On 11/22/2016 7:18 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:
Muggles formulated the question :
On 11/22/2016 4:32 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:
Muggles submitted this idea :
On 11/22/2016 4:13 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:
Muggles formulated the question :
I believe it's wrong to label gay, or any other combination of union
"marriage". Marriage was an institution created by God to join
one man
and one woman in matrimony, and it reflects the relationship between
Gods church and his people. Any other combination is not "marriage",
and a perversion of the institution God created.

Superstition and fairy tales, what a great foundation for
legislation in
a secular government.


Faith and deeply held respect for what God created is not superstition.


Superstition substantiated by fairy tales. Impressive.


Faith ... There's nothing impressive about rejecting God.


Something has to actually exist before it can be rejected. You and the
other non-secular whack-a-doodles have conjured deities, pretend they
are real and attempt to use them to persuade other people to do and give
you what you want.

Actually, a bunch of us have spoken via the ballot box. We have a hope
and a future in this country.

Produce your god(s), then I will reject them. In the meantime, I simply
reject your lies, delusions, mental illness and manipulations.


--
Maggie

On 11/22/2016 8:22 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 16:21:17 -0600, Muggles
wrote:

On 11/22/2016 4:13 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:
Muggles formulated the question :
I believe it's wrong to label gay, or any other combination of union
"marriage". Marriage was an institution created by God to join one man
and one woman in matrimony, and it reflects the relationship between
Gods church and his people. Any other combination is not "marriage",
and a perversion of the institution God created.

Superstition and fairy tales, what a great foundation for legislation in
a secular government.

Faith and deeply held respect for what God created is not superstition.

The only problem is you MAY not be correct.
Marriage within the church is "as you described it" - but it existed
in many VERY different forms for millenia.

See my latest post on the matter.


I read your post. The problem with that is what people do with what
God's given them isn't necessarily being done how God instituted it.

--
Maggie

On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 10:48:50 PM UTC-6, Muggles wrote:
On 11/22/2016 6:33 PM, In Trump We Trust wrote:
On 11/22/2016 6:48 PM, Muggles wrote:
WRONG! Homosexuals had the SAME rights heterosexuals had. They could
marry anyone they chose of the opposite gender.

I was born heterosexual. I've been heterosexual all my life. I couldn't
change my sexual preference if I wanted to.

Marriage was defined as being between one male and one female. Do you
think it fair to re-define marriage in order to appease a special
interest group? I don't.

So I suspect it is the same for homosexuals. They were born homosexual.
They can't/don't want to change either.

We will disagree on this point, too.

So why do you (or God) want to deny them the same rights and privileges
heterosexuals enjoy?

Since when is marriage about rights or privileges?
--
Maggie


I remember something about a circuit court judge who told a homosexual couple to go to federal court to get a divorce since the federal government had seized jurisdiction over marriage between homosexuals. It's called pay to play.ヽ(ヅ)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Snickering Monster

On 11/22/2016 11:48 PM, Muggles wrote:


So I suspect it is the same for homosexuals. They were born homosexual.
They can't/don't want to change either.

We will disagree on this point, too.


Wow. Just incredible. What is your reasoning to disagree?

Muggles pretended :


When secular humanist whack-a-doodles.... blah blah blah ... you get my
point.


Yes, your point is that you have absolutely no defense for your
invisible friend insanity and delusions.


Funny, our money has "In GOD we Trust" on it. So much for this not
being a nation grounded in Christian principles.


"In God We Trust" was adopted as the official motto of the USA in 1956.
It is nothing but a form of ceremonial deism (look it up) and has
absolutely no bearing on the legal construct of the country.

Not to burst your non-secular bubble, but, in 1797, John Adams and the
Senate, by unanimous vote, ratified and signed into law the Treaty of
Tripoli. Article 11 of the treaty clearly states:

"the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense,
founded on the Christian religion."

Treaties ratified by the Senate and signed by the POTUS are considered
to be the law of the land.


smile

Bless your heart.....

On 22 Nov 2016 19:07:04 GMT, notbob wrote:

On 2016-11-22, Muggles wrote:
On 11/22/2016 7:18 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 22:35:30 -0600, Muggles
wrote:

On 11/21/2016 4:40 PM, wrote:

Forcing the church to sanction a homosexual marriage by banns goes
against freedom of religion. The church isn't saying you can't get
married - It is just saying you can't get married here.


I want the definition of "marriage" to go back to what it was before -
the union of one man and one woman in matrimony. Any other combination
that wants to be united can be called something else.

Sadly I think that ship has already sailed

Maybe, maybe not. It may take some years to change it, but it's not
impossible.

Why do you even give a rat's ass!?

He wants a divorce. It would be automatic if Federal laws
outlawed same sex marriage.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 07:49:22 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 11/22/2016 11:48 PM, Muggles wrote:


So I suspect it is the same for homosexuals. They were born homosexual.
They can't/don't want to change either.

We will disagree on this point, too.


Wow. Just incredible. What is your reasoning to disagree?

Pleading insanity ?
I can tell when a child is gay from about age 5.
But some Luddites still think it's an infectious disease
spread my watching the media.
They used to think it was caused by not reading the bible,
until the massive pedophily scandal came out and the vatican paid to
make it "go away".
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 6:45:28 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 11/22/2016 4:40 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 5:26:02 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 11/22/2016 4:16 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 5:13:09 PM UTC-5, Sterling Archer wrote:
Muggles formulated the question :
I believe it's wrong to label gay, or any other combination of union
"marriage". Marriage was an institution created by God to join one man
and one woman in matrimony, and it reflects the relationship between
Gods church and his people. Any other combination is not "marriage",
and a perversion of the institution God created.

Superstition and fairy tales, what a great foundation for legislation
in a secular government.


+1

I'd like to see someone prove that god created marriage. The same
people that believe that, believe god created the universe in 6 days,
a woman from the rib of a man, and that dinosaurs lived at the same
time as man.

Whether some want to recognize God created marriage, our country was
formed based on Biblical principles, and marriage between one man and
one woman was one of those principles.



The bible also supported and justified slavery as one of it's principles.

No. The bible addressed the issue of slavery because it was a well
known practice at the time. It never endorsed slavery.


