On 11/23/2016 4:56 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
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.

Religion is how people seek or relate to God. Religion isn't required
to acknowledge or even mention God, and God/Creator/Divine
Providence/Supreme Judge of the world IS mentioned in the Constitution,
AND given credit for the inspiration and direction the colonists took to
separate from the King of England.


The Unanimous Declaration of the
Thirteen United States of America
In Congress, July 4, 1776

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people
to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another,
and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal
station to which the Laws of Nature and of Natures *God* entitle them,
a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should
declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal;
that they are endowed by their *Creator* with certain unalienable
rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness;

WE, THEREFORE, the REPRESENTATIVES of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in
General Congress assembled, appealing to the *Supreme Judge of the
world* for the rectitude of our intentions...

....And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the
protection of *Divine Providence*, we mutually pledge to each other our
Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/...f-independence

--
Maggie

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

The First Amendment says nothing about being entitled to being free of
exposure to religion.


No one made an assertion to the contrary. You are attempting to move the
goal post.

On the contrary ... you and others attempt to imply that our
Constitution also grants the right to discriminate against expressions
of faith in public.

No one said that from what I've seen. You can stand in front of your
house or go to church and talk about your beliefs. What we don't want
is to have it forced on us in secular government gatherings.

If I go to a wedding in a church they can do whatever service they
choose. I make the decision to attend or not. If I go to a town
meeting, I don't want a religious service.



We will take that back, too. I hope to see the day when statues of the
10 Commandments are returned to display on public property, and more
than that in the future.


If you want them back, take out the first and third and them call the a
list of "8 good ideas to live by"

On 11/23/2016 4:48 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 11/23/2016 1:42 PM, Muggles wrote:


First Amendment gives freedom of religion as well FROM it. The
government cannot force us to practice a religion.

The first Amendment gives freedom of religion. It says nothing about
freedom FROM religion.


Have you read it?

yes ... have you?

Is it OK then, for the government to force us to
practice a religion?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Where does it say we have freedom FROM religion??


The first sentence above. It means the government stays out of
religion, do what you want, or NOT.

No, it means the government can't make any laws that ESTABLISH religion.
It says NOTHING about having a right to freedom FROM religion.


It does say we cannot create laws that establish religion, but it also
says we can't prohibit the free exercise of religion.


Right, it cannot make you. You can avoid religion of you choose to do so.

Sure, you can avoid religion, but you don't have a right to shut up
other people just because you don't want to be exposed to it via people
who express their freedom of religion.


--
Maggie

On 11/23/2016 2:05 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
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


This part I find interesting:

"Findings from family and twin studies support a genetic contribution to
the development of sexual orientation in men. *However*, previous
studies have *yielded conflicting evidence* for linkage to chromosome Xq28.

The study is referencing the development of men solely linked to
conflicting evidence.

I think they're throwing out a hail Mary and coming up short. There is
still no proof anyone is born with a sexual orientation.

Adolescence has to happen first.

--
Maggie

On 11/23/2016 5:11 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 11/23/2016 2:23 PM, Muggles wrote:

The First Amendment says nothing about being entitled to being free of
exposure to religion.


No one made an assertion to the contrary. You are attempting to move the
goal post.

On the contrary ... you and others attempt to imply that our
Constitution also grants the right to discriminate against expressions
of faith in public.


No one said that from what I've seen. You can stand in front of your
house or go to church and talk about your beliefs. What we don't want
is to have it forced on us in secular government gatherings.

Any gathering is a combination of people both secular and spiritual.
The government should allow those who are spiritual to express their
beliefs at government gatherings.... Prayer! Thanking God for blessings
on our country, etc.

This country was formed based on such freedoms, and we shouldn't ignore
that.

If I go to a wedding in a church they can do whatever service they
choose. I make the decision to attend or not. If I go to a town
meeting, I don't want a religious service.

Prayer is not a religious service. Acknowledging God is not a religious
service, either. These things need to come back into our society, and
it is my hope that they will, especially, since Trump will be appointing
conservative judges to the Supreme Court! Perhaps, he'll get to appoint
multiple judges, too?


We will take that back, too. I hope to see the day when statues of the
10 Commandments are returned to display on public property, and more
than that in the future.


If you want them back, take out the first and third and them call the a
list of "8 good ideas to live by"


LOL

--
Maggie

On 11/23/2016 1:37 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:
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.

