Twitter Cabal that's entire purpose is to harass and otherwise make huge issues out of Conservatives refusing to have homosexuality rammed down their throats?

The GTC. I'm loving it!

originally posted by: bullcat

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

CHRISTIANS DON'T HATE GAY PEOPLE!

Give it a rest.

Most Christians don't even know what their religion is about, I am pretty sure it is not about singing and eating cupcakes and tea.

Christians don't know what their religion is about and yet you, in all your infinite arrogance somehow do? You don't merit my time or attention.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower

My point is that the most vocal, if not the only really vocal group are conservative Christians. I agree that there are some that we don't hear about that have disagreements I'm sure.

It sure seems that way. But I wonder why. Is it because they are the only ones speaking up? Or because they are the only ones being publicized? Or because they are the ones being provoked? Maybe none of the above or maybe all of the above... or maybe because the national dialogue is being deliberately scripted for the masses. And that is what worries me most about all this. No matter how one looks at it though, we are being pitted against each other (divide and conquer) in ways that can and will be used against us by those so inclined.

We all have a right -- the natural right, the Constitutional right -- to practice our religious as we see fit.

We all have the right to provide our services -- whether for free or for pay -- when, where and how we see fit.

Yes, in private settings.

I truly do not know how you make that distinction under either Constitutional law or natural law.... hence my use of the term "under color of law." The long-term implications are disastrous for all of us. It is much easier and preferable to change hearts and minds where we can, and simply walk away from the rest, than to reverse laws giving government even more power over all of us -- especially in terms of our freedom of conscience/religion.

We do not have the right to force anyone else to do anything for any reason at any time.

There are plenty of instances where the Gov can force you to do things.

Well, okay... they do indeed force us to do many things... but that doesn't mean they should or make it right or for the best.

Being in business, is servitude. You are providing a service. You don't get to discriminate. That's why we have protections for certain things.

Yes, we do -- rightly or wrongly, for all the best or the worst reasons, because we are endowed by our Creator with the ability to think and reason and make decisions for ourselves. Do you really think those who feel with every fiber of their being that gay marriage is a sin against their God will just meekly comply? I don't. They will find another way to discriminate... perhaps they'll stop baking any wedding cakes for anyone... perhaps they'll offer their cake decorating services under private contract only... perhaps they'll accidentally-on-purpose "lose" the order... perhaps they'll accidentally-on-purpose get the date "wrong"... perhaps they'll bake actually bake that cake knowing full well that if anyone knew what they'd put in it that no one will want to eat it! That's natural law. All we've done is create new reasons to punish and destroy people with the full force and power of the government. (FYI: I did not think of any of these things on my own; rather I read these suggestions across the internet.)

Forcing someone to do something at the point of the gun -- and that is the end result of ALL laws -- isn't a right. Unless, of course, one believes might makes right.

And we wonder why cops are out of control? It's because we've already told the world that freedom is dead; it's all about what we can force others to do. Might makes right after all...

I agree with you on ALL of this, trust me, I'm more of a natural law kind of guy, which these laws didn't quite exist. But they do.

And as they stand, what Christians want, is illegal. Until such a time that changes, they need to follow the law.

Honestly, I just look at this whole brouhaha as a naked power grab, exploiting a legitimate and valid concern to turn us against one another in the most hateful and hurtful ways, rather than promoting mutual respect and agape.

a reply to: Boadicea

And that is what worries me most about all this. No matter how one looks at it though, we are being pitted against each other (divide and conquer) in ways that can and will be used against us by those so inclined.

For years now I've stated that it's all about the money. Both sides of this fight at the top level are very well compensated by whatever organization they are working for.

If the fight dies down, the money goes away. So the division is certainly planned. It's also a great political talking point and since we've had one of the most divisive political landscape over the last 10 years I'm not surprised they keep dragging it out.

~Tenth

a reply to: tothetenthpower
Rush Limbaugh Twitter Ten

Ronan Farrow @RonanFarrow · Mar 22

Somewhere, Rand Paul and Scott Walker join hands in front of an effigy of Ted Cruz and begin their incantation.

twitter.com...

Perhaps all this cheap yap will fall to the wayside, as the Republicans start the process of focusing on destroying one another's credibility like in the good ole days of times past. : )

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Can you move to Hoax bin?

originally posted by: tothetenthpower

For years now I've stated that it's all about the money. Both sides of this fight at the top level are very well compensated by whatever organization they are working for.

And I've always said it was about the "power." In the final analysis though, the two work hand-in-hand, eh?

If the fight dies down, the money goes away. So the division is certainly planned. It's also a great political talking point and since we've had one of the most divisive political landscape over the last 10 years I'm not surprised they keep dragging it out.

I think it came close to dying down several years ago, when it seemed public opinion on both sides supported "civil unions" with all the legal rights and privileges of "marriage." It seems that most people understand and agree that what government does for one they must do for all; hence, no special government rights and privileges for some but not all, especially based on religious beliefs. But that couldn't be -- the people actually agreeing on a reasonable and peaceful compromise -- so they had to up the ante.