ROFL. The mental gymnastics you go through to come to your silly
conclusions are amazing. Of course the bible endorsed slavery:

One example:

And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her. And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money.

€”€‰Exodus 21

And aren't you bible thumpers always telling us how the bible, the church
is our guide from telling right from wrong? What the hell good is the
bible, if it says that you shall not commit adultery or steal, but holding
people at slaves, it not only doesn't condemn it, but actually talks
about how to do it?





And the US was formed allowing slavery as part of it's custom and govt
enforced laws, so I guess that was all peachy keen too, eh?

Slavery was and has been a well known practice in many civilizations
prior to America becoming a nation. The immigrants who came to this
country all brought their practices and customs with them, and that
includes the practice of slavery. As a nation we fought to find our own
identity and defined what we as a nation would support and defend. We
worked out that issue and the practice of slavery lost the battle here
in the US.

--
Maggie

And exactly the same can be said about same sex marriage issue. Except
folks like you are like the slave holders in the south who could not
accept the changes and clung to their "customs" and the bible to try
to justify slavery.

On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 6:38:44 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 11/22/2016 4:29 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:
trader_4 explained on 11.22.2016 :
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 5:13:09 PM UTC-5, Sterling Archer wrote:
Muggles formulated the question :
I believe it's wrong to label gay, or any other combination of union
"marriage". Marriage was an institution created by God to join one man
and one woman in matrimony, and it reflects the relationship between
Gods church and his people. Any other combination is not "marriage",
and a perversion of the institution God created.

Superstition and fairy tales, what a great foundation for legislation
in a secular government.

+1

I'd like to see someone prove that god created marriage. The same
people that believe that, believe god created the universe in 6 days,
a woman from the rib of a man, and that dinosaurs lived at the same
time as man.

Why not just cut through all the bull **** and just demand that anyone
provide empirical, irrefutable evidence of the existence of any
omnipotent, omniscient deity.

Once the existence of gods are scientifically established, then humanity
can embark upon determining why we should care.

Why do you care that anyone believes in something you don't have
empirical evidence of?

--
Maggie

We care when you try to then use those beliefs to force us to live by
your rules. You just gave an excellent example, you actually believe
the constitution doesn't allow us to be atheists or agnostics. The
same sex marriage thing is another classic example, where the bible is
used to deny same sex marriage or civil unions because you folks
believe it's a sin based on the bible.

On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 11:56:56 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 11/22/2016 7:18 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:
Muggles formulated the question :
On 11/22/2016 4:32 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:
Muggles submitted this idea :
On 11/22/2016 4:13 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:
Muggles formulated the question :
I believe it's wrong to label gay, or any other combination of union
"marriage". Marriage was an institution created by God to join
one man
and one woman in matrimony, and it reflects the relationship between
Gods church and his people. Any other combination is not "marriage",
and a perversion of the institution God created.

Superstition and fairy tales, what a great foundation for
legislation in
a secular government.


Faith and deeply held respect for what God created is not superstition.


Superstition substantiated by fairy tales. Impressive.


Faith ... There's nothing impressive about rejecting God.


Something has to actually exist before it can be rejected. You and the
other non-secular whack-a-doodles have conjured deities, pretend they
are real and attempt to use them to persuade other people to do and give
you what you want.

Actually, a bunch of us have spoken via the ballot box. We have a hope
and a future in this country.


I see, so Trump is going to now force religion on all of us? He's
a pious bible thumper? I saw him totally fumble up that Corinthians BS,
while trying to con the christian right into voting for him.
You would think that would be
enough to convince the religious Trumpets that he's a fake, phony fraud.
He's said he's not going to do anything to change the SC ruling on abortion. Was he lying then?

On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 9:20:59 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 14:13:12 -0800, "Sterling Archer"
wrote:

Muggles formulated the question :
I believe it's wrong to label gay, or any other combination of union
"marriage". Marriage was an institution created by God to join one man
and one woman in matrimony, and it reflects the relationship between
Gods church and his people. Any other combination is not "marriage",
and a perversion of the institution God created.

Superstition and fairy tales, what a great foundation for legislation
in a secular government.



Moonstruck partners pledging eternal love may be the current
definition of marriage, but this starry-eyed picture has relatively
modern origins.

Though marriage has ancient roots, until recently love had little to
do with it.


"What marriage had in common was that it really was not about the
relationship between the man and the woman," said Stephanie Coontz,
the author of "Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage,"
(Penguin Books, 2006). "It was a way of getting in-laws, of making
alliances and expanding the family labor force."
But as family plots of land gave way to market economies and Kings
ceded power to democracies, the notion of marriage transformed. Now,
most Americans see marriage as a bond between equals that's all about
love and companionship.
Here is a "condensed" version of the "history of marriage"

1. Arranged alliances

Marriage is a truly ancient institution that predates recorded
history. But early marriage was seen as a strategic alliance between
families, with the youngsters often having no say in the matter. In
some cultures, parents even married one child to the spirit of a
deceased child in order to strengthen familial bonds, Coontz said.

2. Family ties

Keeping alliances within the family was also quite common. In the
Bible, the forefathers Isaac and Jacob married cousins and Abraham
married his half-sister. Cousin marriages remain common throughout the
world, particularly in the Middle East. In fact, Rutgers
anthropologist Robin Fox has estimated that the majority of all
marriages throughout history were between first and second cousins.

3. Polygamy preferred

Monogamy may seem central to marriage now, but in fact, polygamy was
common throughout history. From Jacob, to Kings David and Solomon,
Biblical men often had anywhere from two to thousands of wives. (Of
course, though polygamy may have been an ideal that high-status men
aspired to, for purely mathematical reasons most men likely had at
most one wife). In a few cultures, one woman married multiple men, and
there have even been some rare instances of group marriages. [Life's
Extremes: Monogamy vs. Polygamy]

4. Babies optional

In many early cultures, men could dissolve a marriage or take another
wife if a woman was infertile. However, the early Christian church was
a trailblazer in arguing that marriage was not contingent on producing
offspring.

"The early Christian church held the position that if you can
procreate you must not refuse to procreate. But they always took the
position that they would annul a marriage if a man could not have sex
with his wife, but not if they could not conceive," Coontz told
LiveScience.

5. Monogamy established

Monogamy became the guiding principle for Western marriages sometime
between the sixth and the ninth centuries, Coontz said.