It IS pretty much what he's saying.

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.

The basis of our petition is the Constitution.

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.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for - the evidence of things not
seen. People have been practicing faith in things not seen since the
beginning. JUST because some people don't have a clue what it means to
have faith in something not seen, it doesn't render that faith null and
void.

--
Maggie

On 11/23/2016 1:52 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:
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.

The law of this land is based on our Constitution and Bill of Rights,
and God and faith were key to both, and party to how this country was
formed and built. To ignore that is to ignore the reality of this
countries history.


--
Maggie

On 11/23/2016 2:17 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
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.


That's ok. It's not my job to convince you of anything.

--
Maggie

On 11/23/2016 2:20 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
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.


Why sorry?

--
Maggie

On 11/23/2016 2:31 PM, Cindy Hamilton 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:
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.

A tax law isn't a right or privilege.


--
Maggie

On 11/23/2016 7:05 PM, Muggles wrote:

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.

A tax law isn't a right or privilege.



It should be fair. If civil union and married couples pay different
rates it is not fair. You may say it is not very Christian like.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 13:06:41 -0600, Muggles
wrote:

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??
I have said it before, and I'll say it one more time.
There is NO-ONE as "evangelical" as a Hysterical (non scientific)
atheist..
Their one "true mission" in life is to force by any means their
disbelief in God on everybody they cross paths with. Their "religious
fervor" is unmatched by any (deitist) religion or cult in the history
of man.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 13:11:21 -0600, Muggles
wrote:

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.
Good Luck.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 11:37:40 -0800, "Sterling Archer"
wrote:

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.
More Religious claptrap from the hysterical atheistic fringe.
You have the right to believe what you want. You do not have the right
to force it down the throats of others and publicliy denigrate and
chastise those who believe differently than you. YOUR rights to not
"trump" the rights of others just because you "believe" you are right.
The fact you claim to KNOW you are right just proves you may well be
delusional - just like you clain "deists" are.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 11:52:43 -0800, "Sterling Archer"
wrote:

Article XI, Treaty of Tripoli - 1797
Context my good man- CONTEXT.


Take note of the final statement - which blows your assertion that it
is "the law of the land" right out of the water - ntably:

A second treaty, the Treaty of Peace and Amity signed on July 4, 1805,
superseded the 1796 treaty. The 1805 treaty did not contain the phrase
"not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."[



Read the whole blooming thing with an open and functioning mind.

I know it is long and wordy - it is copied from Wikipedia but all of
the information contained within is verifiable with a short google
search. The ability to read and comprehend the english language at
something approaching a 5th grade level is, however, required.

The Treaty of Tripoli (Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the
United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of
Barbary) was the first treaty concluded between the United States and
Tripolitania, signed at Tripoli on November 4, 1796, and at Algiers
(for a third-party witness) on January 3, 1797. It was submitted to
the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously
from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797, and signed by Adams, taking
effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797.

It has attracted attention in recent decades because of a clause in
Article 11 stating that "the Government of the United States of
America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."


For three centuries up to the time of the Treaty, the Mediterranean
Sea lanes had been preyed on by the North African Muslim states of the
Barbary Coast (Tripoli, Algiers, Morocco and Tunis) through
privateering (government-sanctioned piracy). Hostages captured by the
Barbary pirates were either ransomed or forced into slavery,
contributing to the greater Ottoman slave trade (of which the Barbary
states were a segment). Life for the captives often was harsh,
especially for Christian captives, and many died from their treatment.
Some captives "went Turk", that is, converted to Islam, a choice that
made life in captivity easier for them.[2]

Before the American Revolution, the British colonies in North America
were protected from the Barbary pirates by British warships and
treaties. During the Revolution, the Kingdom of France formed an
alliance with the colonies and assumed the responsibility of providing
protection of U.S. ships against the Barbary pirates.[3] After the
U.S. won its independence with the signing of the Treaty of Paris
(1783), it had to face the threat of the Barbary pirates on its own.
Two American ships were captured by Algerian pirates in July 1785 and
the survivors forced into slavery, their ransom set at $60,000. A
rumor that Benjamin Franklin, who was en route from France to
Philadelphia about that time, had been captured by Barbary pirates,
caused considerable upset in the U.S.[4] Without a standing navy, much
less a navy capable of projecting force across an ocean, the U.S. was
forced to pay tribute monies and goods to the Barbary nations for the
security of its ships and the freedom of its captured citizens. As
General William Eaton informed newly appointed Secretary of State John
Marshall in 1800, "It is a maxim of the Barbary States, that 'The
Christians who would be on good terms with them must fight well or pay
well.'"[5]