I also think they had to take it beyond organized religious arena, as more and more Christian churches have found reasons to support gay marriage within their doctrines. Again, that couldn't be -- Christians must be portrayed and therefore perceived as the worst scum of the earth in any and all ways. And, sadly, there are always those Christians willing to be THAT Christian...

It's ALL very sad really.

It is tragic when our WWWfriends think that we are responsible for the actions of the politicians in our country. It does not matter who will step in, they are all part of the forward movement of our changing american agenda.

They say "Well "You" voted them in!!!"

No, we had little if anything to do with who was elected to be voted upon.

a reply to: Boadicea

Yeah, we see eye to eye on this.

I didn't care if they called it happy rainbow time when it came to civil unions, as long as it provided all the same rights.

My argument for gay marriage was always legal, not moral. Government can't create an a system of benefits ( marriage contract) without applying it evenly among the populace that are 18 years or older, consenting and mentally competent.

~Tenth

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: works4dhs


No they don't. They are a business that serves the public. Their religion, doesn't give them permission to discriminate, regardless of what they believe. If they do want to legally do that, they'll need their own member's only establishment, like a church or a golf club.

Otherwise I'd be allowed to murder people in the name of Allah and because it's my religion, well there should be a law that protects me from prosecution right?

How did it get from not selling food to murder? It's ridiculous and unreasonable to compare the two. So what if a Christian owner of a business doesn't want to do business because of religious reasons, just go to some other place. But murder, that's something completely different.

The owner should have the right to refuse on religious grounds, even if it is hypocritical. The owner will get less customers and will go broke at some point. Or not, it's all fair game.

Gays should just be more patient with 'traditional' people and certainly refrain from venting their own issues at people who choose not to go along with their acceptance movement. Can't win them all, they should focus on businesses that do go along.

originally posted by: bullcat

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

CHRISTIANS DON'T HATE GAY PEOPLE!

Give it a rest.

Most Christians don't even know what their religion is about, I am pretty sure it is not about singing and eating cupcakes and tea.

This Christian knows exactly what his religion is about.

I'm not pretty sure - I know it is not about legitimizing sodomy and sham marriages or the condoning of any sinful behavior.

Consequently, Christians are not permittied to hate those who suffer from same-sex attraction - we are to prayerfully love them.

From a Christian perspective, loving a person does not include being a willing participant in a lifestyle that is contrary to honoring God. Loving a person sometimes means stating hard truths.

One of truths is that same-sex activity is an abomination to God.

Another of those truths is that marriage is the permenant union of one man and one woman for the beneficial rearing of children.

A no-less important truth is that God's mercy is available to all, through Jesus his Son who died for me, and who died for people who suffer from same-sex attraction.


BTW, no cupcakes and tea. We eat the flesh and blood of our Savior.

a reply to: johnnyjoe1979

How did it get from not selling food to murder? It's ridiculous and unreasonable to compare the two.

It's not though, not without defining very clearly what 'religious freedom' means. As it stands, it means anything related to your religion can be used to basically do anything. Deny access to services, treatment from doctors, judicial proceedings etc.

All these things, could fall under the broad definition of "Religious Freedom" or the idea of allowing one to make certain decisions about their behavior and actions, based around their religious ideals and convictions.

So it's not too far a stretch to quote murder as being one of the things that could become protected under Religious Freedom laws.

The owner should have the right to refuse on religious grounds, even if it is hypocritical.

It's not the hypocrisy that's the issue, it's the legality that's the problem. Laws such as these, create the environment where discrimination can and will occur.

It's not only on that side, I also don't want Atheists to be able to deny services to Christians based on their non beliefs.

I want doctors to provide access to treatment and services, and not deny them based on BS moral authority grounds.

Also, I'm a tax payer. Every business receives benefits from the government, those directly translate into the spending of my tax dollars for those programs. You receive any kind of government benefit, you have the complete and utter obligation to serve any and all tax payers.

The owner will get less customers and will go broke at some point. Or not, it's all fair game.

What if only one such business exists within a reasonable distance?

Gays should just be more patient with 'traditional' people and certainly refrain from venting their own issues at people who choose not to go along with their acceptance movement. Can't win them all, they should focus on businesses that do go along.

I could just say that the other way around and replace traditional with progressive. And when people pass legislation that make it so that you could potentially be denied service based on something stupid like sexuality, I expect people to be a bit less patient and bit more pro-active in those conversations.

~Tenth

a reply to: Seamrog

Maybe you can provide an answer to my questions:

- is it okay to participate in a wedding of two heterosexual people who have been divorced in previous marriages?

- is it okay to participate in a wedding of two heterosexual people who have made the conscious decision NOT to have children?

-is it okay to participate in a wedding of two heterosexual people who have had sex with each other prior to the wedding?