"There was a protracted battle between the Catholic Church and the old
nobility and kings who wanted to say 'I can take a second wife,'"
Coontz said.

The Church eventually prevailed, with monogamy becoming central to the
notion of marriage by the ninth century.

6. Monogamy lite

Still, monogamous marriage was very different from the modern
conception of mutual fidelity. Though marriage was legally or
sacramentally recognized between just one man and one woman, until the
19th century, men had wide latitude to engage in extramarital affairs,
Coontz said. Any children resulting from those trysts, however, would
be illegitimate, with no claim to the man's inheritance.

"Men's promiscuity was quite protected by the dual laws of legal
monogamy but tolerance €” basically enabling €” of informal
promiscuity," Coontz said.

Women caught stepping out, by contrast, faced serious risk and
censure.

7. State or church?

Marriages in the West were originally contracts between the families
of two partners, with the Catholic Church and the state staying out of
it. In 1215, the Catholic Church decreed that partners had to publicly
post banns, or notices of an impending marriage in a local parish, to
cut down on the frequency of invalid marriages (the Church eliminated
that requirement in the 1980s). Still, until the 1500s, the Church
accepted a couple's word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with
no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed.

8. Civil marriage

In the last several hundred years, the state has played a greater role
in marriage. For instance, Massachusetts began requiring marriage
licenses in 1639, and by the 19th-century marriage licenses were
common in the United States.

9. Love matches

By about 250 years ago, the notion of love matches gained traction,
Coontz said, meaning marriage was based on love and possibly sexual
desire. But mutual attraction in marriage wasn't important until about
a century ago. In fact, in Victorian England, many held that women
didn't have strong sexual urges at all, Coontz said.

10. Market economics

Around the world, family-arranged alliances have gradually given way
to love matches, and a transition from an agricultural to a market
economy plays a big role in that transition, Coontz said.

Parents historically controlled access to inheritance of agricultural
land. But with the spread of a market economy, "it's less important
for people to have permission of their parents to wait to give them an
inheritance or to work on their parents' land," Coontz said. "So it's
more possible for young people to say, 'heck, I'm going to marry who I
want.'"

Modern markets also allow women to play a greater economic role, which
lead to their greater independence. And the expansion of democracy,
with its emphasis on liberty and individual choice, may also have
stacked the deck for love matches.

11. Different spheres

Still, marriage wasn't about equality until about 50 years ago. At
that time, women and men had unique rights and responsibilities within
marriage. For instance, in the United States, marital rape was legal
in many states until the 1970s, and women often could not open credit
cards in their own names, Coontz said. Women were entitled to support
from their husbands, but didn't have the right to decide on the
distribution of community property. And if a wife was injured or
killed, a man could sue the responsible party for depriving him of
"services around the home," whereas women didn't have the same option,
Coontz said.

12. Partnership of equals

By about 50 years ago, the notion that men and women had identical
obligations within marriage began to take root. Instead of being about
unique, gender-based roles, most partners conceived of their unions in
terms of flexible divisions of labor, companionship, and mutual sexual
attraction.

13. Gay marriage gains ground

Changes in straight marriage paved the way for gay marriage. Once
marriage was not legally based on complementary, gender-based roles,
gay marriage seemed like a logical next step.

"One of the reasons for the stunningly rapid increase in acceptance of
same sex marriage is because heterosexuals have completely changed
their notion of what marriage is between a man and a woman," Coontz
said. "We now believe it is based on love, mutual sexual attraction,
equality and a flexible division of labor."


I must say, that is an excellent find. It shows that contrary to the
anti-gay marriage folks beliefs, marriage has been constantly evolving
over the ages and at times has been far from the one man, one woman,
equal, in love picture that is portrayed.

On 11/22/2016 11:36 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 10:48:50 PM UTC-6, Muggles wrote:
On 11/22/2016 6:33 PM, In Trump We Trust wrote:
On 11/22/2016 6:48 PM, Muggles wrote:
WRONG! Homosexuals had the SAME rights heterosexuals had. They could
marry anyone they chose of the opposite gender.

I was born heterosexual. I've been heterosexual all my life. I couldn't
change my sexual preference if I wanted to.

Marriage was defined as being between one male and one female. Do you
think it fair to re-define marriage in order to appease a special
interest group? I don't.

So I suspect it is the same for homosexuals. They were born homosexual.
They can't/don't want to change either.

We will disagree on this point, too.

So why do you (or God) want to deny them the same rights and privileges
heterosexuals enjoy?

Since when is marriage about rights or privileges?



I remember something about a circuit court judge who told a homosexual couple to go to federal court to get a divorce since the federal government had seized jurisdiction over marriage between homosexuals. It's called pay to play.ヽ(ヅ)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Snickering Monster


Pay to play - catchy phrase there!
--
Maggie

On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 6:48:35 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 11/22/2016 4:55 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 5:24:49 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 11/22/2016 4:13 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 11:35:30 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:

I want the definition of "marriage" to go back to what it was before -
the union of one man and one woman in matrimony. Any other combination
that wants to be united can be called something else.




The big problems come when you then deny those other unions the rights
and equal protection under the law that the govt extends to unions
that are a man and woman.


There is no denial of rights because EVERYONE still has the same right
to a marriage between one man and one woman.


There most certainly is a denial of rights, because a same sex couple
was denied the same rights that a heterosexual couple was granted.

WRONG! Homosexuals had the SAME rights heterosexuals had. They could
marry anyone they chose of the opposite gender.

--
Maggie

Show us where in the constitution it says that your rights are based on
you choosing a partner of a certain sex. Does a woman only have the right
to free speech if she's single or married to a man, but loses that right
if she marries another woman? THAT is what was going on, the unequal
application of rights. If a woman marries a man, she gets tax benefits,
survivor benefits, survivor rights to property, rights to property in
a divorce, social security benefits, the right to visit and determine
care for her spouse in the hospital. If she marries a woman, all that
and more was denied her.

The same "tradition", "bible", "custom" arguments were made for those
trying to maintain slavery, deny women the right to vote, deny blacks
the right to vote, deny gay people the right to serve in the military.
How did all those work out?