Soon after the formation of the United States, privateering in the
Mediterranean Sea and Atlantic Ocean from the nations of the Barbary
Coast prompted the U.S. to initiate a series of so-called peace
treaties, collectively known as the Barbary Treaties. Individual
treaties were negotiated with Morocco (1786), Algiers (1795), Tripoli
(1797) and Tunis (1797), all of them more than once. The United States
consul-general to the Barbary states of Algiers, Tripoli and Tunis was
Joel Barlow, who dealt with the text of various treaties (including
the Treaty of Tripoli) and supported U.S. diplomatic efforts in the
Barbary Coast. Commissioner Plenipotentiary of the United States,
David Humphreys, was given the right to establish a treaty with
Tripoli and assigned Joel Barlow and Joseph Donaldson to broker it. It
was Joel Barlow who certified the signatures on the Arabic original
and the English copy provided to him. Later, Captain Richard O'Brien
established the original transport of the negotiated goods along with
the Treaty, but it was the American Consul James Leander Cathcart who
delivered the final requirements of payment for the treaty.
President George Washington appointed his old colleague David
Humphreys as Commissioner Plenipotentiary on March 30, 1795, in order
to negotiate a treaty with the Barbary powers.[6] On February 10,
1796, Humphreys appointed Joel Barlow and Joseph Donaldson as "Junior
Agents" to forge a "Treaty of Peace and Friendship".[7] Under
Humphreys' authority, the treaty was signed at Tripoli on November 4,
1796, and certified at Algiers on January 3, 1797. Humphreys reviewed
the treaty and approved it in Lisbon on February 10, 1797.[7]

The official treaty was in Arabic text, and a translated version by
Consul-General Barlow was ratified by the United States on June 10,
1797. Article 11 of the treaty was said to have not been part of the
original Arabic version of the treaty; in its place is a letter from
the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. However, it is the English
text which was ratified by Congress. Miller says, "the Barlow
translation is that which was submitted to the Senate (American State
Papers, Foreign Relations, II, 18-19) and which is printed in the
Statutes at Large and in treaty collections generally; it is that
English text which in the United States has always been deemed the
text of the treaty."[8]

The Treaty had spent seven months traveling from Tripoli to Algiers to
Portugal and, finally, to the United States, and had been signed by
officials at each stop along the way. There is no record of discussion
or debate of the Treaty of Tripoli at the time that it was ratified.
However, there is a statement made by President Adams on the document
that reads:




Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of
America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the
same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the
said Treaty may be observed, and performed with good Faith on the part
of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public;
And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or
military within the United States, and all other citizens or
inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty
and every clause and article thereof.

Official records show that after President John Adams sent the treaty
to the Senate for ratification in May 1797, the entire treaty was read
aloud on the Senate floor, and copies were printed for every Senator.
A committee considered the treaty and recommended ratification.
Twenty-three of the thirty-two sitting Senators were present for the
June 7 vote which unanimously approved the ratification
recommendation.[9]

However, before anyone in the United States saw the Treaty, its
required payments, in the form of goods and money, had been made in
part. As Barlow declared: "The present writing done by our hand and
delivered to the American Captain OBrien makes known that he has
delivered to us forty thousand Spanish dollars,-thirteen watches of
gold, silver & pinsbach,-five rings, of which three of diamonds, one
of saphire and one with a watch in it, One hundred & forty piques of
cloth, and four caftans of brocade,-and these on account of the peace
concluded with the Americans."[1] However, this was an incomplete
amount of goods stipulated under the treaty (according to the Pasha of
Tripoli) and an additional $18,000 had to be paid by the American
Consul James Leander Cathcart at his arrival on April 10, 1799.[10]