-is it okay to participate in a wedding of two heterosexual people who are planning to be in an open marriage?

Why can't the rhetoric just shift to a new center and use a new word, like bonded. If marriage is a religious institution, a holy bond between man and woman, then guess what? It doesn't get any governmental benefits. If it's a contract between man, woman, and god, then what business does the government have in it?

Then on top of their 'holy matrimony' they can sign a contract with the government that grants state/federal benefits to the bonded pair. This goverental union, bonding, has absolutely zero religious connotation or context, and also has all of the governmental benefits that marriage holds. It's just not called a marriage.

Then, when the Christian right calls foul and cries persecution we can all laugh as they move the goal line somewhere else while still trying to claim it's not about hate and discrimination.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Seamrog

Maybe you can provide an answer to my questions:

- is it okay to participate in a wedding of two heterosexual people who have been divorced in previous marriages?

For Roman Catholics, it is not OK to condone any ceremony that does not respect the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Tradition of the Church.


A divorce does not end a marriage. A marriage, like an ordination, is permanent.


- is it okay to participate in a wedding of two heterosexual people who have made the conscious decision NOT to have children?


I think this is too broad a brush, as it can depend on a number of circumstances, but similar to the reply above, a Roman Catholic could not participate in a marriage where an otherwise capable couple chooses not to be open to new life.



-is it okay to participate in a wedding of two heterosexual people who have had sex with each other prior to the wedding?


Part of marriage preparation includes reception of the Sacrament of Recocnciliation on a frequent basis. One would assume that any mortal sin would have been forgiven through reconciliation and moved beyond through repentance. If a fornicating couple refused to stop fornicating prior to a marriage, it would not be proper for a priest to marry them, or for Roman Catholics to attend the marriage if he did.

-is it okay to participate in a wedding of two heterosexual people who are planning to be in an open marriage?


No.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: Boadicea

I didn't care if they called it happy rainbow time when it came to civil unions, as long as it provided all the same rights.

Exactly. That should be the only focus of the issue. Natural rights of free will and freedom of conscience apply equally to the LGBT community. They have every right to do what they can for themselves and by themselves without interference by Christians or any one, as well as equal and due process by government and their laws.

I'd like to add another wrinkle to be debate so to speak... There is a traditional liturgy within the church to "marry" two men that goes back to the earliest days of the Christian church, called Adelphopoiesis, and a similar ceremony called "enfrerement" in France.

Same-Sex Marriage Is a Religious Institution Deserving Lawful Protection

Obviously, it is not a commonly known or performed ceremony, and is subject to interpretation by different denominations.... But it's a poignant reminder of that which the founding fathers knew and tried to prevent: Christians persecuting Christians and forcing their version of religion on everyone else.

Those who don't learn from history and all that, right???

a reply to: Seamrog

You wearing a mix of fabrics there bud? Had any shellfish today? What about testicle cancer? Only sinners do that!

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: bullcat

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

CHRISTIANS DON'T HATE GAY PEOPLE!

Give it a rest.

Most Christians don't even know what their religion is about, I am pretty sure it is not about singing and eating cupcakes and tea.

This Christian knows exactly what his religion is about.

I'm not pretty sure - I know it is not about legitimizing sodomy and sham marriages or the condoning of any sinful behavior.

Consequently, Christians are not permittied to hate those who suffer from same-sex attraction - we are to prayerfully love them.

From a Christian perspective, loving a person does not include being a willing participant in a lifestyle that is contrary to honoring God. Loving a person sometimes means stating hard truths.

One of truths is that same-sex activity is an abomination to God.

Another of those truths is that marriage is the permenant union of one man and one woman for the beneficial rearing of children.

A no-less important truth is that God's mercy is available to all, through Jesus his Son who died for me, and who died for people who suffer from same-sex attraction.


BTW, no cupcakes and tea. We eat the flesh and blood of our Savior.

I'm sorry, but the above is a great example of why I became an atheist at an early age. I'm not gay but I refuse to believe that some deity has damned millions of people over the fact that they can't help falling in love with someone that happens to be the same sex. It's monstrous. It's immoral. I also regard it as being deeply, deeply, offensive. You really think that gay people 'suffer from same-sex attraction'? My wife knew a man who tried to deny that he was gay for years and was miserable. He suffered trying to be straight. Once he came out he became happy and he now lives with his husband in Australia.
Besides - 'abomination to god'??? What, like eating fish on the wrong day, not tithing, touching my wife when she has her period, touching anything made from a pig or working on the Sabbath? Oh, I do all of the above. I eat a lot of shellfish as well. So here's my question - this god of yours seems to lay down a lot of Bronze and Iron Age rules. Now that we're in the 21st Century why should we continue to believe in this giant thug in the sky?

a reply to: framedragged


LOL - we went for seafood after Holy Mass today.

Had a plate of jumbo shrimp that was TDF!