Look, you can whine all you want. The SC weighed in on the issue, it's
over, just like slavery is over. There is no way you're going to put
that toothpaste back in the tube. Even your boy Trump just said that
the gay marriage thing is now irrelevant because it's "done".

On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 07:01:29 -0800 (PST), trader_4 wrote:


Actually, a bunch of us have spoken via the ballot box. We have a hope
and a future in this country.


I see, so Trump is going to now force religion on all of us? He's
a pious bible thumper? I saw him totally fumble up that Corinthians BS,
while trying to con the christian right into voting for him.
You would think that would be
enough to convince the religious Trumpets that he's a fake, phony fraud.
He's said he's not going to do anything to change the SC ruling on abortion. Was he lying then?



You just don't get it. The more outlandish, the more phony and the bigger the fraud, the more appealing the
person and concepts are to the religious.

Logic and reality are boring and confusing to the "faithful", while unanswered questions are like a white hot
poker creating a void in their brains. Those voids must be filled, at all costs, with no regard for logic or
reasonability.

Reminds me of a quote from George Bernard Shaw:

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man
is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality."

On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 11:48:50 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 11/22/2016 6:33 PM, In Trump We Trust wrote:
On 11/22/2016 6:48 PM, Muggles wrote:
WRONG! Homosexuals had the SAME rights heterosexuals had. They could
marry anyone they chose of the opposite gender.


I was born heterosexual. I've been heterosexual all my life. I couldn't
change my sexual preference if I wanted to.

Marriage was defined as being between one male and one female. Do you
think it fair to re-define marriage in order to appease a special
interest group? I don't.

So I suspect it is the same for homosexuals. They were born homosexual.
They can't/don't want to change either.

We will disagree on this point, too.


I assume you are heterosexual. Tell us at what age, what moment
you decided to be heterosexual, what process you went through to
reach that decision that would shape your feelings, your emotions.

And science has shown the existence of homosexuality in animal
populations too. Do you think animals go through this same
evaluation process, to come to a decision? Or is it biologically
determined, as is necessary to insure the survival of species, ie
the vast majority are biologically hetero, but some wind up gay,
just like some small percentages of all species have differing traits?




So why do you (or God) want to deny them the same rights and privileges
heterosexuals enjoy?


Since when is marriage about rights or privileges?

--
Maggie


When you base laws on it, like taxes, survivor benefits, social security
benefits, pensions, the right to adopt, the right to visit and make
decisions for a spouse in a hospital. Good grief.

On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 8:38:35 AM UTC-5, Shadow wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 07:49:22 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 11/22/2016 11:48 PM, Muggles wrote:


So I suspect it is the same for homosexuals. They were born homosexual.
They can't/don't want to change either.

We will disagree on this point, too.


Wow. Just incredible. What is your reasoning to disagree?

Pleading insanity ?
I can tell when a child is gay from about age 5.
But some Luddites still think it's an infectious disease
spread my watching the media.
They used to think it was caused by not reading the bible,
until the massive pedophily scandal came out and the vatican paid to
make it "go away".
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

Since M thinks that being gay or straight is a choice, I'm waiting for
her to tell us about exactly when and how she made that choice herself,
what process she went through while deciding.

On 11/23/2016 6:49 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 11/22/2016 11:48 PM, Muggles wrote:


So I suspect it is the same for homosexuals. They were born homosexual.
They can't/don't want to change either.

We will disagree on this point, too.

Wow. Just incredible. What is your reasoning to disagree?

Babies don't have a sexual orientation. They are born with a gender.

Sexual orientation comes into play when our hormones begin to produce,
and we mature. How can a baby be born homosexual when the hormones that
influence our sexual drives don't begin producing until adolescence?

--
Maggie

On 11/23/2016 7:14 AM, Sterling Archer wrote:
Muggles pretended :


When secular humanist whack-a-doodles.... blah blah blah ... you get my
point.


Yes, your point is that you have absolutely no defense for your
invisible friend insanity and delusions.

Why do I need to defend my belief in God?

Funny, our money has "In GOD we Trust" on it. So much for this not
being a nation grounded in Christian principles.


"In God We Trust" was adopted as the official motto of the USA in 1956.
It is nothing but a form of ceremonial deism (look it up) and has
absolutely no bearing on the legal construct of the country.

Not to burst your non-secular bubble, but, in 1797, John Adams and the
Senate, by unanimous vote, ratified and signed into law the Treaty of
Tripoli. Article 11 of the treaty clearly states:

"the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense,
founded on the Christian religion."

Treaties ratified by the Senate and signed by the POTUS are considered
to be the law of the land.

smile

Bless your heart.....

Aren't you charming, but still so wrong.

One of the first found references of the motto €œIn God We Trust€� is
heard in the U.S. National Anthem, The Star-Spangled Banner. The song
was written by Francis Scott Key in 1814 and later adopted as the
national anthem. In the last stanza Key writes a variation of the
phrase: €œ...And this be our motto: In God is our trust. And the Star
Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave, Oer the land of the free and the
home of the brave.€� The words were shortened to In God We Trust and
first applied to U.S. coins in 1864...

From Treasury Department records, it appears that the first such appeal
came in a letter dated November 13, 1861. It was written to Secretary
Chase by Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville,
Pennsylvania. As a result, Secretary Chase instructed James Pollock,
Director of the Mint at Philadelphia, to prepare a motto, in a letter
dated November 20, 1861:

"Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or
safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be
declared on our national coins. You will cause a device to be prepared
without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and
tersest words possible this national recognition. It was found that the
Act of Congress dated January 18, 1837, prescribed the mottoes and
devices that should be placed upon the coins of the United States.€�

American history demonstrates repeatedly that the nation was founded on
Christian principles and its founding fathers wished to acknowledge that
fact all over Washington D.C. buildings, in official documents, and
historical speeches. Less than a hundred years after its Declaration of
Independence, In God We Trust was proclaimed on its coins. America is a
free nation, and freedom of religion is still guaranteed in the
Constitutions First Amendment.

President Thomas Jefferson wrote, "The God who gave us life gave us
liberty at the same time" and asked €˜Can the liberties of a nation be
secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are of God?"
http://www.allabouthistory.org/in-god-we-trust.htm

--
Maggie

On 11/23/2016 7:23 AM, Sterling Archer wrote:
Muggles brought next idea :

Something has to actually exist before it can be rejected. You and the
other non-secular whack-a-doodles have conjured deities, pretend they
are real and attempt to use them to persuade other people to do and give
you what you want.