It was not until these final goods were delivered that the Pasha of
Tripoli recognized the Treaty as official. In Treaties and Other
International Acts of the United States of America by David Hunter
Miller, which is regarded as an authoritative collection of
international agreements of the United States between 1776 and
1937,[11] Hunter Miller describes, "While the original ratification
remained in the hands of Cathcart ... it is possible that a copy
thereof was delivered upon the settlement of April 10, 1799, and
further possible that there was something almost in the nature of an
exchange of ratifications of the treaty on or about April 10, 1799,
the day of the agreed settlement."[10] It is then that the Pasha
declares in a Letter to John Adams on April 15, 1799, "Whereby we have
consummated the Peace which shall, on our side, be inviolate, provided
You are Willing to treat us as You do other Regencies, without any
difference being made between Us. Which is the whole of what We have,
at present, to say to You, wishing you at the same time the most
unlimited prosperity."[

Article 11 has been and is a point of contention in popular culture
disputes on the doctrine of separation of church and state as it
applies to the founding principles of the United States. Some
religious spokesmen claim that—despite unanimous ratification by the
U.S. Senate in English—the text which appears as Article 11 in the
English translation does not appear in the Arabic text of the
treaty.[10] Some historians have argued that the phrase specifically
refers to the government and not the culture, that it only speaks of
the founding and not what America became or might become,[12] and that
many Founding Fathers and newspapers described America as a Christian
nation during the early Republic.[13]





Article 11
Article 11 reads:


Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in
any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no
character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of
Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war
or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is
declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious
opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing
between the two countries.

According to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University,
the assurances in Article 11 were "intended to allay the fears of the
Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the
treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made
clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two
religious powers." Lambert writes,
"By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary
concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state
religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious
faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured
that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten
years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country
assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that
its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of
the Christian faith. The assurances were contained in the Treaty of
Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim
state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was
interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that
the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious
powers.[14]
The treaty was printed in the Philadelphia Gazette and two New York
papers, with only scant public dissent, most notably from William
Cobbett.[15]
NOTE
A prominent member of Adams' cabinet, Secretary of War James McHenry,
claims that he protested the language of article 11 before its
ratification. He wrote to Secretary of the Treasury Oliver Wolcott,
Jr., September 26, 1800: "The Senate, my good friend, and I said so at
the time, ought never to have ratified the treaty alluded to, with the
declaration that 'the government of the United States, is not, in any
sense, founded on the Christian religion.' What else is it founded on?
This act always appeared to me like trampling upon the cross. I do not
recollect that Barlow was even reprimanded for this outrage upon the
government and religion."

ALSO TAKE NOTE!!!!!!!!!!

A second treaty, the Treaty of Peace and Amity signed on July 4, 1805,
superseded the 1796 treaty. The 1805 treaty did not contain the phrase
"not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."[

On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 17:24:16 -0600, Muggles
wrote:

On 11/23/2016 2:05 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
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. ¯\_(?)_/¯

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

http://preview.tinyurl.com/gw9umz8

[8~{} Uncle Convinced Monster


This part I find interesting:

"Findings from family and twin studies support a genetic contribution to
the development of sexual orientation in men. *However*, previous
studies have *yielded conflicting evidence* for linkage to chromosome Xq28.

The study is referencing the development of men solely linked to
conflicting evidence.

I think they're throwing out a hail Mary and coming up short. There is
still no proof anyone is born with a sexual orientation.

Adolescence has to happen first.
There are certain genetic markers for a"predisposition" to
homosexuality. How strong that predisposition is, how much environment
contributes, or how much choise a person has in their sexual
orientation is still open to study, and differs from person to person.

I know some clearly Hetro men who have "experimented with"
homosexuality in their teen years Some stayed with it by choice for
years - and then "went straight.
Some were "influenced" into the gay life by outside forces and when
those influences were removed from their life they "went straight"

Others lived as Hetros for years - then in a "midlife crisis" declared
they were gay.

Some definitely have "no choice" over their sexual orientation - but
clearly for some it is a "chosen lifestyle" and for others an "imposed
lifestyle"

The same with "bisexual" - more of them being a "choice"

(I suspect Muggles wrote this, but can't be sure because he/she/it is in my
killfile for repeatedly changing his/hers/its email addy. While I hate
feeding trolls, some comments are SO wrong they need correction even if a
conversation doesn't occur).

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

Some are, some aren't and some are born with both male and female sexual
organs. What gender would you assign to a baby that has both a penis and a
vagina? Oops. There goes your ill-informed supposition into the medical
waste bag.