Actually, a bunch of us have spoken via the ballot box. We have a hope
and a future in this country.


Every citizen has a hope and a future in this country.

However, your supernatural delusions, superstitions and mass mental
illness has no place and never again will be codified as law in our nation.

On the contrary ... belief in God is what prompted our founding fathers
to work so long and hard to have a free nation.


George Washington
"I now make it my earnest prayer the God would have you and the State
over which you preside, in His holy protection, that he would incline
the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and
obedience to government; to entertain a brotherly affection and love for
one another, for their fellow citizens of the United States at large,
and particularly for their brethren who have served in the field; and,
finally, that he would be most graciously pleased to dispose us all to
do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity,
humility, and pacific temper of mind, which were the characteristics of
the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble
imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a
happy nation." June 8, 1783 in a letter to the governors of the states
on disbanding the army. "

Thomas Jefferson
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a
nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a
conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the
Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?
Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that
His justice cannot sleep forever." 1781, Query XVIII of his Notes on
that State of Virginia.

"My views...are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very
different from the anti-christian system imputed to me by those who know
nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am,
indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am
a Christian in the only sense in which he wished any one to be;
sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others..."
April 21, 1803 in a letter to Dr. Benjamin..."

James Madison
"We have all been encouraged to feel in the guardianship and guidance of
that Almighty Being, whose power regulates the destiny of nations."
March 4, 1809 Inaugural Address

€œWe have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the
power of government, far from it. Weve staked the future of all our
political institutions upon our capacity€¦to sustain ourselves according
to the Ten Commandments of God.€� [1778 to the General Assembly of the
State of Virginia]


Benjamin Franklin
"Here is my Creed. I believe in on God, the Creator of the Universe.
That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped.

That the most acceptable service we render to Him is in doing good to
His other Children. That the soul of Man is immortal, and will be
treated with Justice in another Life respecting its conduct in this.
These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound Religion, and I
regard them as you do in whatever Sect I meet with them.

John Adams
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were.
.. . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I
then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of
Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and
attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as
unalterable as human nature. (taken from a letter to Thomas Jefferson on
June 28, 1813)

(mo http://www.aproundtable.org/tps30info/beliefs.html )



--
Maggie

On 11/23/2016 8:50 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 6:45:28 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 11/22/2016 4:40 PM, trader_4 wrote:

The bible also supported and justified slavery as one of it's principles.

No. The bible addressed the issue of slavery because it was a well
known practice at the time. It never endorsed slavery.

ROFL. The mental gymnastics you go through to come to your silly
conclusions are amazing. Of course the bible endorsed slavery:

And you see this text as being an endorsement?

One example:

And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out
as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has betrothed
her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to
sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her. And
if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the
custom of daughters. If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food,
her clothing, and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her,
then she shall go out free, without paying money.

€”€‰Exodus 21


And aren't you bible thumpers always telling us how the bible, the church
is our guide from telling right from wrong? What the hell good is the
bible, if it says that you shall not commit adultery or steal, but holding
people at slaves, it not only doesn't condemn it, but actually talks
about how to do it?

That text was describing what people were doing, and it was telling them
to do right by the people they had authority over.



--
Maggie

On 11/23/2016 8:55 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 6:38:44 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 11/22/2016 4:29 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:

Once the existence of gods are scientifically established, then humanity
can embark upon determining why we should care.

Why do you care that anyone believes in something you don't have
empirical evidence of?

We care when you try to then use those beliefs to force us to live by
your rules.

Oh, so it's OK for you to force people of faith to live by YOUR rules??


--
Maggie

On 11/23/2016 9:01 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 11:56:56 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 11/22/2016 7:18 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:
Muggles formulated the question :
On 11/22/2016 4:32 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:
Muggles submitted this idea :
On 11/22/2016 4:13 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:
Muggles formulated the question :
I believe it's wrong to label gay, or any other combination of union
"marriage". Marriage was an institution created by God to join
one man
and one woman in matrimony, and it reflects the relationship between
Gods church and his people. Any other combination is not "marriage",
and a perversion of the institution God created.

Superstition and fairy tales, what a great foundation for
legislation in
a secular government.


Faith and deeply held respect for what God created is not superstition.


Superstition substantiated by fairy tales. Impressive.


Faith ... There's nothing impressive about rejecting God.

Something has to actually exist before it can be rejected. You and the
other non-secular whack-a-doodles have conjured deities, pretend they
are real and attempt to use them to persuade other people to do and give
you what you want.


Actually, a bunch of us have spoken via the ballot box. We have a hope
and a future in this country.


I see, so Trump is going to now force religion on all of us? He's
a pious bible thumper? I saw him totally fumble up that Corinthians BS,
while trying to con the christian right into voting for him.
You would think that would be
enough to convince the religious Trumpets that he's a fake, phony fraud.
He's said he's not going to do anything to change the SC ruling on abortion. Was he lying then?

Trump now has the power to change America by appointing justices to the
Supreme Court who are conservative and by doing so they will have a say
which way the court votes on future cases brought before them.

It is my hope people of faith will bring law suits that go to the
Supreme Court that will overturn various liberal policies that have
taken our country down into the gutter.

We... people like me, who voted for Trump, intend on taking back our
country in more ways than one.

--
Maggie

Muggles formulated on Wednesday :
Every citizen has a hope and a future in this country.

However, your supernatural delusions, superstitions and mass mental
illness has no place and never again will be codified as law in our nation.

On the contrary ... belief in God is what prompted our founding fathers
to work so long and hard to have a free nation.

To reiterate, the law of the land, applicable to all, is:

"the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense,
founded on the Christian religion."

Article XI, Treaty of Tripoli - 1797

This isn't to say people haven't introduced god(s) into discussion. It
means the Government was not founded upon christianity. It is the law
of the land and the official position of our government.

On 11/23/2016 9:15 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 6:48:35 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 11/22/2016 4:55 PM, trader_4 wrote:

There most certainly is a denial of rights, because a same sex couple
was denied the same rights that a heterosexual couple was granted.

WRONG! Homosexuals had the SAME rights heterosexuals had. They could
marry anyone they chose of the opposite gender.


[...]
Look, you can whine all you want. The SC weighed in on the issue, it's
over, just like slavery is over. There is no way you're going to put
that toothpaste back in the tube. Even your boy Trump just said that
the gay marriage thing is now irrelevant because it's "done".


It's NOT over. You wait and see. We will restore some of the
principles this country was founded upon, and it begins with the new
justices who will be appointed to the Supreme Court.


--
Maggie

On 11/23/2016 9:22 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 11:48:50 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 11/22/2016 6:33 PM, In Trump We Trust wrote:

So I suspect it is the same for homosexuals. They were born homosexual.
They can't/don't want to change either.

We will disagree on this point, too.



I assume you are heterosexual. Tell us at what age, what moment
you decided to be heterosexual, what process you went through to
reach that decision that would shape your feelings, your emotions.

And science has shown the existence of homosexuality in animal
populations too. Do you think animals go through this same
evaluation process, to come to a decision? Or is it biologically
determined, as is necessary to insure the survival of species, ie
the vast majority are biologically hetero, but some wind up gay,
just like some small percentages of all species have differing traits?


Prove babies have a sexual orientation at birth ... then you can
conclude homosexuals are born that way.

Hormones don't kick in until adolescence, so the earliest anyone could
posit that a child even HAS a sexual orientation is at that time, not at
birth.

--
Maggie

On 11/23/2016 1:20 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:
Muggles formulated on Wednesday :
Every citizen has a hope and a future in this country.

However, your supernatural delusions, superstitions and mass mental
illness has no place and never again will be codified as law in our
nation.

On the contrary ... belief in God is what prompted our founding fathers
to work so long and hard to have a free nation.

To reiterate, the law of the land, applicable to all, is:

"the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense,
founded on the Christian religion."

Article XI, Treaty of Tripoli - 1797

This isn't to say people haven't introduced god(s) into discussion. It
means the Government was not founded upon christianity. It is the law
of the land and the official position of our government.

You're wrong, and I've provided quotes in other posts from our founding
fathers themselves.

--
Maggie

Muggles formulated on Wednesday :
On 11/23/2016 8:55 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 6:38:44 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 11/22/2016 4:29 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:

Once the existence of gods are scientifically established, then humanity
can embark upon determining why we should care.

Why do you care that anyone believes in something you don't have
empirical evidence of?

We care when you try to then use those beliefs to force us to live by
your rules.

Oh, so it's OK for you to force people of faith to live by YOUR rules??

That is not what he said or implied.

When non-secular people petition for societal changes and do so on the
basis of their delusions pertaining to invisible friends (as you did
earlier); the secular community has the obligation to make people like
you substantiate your assertions about the actual existence of the
basis of your petition.

When you are unable to prove the existence of god(s) and their
creations, wishes, desires or edicts, it is at that point your
arguments fall apart and your petitions become null and void.

If such delusions are not challenged, we would end up with legislation
codified on the basis of what the Martians want to see happen. There
is virtually no difference between your gods and extraterrestrials.
Wait, I need to clarify, the existence of ET's is statistically more
likely than the existence of god(s).

Without pointing to "god", you have no seemingly reasonable argument
for legally defining marriage as only a union between one man and one
woman. Since you can't establish the existence of god, your argument
crumbles.

After serious thinking Muggles wrote :
On 11/23/2016 1:20 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:
Muggles formulated on Wednesday :
Every citizen has a hope and a future in this country.

However, your supernatural delusions, superstitions and mass mental
illness has no place and never again will be codified as law in our
nation.

On the contrary ... belief in God is what prompted our founding fathers
to work so long and hard to have a free nation.

To reiterate, the law of the land, applicable to all, is:

"the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense,
founded on the Christian religion."

Article XI, Treaty of Tripoli - 1797

This isn't to say people haven't introduced god(s) into discussion. It
means the Government was not founded upon christianity. It is the law
of the land and the official position of our government.

You're wrong, and I've provided quotes in other posts from our founding
fathers themselves.

I have cited the law, chapter and verse. You have cited only the
isolated writings of a very small minority. The law of the land is
paramount.

Once again:

"the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense,
founded on the Christian religion."

Article XI, Treaty of Tripoli - 1797

Feel free to post a reference to other US LAW which contradicts John
Adams and the entire Senate of 1797.

On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 12:27:56 PM UTC-6, Muggles wrote:
On 11/23/2016 6:49 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 11/22/2016 11:48 PM, Muggles wrote:

So I suspect it is the same for homosexuals. They were born homosexual.
They can't/don't want to change either.

We will disagree on this point, too.

Wow. Just incredible. What is your reasoning to disagree?

Babies don't have a sexual orientation. They are born with a gender.

Sexual orientation comes into play when our hormones begin to produce,
and we mature. How can a baby be born homosexual when the hormones that
influence our sexual drives don't begin producing until adolescence?
--
Maggie


There have been some studies done that convinced researchers that homosexuality is actually due to the way the brain is organized and possibly linked to the hormones the fetus is exposed to during its development. There are actually some studies the hint at a genetic component. Humans have weird problems and develop strange abilities due to genetic mutations so why not homosexuality? In my lifetime, I observed the behavior of people I grew up with and knew some of them were different when we were children and sure enough, the guys I thought were effeminate, turned out to be homosexual by the time we reached adulthood. I remember a few were missing from a high school reunion because they died of AIDS. I've friends with both kinds of plumbing who are homosexual and they think differently than heterosexuals. It's obvious that their brains are wired differently. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...EA670C5F380343

http://preview.tinyurl.com/gw9umz8

[8~{} Uncle Convinced Monster

On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 1:46:33 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 11/22/2016 8:15 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 11:35:30 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 11/21/2016 4:40 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 11:23:26 -0800 (PST), Cindy Hamilton
wrote:

On Saturday, November 19, 2016 at 12:30:16 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 11/19/2016 9:03 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Saturday, November 19, 2016 at 5:55:19 AM UTC-6, burfordTjustice wrote:
An Oregon bureaucrat who waged political jihad against the owners of a Christian bakery was given the heave-ho by voters.

Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian was defeated by Republican Dennis Richardson in his bid to be Secretary of State.

It's the first time a Republican has been elected to a statewide office in Oregon since 2002.