If you read something a little more current than the Bible, you'd know that
every year doctors and parents have to make an awful decision that's come to
be known as "hole or pole?" I'll let you figure out what that means.

Historically, the term hermaphrodite has also been used to describe
ambiguous genitalia and gonadal mosaicism in individuals of gonochoristic
species, especially human beings. The word intersex has come into preferred
usage for humans, since the word hermaphrodite is considered to be
misleading and stigmatizing, as well as "scientifically specious and
clinically problematic".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite

--
Bobby G.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 07:25:44 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

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.

It probably hasn't made the "choice" yet, which is why it
argues so much. Trying to collect enough data to make the "right
decision".

[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

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.

Please describe how it affects you, Maggie Muggles, when a gay couple
gets married. I'm having difficulty understanding the real-life
consequences (to you) of gay marriage.

Cindy Hamilton

On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 1:27:56 PM UTC-5, 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

More typical M BS. Whether it is determined at birth, or later by hormones
or some other physical process, is not the issue. The issue is that it's
not a matter of choice. If it is, describe for us the thought process, how
you decided your sexual orientation. Tell us about the day you made that
decision.

explained :
Take note of the final statement - which blows your assertion that it
is "the law of the land" right out of the water - ntably:

A second treaty, the Treaty of Peace and Amity signed on July 4, 1805,
superseded the 1796 treaty. The 1805 treaty did not contain the phrase
"not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."[

If the treaty were repealed, this would be codified or recorded.

Please provide a citation to any US law, code, congressional and
executive action which specifically repealed the entire 1797 Treaty of
Tripoli.

On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 2:04:04 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
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

The village idiot rides again! The bible describes how to sell your daughter
as a slave and you see that as not endorsing slavery, but telling people
how to to "right"?

ROFL

On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 2:06:41 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
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

No one is forcing you of faith to live by any rules that are different
than the rest of us live by, including those of differing religions,
and those with no religion at all.

On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 2:11:21 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
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

Sorry, Trump just told you on 60 Mins that the issue of gay marriage is now
irrelevant. "It's done". And it's obvious that Trump never really ever gave
a rat's ass about gay marriage, abortion, or similar. He was pro abortion
until he needed your vote. Ever see Trump donate any money to your christian
causes? To pro-life groups?

And the SC isn't likely to want to take another case, revisit the whole thing
again, having just made the ruling. It would be unprecedented.

On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 2:30:33 PM UTC-5, 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.

--
Maggie

I never said sexual orientation was determined at birth. Only that it's
not a process of a person making a decision to be gay or straight. Tell
us about the decision process you went through to make your sexual orientation
"choice".

On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 2:37:04 PM UTC-5, Sterling Archer wrote:
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.

+1

And as the post provided by Clare showed, marriage under the bible included
selling daughters into slavery, polygamy, etc. So even the position that
god and the bible hold that marriage has always been what the christians
would have you believe, ie a loving relationship between one man and one
woman is BS.

On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 3:05:39 PM UTC-5, Uncle Monster wrote:
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

For a guy way off on the right, I salute you for making coming to that honest
and reasonable conclusion.

On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 3:27:50 PM UTC-5, Stormin' Norman wrote:
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."

And god, the supernatural was used to explain physical things that science
at the time could not. Half the town got sick and died, it was from god
to punish a witch, so they went looking for one. Now we know it was the
plague, caused by bacteria and the unsanitary living conditions. That
didn't help the witch they burned. That's an example of the bad things
that happen when you believe in things that are unfounded.

On 11/24/2016 9:24 AM, 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.

Please describe how it affects you, Maggie Muggles, when a gay couple
gets married. I'm having difficulty understanding the real-life
consequences (to you) of gay marriage.

Cindy Hamilton


Well. she is offended. You cannot do anything that offends others.

On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 6:09:26 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 11/23/2016 4:56 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
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.

Religion is how people seek or relate to God. Religion isn't required
to acknowledge or even mention God, and God/Creator/Divine
Providence/Supreme Judge of the world IS mentioned in the Constitution,
AND given credit for the inspiration and direction the colonists took to
separate from the King of England.

I think Ed suggested you actually go read the Constitution. If you did,
you'd know that God is not mentioned in it. Neither is god in the Bill
of Rights. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 07:04:13 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 1:27:56 PM UTC-5, 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

More typical M BS. Whether it is determined at birth, or later by hormones
or some other physical process, is not the issue. The issue is that it's
not a matter of choice. If it is, describe for us the thought process, how
you decided your sexual orientation. Tell us about the day you made that
decision.

All men and women have testosterone and estrogens. In fact,
some homosexual men have MORE testosterone than heterosexual men
(though they both have the same average). Same for women in regards to
estrogen.
OMG.
I smell scientology, creationism or maybe some other whacko
"religion" in the air.
Go on Maggie, make your "choice" NOW !!!!
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 07:34:38 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 3:05:39 PM UTC-5, Uncle Monster wrote:
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. ¯\_(?)_/¯

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

http://preview.tinyurl.com/gw9umz8

[8~{} Uncle Convinced Monster

For a guy way off on the right, I salute you for making coming to that honest
and reasonable conclusion.

+1
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 6:15:23 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 11/23/2016 4:48 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 11/23/2016 1:42 PM, Muggles wrote:


First Amendment gives freedom of religion as well FROM it. The
government cannot force us to practice a religion.

The first Amendment gives freedom of religion. It says nothing about
freedom FROM religion.


Have you read it?

yes ... have you?

Is it OK then, for the government to force us to
practice a religion?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Where does it say we have freedom FROM religion??


The first sentence above. It means the government stays out of
religion, do what you want, or NOT.

No, it means the government can't make any laws that ESTABLISH religion.
It says NOTHING about having a right to freedom FROM religion.


It does say we cannot create laws that establish religion, but it also
says we can't prohibit the free exercise of religion.


Right, it cannot make you. You can avoid religion of you choose to do so.

Sure, you can avoid religion, but you don't have a right to shut up
other people just because you don't want to be exposed to it via people
who express their freedom of religion.


--
Maggie



But of course it's OK to deny two gay people in a committed relationship
the same rights that heterosexual people have. Go figure. I've yet to see
anyone denying you religious folks the right to express your freedom of
religion. It's just that some of you think that right includes things like
holding prayer sessions in school in front of the whole class.

On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 6:24:15 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 11/23/2016 2:05 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
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


This part I find interesting:

"Findings from family and twin studies support a genetic contribution to
the development of sexual orientation in men. *However*, previous
studies have *yielded conflicting evidence* for linkage to chromosome Xq28.

The study is referencing the development of men solely linked to
conflicting evidence.

I think they're throwing out a hail Mary and coming up short. There is
still no proof anyone is born with a sexual orientation.

Adolescence has to happen first.

--
Maggie

Now the village idiot knows more about the subject than researchers. They
don't know. She does.

On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 6:29:22 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 11/23/2016 5:11 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 11/23/2016 2:23 PM, Muggles wrote:

The First Amendment says nothing about being entitled to being free of
exposure to religion.


No one made an assertion to the contrary. You are attempting to move the
goal post.

On the contrary ... you and others attempt to imply that our
Constitution also grants the right to discriminate against expressions
of faith in public.


No one said that from what I've seen. You can stand in front of your
house or go to church and talk about your beliefs. What we don't want
is to have it forced on us in secular government gatherings.

Any gathering is a combination of people both secular and spiritual.
The government should allow those who are spiritual to express their
beliefs at government gatherings.... Prayer! Thanking God for blessings
on our country, etc.

This country was formed based on such freedoms, and we shouldn't ignore
that.


You are the one ignoring freedoms. Why is it that you just have to have
your prayer session at a govt meeting? Why can't you do it before, or
after? How about I want to make a speech about gun rights? Someone else
wants to make speeches about animal rights? Someone else wants to make
a speech about aliens among us? All those are constitutionally protected,
deeply held beliefs among those involved. So, why shouldn't the town
meeting allow all those too? We can do that, or we can do what is far
more logical and reasonable. Keep the town meeting, the school meetings,
etc focused on their business and you do your praying elsewhere.




If I go to a wedding in a church they can do whatever service they
choose. I make the decision to attend or not. If I go to a town
meeting, I don't want a religious service.

Prayer is not a religious service.

ROFL


Acknowledging God is not a religious
service, either.

ROFL

pretended :

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.