So consider this €“ Avakian was too liberal for what is arguably one of the most liberal states in the country.

Avakian, a passionate advocate for the LGBTQIA crowd, was thrust into the national spotlight when he declared war on a Christian bakery in 2013.

Aaron and Melissa Klein, the owners of Sweet Cakes By Melissa, declined to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couples ceremony.

The Kleins, who are devout Christians, explained that participating in a same-sex wedding would violate their deeply-held religious beliefs.

Avakian launched a very public and very ugly assault on the Klein family €“ alleging they had discriminated about the lesbian couple.

They faced boycotts and picket lines and other wedding vendors were threatened with similar action if they did business with Sweet Cakes.

The familys young children received death threats and the stores social networking platforms were overrun by militant LGBT activists posting obscene and profane messages.

The Kleins were eventually ordered to pay $135,000 in €œemotional damages€� to the lesbians.

They were also forced to shutter their retail location €“ and eventually shut down their family bakery.

€œThe goal is never to shut down a business. The goal is to rehabilitate,€� Avakian told The Oregonian in 2013.

Avakian was just as ruthless in his attacks on a Portland bar that turned away transgender patrons. The owner of the Twilight Room Annex did not want his establishment to be known as a €œgay bar.€�

The bar was slapped with a $400,000 judgment and was forced to shut down.

The Kleins are represented by First Liberty Institute, one of the nations most prominent religious liberty law firms. They are appealing the fines levied by Avakians office.

€œWe will never know if Mr. Avakians unprecedented attack on religious liberty played a role, but we are hopeful that there is a path toward justice,€� attorney Hiram Sasser told me. €œEveryones beliefs deserve respect and tolerance even if some disagree with those beliefs.€�

Sasser said Americans should have the freedom to live according to their own conscience without the force of government being used to punish those who disagree with government officials like Avakian.

€œPerhaps this will serve as a point of reflection for government leaders that the people of Oregon and indeed most Americans believe in tolerance and respect and the dignity of each person to live their lives according to the dictates of their own consciences,€� Sasser said.

Voters saw Avakian for who he really was €“ an anti-Christian bully with no regard for the U.S. Constitution.

Nobody likes a bully €“ especially a liberal bully.



I believe the era of having homosexuality shoved down our throats(no pun) is coming to an end. For 8 years we've been told we must kiss the ass of less than 2% of the population and the majority of Americans have had enough. The queers just howl more than anyone else so their numbers are overestimated. Just like the manufactured crisis of Anthropogenic Climate Change, the Leftists are manufacturing Gay people by claiming that one in ten Americans are queer. The Progressive Liberal Leftist Commiecrat Freaks have been trying to wipe out Christianity for decades because it is at odds with their agenda. I want equal rights for EVERYONE. ?(?_?)?

[8~{} Uncle Straight Monster


My hope is that we can take back the definition of what constitutes
marriage, and it will again be defined as a union between one man and
one woman. Any other combination that wants to be joined should be
deemed a civil union - not marriage.

All marriages are civil unions. Where do you go to get the license?

Cindy Hamilton
Here in Canada we can get a licence from city hall or we can publish
banns (through the church)

Forcing the church to sanction a homosexual marriage by banns goes
against freedom of religion. The church isn't saying you can't get
married - It is just saying you can't get married here.

I want the definition of "marriage" to go back to what it was before -
the union of one man and one woman in matrimony. Any other combination
that wants to be united can be called something else.


Why? Does it affect you personally when a gay couple is married?


I believe it's wrong to label gay, or any other combination of union
"marriage". Marriage was an institution created by God to join one man
and one woman in matrimony, and it reflects the relationship between
Gods church and his people. Any other combination is not "marriage",
and a perversion of the institution God created.

Ah. I'm afraid I don't find your position convincing, since I'm
an atheist.

Cindy Hamilton

On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 6:40:11 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 11/22/2016 4:32 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:
Muggles submitted this idea :
On 11/22/2016 4:13 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:
Muggles formulated the question :
I believe it's wrong to label gay, or any other combination of union
"marriage". Marriage was an institution created by God to join one man
and one woman in matrimony, and it reflects the relationship between
Gods church and his people. Any other combination is not "marriage",
and a perversion of the institution God created.

Superstition and fairy tales, what a great foundation for legislation in
a secular government.


Faith and deeply held respect for what God created is not superstition.


Superstition substantiated by fairy tales. Impressive.

Faith ... There's nothing impressive about rejecting God.

From the outside, faith has always looked to me like some sort of
self-hypnosis. Sorry.

Cindy Hamilton

On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 12:17:29 -0800 (PST), Cindy Hamilton wrote:

I believe it's wrong to label gay, or any other combination of union
"marriage". Marriage was an institution created by God to join one man
and one woman in matrimony, and it reflects the relationship between
Gods church and his people. Any other combination is not "marriage",
and a perversion of the institution God created.

Ah. I'm afraid I don't find your position convincing, since I'm
an atheist.

You have to admit, the God gambit worked for many years. If you wanted something to be a certain way and you
couldn't present a logical argument, you just said it was the way God wanted it to be. If you disagreed, they
labeled you an apostate.

Based upon what I have been reading here, pretty soon they are going to be saying "that is the way Trump wants
it."

On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 6:58:23 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 11/22/2016 5:20 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 11/22/2016 5:26 PM, Muggles wrote:

I'd like to see someone prove that god created marriage. The same
people that believe that, believe god created the universe in 6 days,
a woman from the rib of a man, and that dinosaurs lived at the same
time as man.


Whether some want to recognize God created marriage, our country was
formed based on Biblical principles, and marriage between one man and
one woman was one of those principles.

Nice back peddling. The bible is a compilation of stories a bunch of
guys wrote. Some may be true, some is fiction. People came to this
land for religious freedom and now you think we should be bound by
religious principles.

Freedom OF religion - not freedom FROM religion. My hope is America
will return to some of the basics, such as defining marriage as being
between one man and one woman, allowing prayer in schools and public
government buildings, and other such things.

And my freedom of religion is to be free from religion.

Anybody can pray in schools. "Oh, God, please help me pass this
test." I don't see where audible, organized prayer is required.
Doesn't Jesus say to go into your room, close the door, and pray?
Matthew 6:6.