More Religious claptrap from the hysterical atheistic fringe.
You have the right to believe what you want. You do not have the right
to force it down the throats of others and publicliy denigrate and
chastise those who believe differently than you. YOUR rights to not
"trump" the rights of others just because you "believe" you are right.
The fact you claim to KNOW you are right just proves you may well be
delusional - just like you clain "deists" are.

As a Canadian, your understanding of the civil rights of Americans is
sorely limited.

American citizens have the inviolable right to publicly challenge and
chastise anyone.

As a theist, you base much of your arguments upon belief, which is your
Achilles heel. As an atheist, my arguments are based upon empirical
evidence, not belief.

If anyone attempts to modify public policy or legislation and formally
introduces an unsubstantiated fairy tale such as "gods will" as
justification for the change, we have the right to challenge and demand
proof of their assertions.

For example, let's say you are an American (you are not), and you
successfully petition your representative to introduce legislation that
mandates the Hebrew ten commandments be displayed in all public
buildings; you rationalize this by claiming they are the words of some
deity. As citizens, we all have the right to demand empirical proof of
the existence of this deity and that the commandments originated with
this invisible friend (among many, many other questions).

When it comes to the law of the land, your supernatural and
superstitious "beliefs" are irrelevant (beyond your personal right to
have them) what is relevant are facts established by empirical
evidence. If you want to legislate on the basis of the words of some
invisible friend, all we ask is that you produce this friend. If the
friend exists, you should be able to comply. If the friend doesn't
exist, the foundation of your legal argument crumbles to dust.

On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 6:58:51 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 11/23/2016 1:37 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:
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.

It IS pretty much what he's saying.

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.

The basis of our petition is the Constitution.

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.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for - the evidence of things not
seen. People have been practicing faith in things not seen since the
beginning. JUST because some people don't have a clue what it means to
have faith in something not seen, it doesn't render that faith null and
void.

--
Maggie

Yes, they have been practicing faith based in things not scene. They
didn't know that people got sick from viruses, so instead they went looking
for the village witch and burned her. They knew the earth was the center
of the universe based on faith, so they persecuted scientists who correctly
figured out that they were wrong. They knew their religion was the right
one, so they conducted crusades, the Inquisition. In the modern era,
Al Qaeda and ISIS base their faith in things not scene. How well is that working out?

On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 9:34:42 AM UTC-6, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 3:05:39 PM UTC-5, Uncle Monster wrote:
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

For a guy way off on the right, I salute you for making coming to that honest
and reasonable conclusion.


Right meaning correct? I'm neither Far Right or Far Left, I'm an Independent, I'll castigate either far side when they deserve it. It's usually the Far Left who deserve criticism. The Far Right often try to push their religion on others and I'm very critical of them for that reason. I prefer living in a Christian majority country rather than a Muslim controlled country where I could wind up having my head removed for being critical of the Far Right in such a place. I don't think Americans appreciate living in a country where someone can put a statue of Jesus in a jar of urine, call it art and have nothing more than a severe scolding sent their way but if you were in a Muslim country and drew a cartoon of the prophet Mohamed, you could be killed. _(ツ)_/¯

[8~{} Uncle Centered Monster

On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 10:43:32 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 11/24/2016 9:24 AM, 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.

Please describe how it affects you, Maggie Muggles, when a gay couple
gets married. I'm having difficulty understanding the real-life
consequences (to you) of gay marriage.

Cindy Hamilton


Well. she is offended. You cannot do anything that offends others.

LOL. Good one, Ed. That settles it.

wrote :
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 13:06:41 -0600, Muggles
wrote:

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??
I have said it before, and I'll say it one more time.
There is NO-ONE as "evangelical" as a Hysterical (non scientific)
atheist..
Their one "true mission" in life is to force by any means their
disbelief in God on everybody they cross paths with. Their "religious
fervor" is unmatched by any (deitist) religion or cult in the history
of man.

There is only one difference between a cult and any religion; the size
of the membership.

As an atheist, I simply ask that you provide empirical evidence of the
existence of your invisible friends and, I only ask that, when you
incorporate your delusions into the public discourse.

You can completely shutdown my challenges by producing the above
referenced evidence. Short of that, you could stop talking about your
invisible friends in a public forum, then, there would be nothing to
challenge. If you will not substantiate your claims and if you insist
on publishing them, I will continue to challenge and chastise.

Freedom of expression, wow, what a concept.....