Cindy Hamilton

On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 11:48:50 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 11/22/2016 6:33 PM, In Trump We Trust wrote:
On 11/22/2016 6:48 PM, Muggles wrote:
WRONG! Homosexuals had the SAME rights heterosexuals had. They could
marry anyone they chose of the opposite gender.


I was born heterosexual. I've been heterosexual all my life. I couldn't
change my sexual preference if I wanted to.

Marriage was defined as being between one male and one female. Do you
think it fair to re-define marriage in order to appease a special
interest group? I don't.

So I suspect it is the same for homosexuals. They were born homosexual.
They can't/don't want to change either.

We will disagree on this point, too.

So why do you (or God) want to deny them the same rights and privileges
heterosexuals enjoy?


Since when is marriage about rights or privileges?

The list is too long to enumerate. This one comes to mind first:

IRS form 1040. Married filing jointly.

Cindy Hamilton

On 11/23/2016 1:27 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 11/23/2016 6:49 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 11/22/2016 11:48 PM, Muggles wrote:

So I suspect it is the same for homosexuals. They were born homosexual.
They can't/don't want to change either.
We will disagree on this point, too.
Wow. Just incredible. What is your reasoning to disagree?
Babies don't have a sexual orientation. They are born with a gender.

Sexual orientation comes into play when our hormones begin to produce,
and we mature. How can a baby be born homosexual when the hormones that
influence our sexual drives don't begin producing until adolescence?


I don't recall ever choosing my sexual preference. Please describe the process you used to choose yours.

On 11/23/2016 2:30 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 11/23/2016 9:22 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 11:48:50 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 11/22/2016 6:33 PM, In Trump We Trust wrote:

So I suspect it is the same for homosexuals. They were born homosexual.
They can't/don't want to change either.

We will disagree on this point, too.



I assume you are heterosexual. Tell us at what age, what moment
you decided to be heterosexual, what process you went through to
reach that decision that would shape your feelings, your emotions.

And science has shown the existence of homosexuality in animal
populations too. Do you think animals go through this same
evaluation process, to come to a decision? Or is it biologically
determined, as is necessary to insure the survival of species, ie
the vast majority are biologically hetero, but some wind up gay,
just like some small percentages of all species have differing traits?


Prove babies have a sexual orientation at birth ... then you can
conclude homosexuals are born that way.

Hormones don't kick in until adolescence, so the earliest anyone could
posit that a child even HAS a sexual orientation is at that time, not at
birth.


The DNA and other traits are in the womb regardless of when they
activate. You are not able to change them. Laws won't change them.
Church won't change them. I guess God wanted them that way. True
Christians accept people for what they are.

http://www.latimes.com/science/scien...007-story.html
For men, new research suggests that clues to sexual orientation may lie
not just in the genes, but in the spaces between the DNA, where
molecular marks instruct genes when to turn on and off and how strongly
to express themselves.

On Thursday, UCLA molecular biologist Tuck C. Ngun reported that in
studying the genetic material of 47 pairs of identical male twins, he
has identified "epigenetic marks" in nine areas of the human genome that
are strongly linked to male homosexuality.

On 11/23/2016 10:22 AM, trader_4 wrote:



I assume you are heterosexual. Tell us at what age, what moment
you decided to be heterosexual, what process you went through to
reach that decision that would shape your feelings, your emotions.


I think when I got my first erection and found out what you can use it
for.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 17:30:59 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 11/23/2016 10:22 AM, trader_4 wrote:



I assume you are heterosexual. Tell us at what age, what moment
you decided to be heterosexual, what process you went through to
reach that decision that would shape your feelings, your emotions.


I think when I got my first erection and found out what you can use it
for.

I can't say the exact moment, maybe in the womb I rejected developing
tiitties and had to settle for just a pair of nipples.
--
I like Guns and Titties

On 11/23/2016 4:22 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 11/23/2016 2:30 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 11/23/2016 9:22 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 11:48:50 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 11/22/2016 6:33 PM, In Trump We Trust wrote:

So I suspect it is the same for homosexuals. They were born
homosexual.
They can't/don't want to change either.

We will disagree on this point, too.



I assume you are heterosexual. Tell us at what age, what moment
you decided to be heterosexual, what process you went through to
reach that decision that would shape your feelings, your emotions.

And science has shown the existence of homosexuality in animal
populations too. Do you think animals go through this same
evaluation process, to come to a decision? Or is it biologically
determined, as is necessary to insure the survival of species, ie
the vast majority are biologically hetero, but some wind up gay,
just like some small percentages of all species have differing traits?


Prove babies have a sexual orientation at birth ... then you can
conclude homosexuals are born that way.

Hormones don't kick in until adolescence, so the earliest anyone could
posit that a child even HAS a sexual orientation is at that time, not at
birth.


The DNA and other traits are in the womb regardless of when they
activate. You are not able to change them. Laws won't change them.
Church won't change them. I guess God wanted them that way. True
Christians accept people for what they are.

http://www.latimes.com/science/scien...007-story.html

For men, new research suggests that clues to sexual orientation may lie
not just in the genes, but in the spaces between the DNA, where
molecular marks instruct genes when to turn on and off and how strongly
to express themselves.

On Thursday, UCLA molecular biologist Tuck C. Ngun reported that in
studying the genetic material of 47 pairs of identical male twins, he
has identified "epigenetic marks" in nine areas of the human genome that
are strongly linked to male homosexuality.

There is no proof babies have any sexual orientation. Sexual
orientation only happens after adolescence when the hormones are activated.

The existence of any particular trait in our DNA is still not an
indicator that particular trait will be activated at any time after
we're born.


--
Maggie

On 11/23/2016 2:34 PM, Muggles wrote:

"the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense,
founded on the Christian religion."

Article XI, Treaty of Tripoli - 1797

This isn't to say people haven't introduced god(s) into discussion. It
means the Government was not founded upon christianity. It is the law
of the land and the official position of our government.

You're wrong, and I've provided quotes in other posts from our founding
fathers themselves.


You gave some quotes of their personal opinions. They are entitled to
have an opinion and use that as a reason to fight for independence. But
the Constitution does not include religion as a part of its core.

Founding fathers were smart enough to give us freedom to pray and
believe as we wish, or not.