On 11/24/16 11:49 AM, Sterling Archer wrote:

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.....
Prove your evidence. Until then, atheism is every bit a leap of
faith as any religion. You can't prove lack of existence, any more than
they can existence. Actually, aetheism is very much a religion in its
own right with ill tempered Fundamentalists and every thing.

€œHe hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized
there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there
wasn't an afterlife.€�


ۥ Douglas Adams, Life, the Universe and Everything

Kurt V. Ullman has brought this to us :
On 11/24/16 11:49 AM, Sterling Archer wrote:

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.....
Prove your evidence. Until then, atheism is every bit a leap of faith as
any religion. You can't prove lack of existence, any more than they can
existence. Actually, aetheism is very much a religion in its own right with
ill tempered Fundamentalists and every thing.


The original logical fallacy is to demand proof of a negative.

You assert your invisible friends exist and use them as the basis for
influencing public policy. I simply ask for empirical evidence of the
existence of your invisible friends, there is nothing unreasonable
about my request.

Without empirical evidence, your assertions are little more than
hearsay at best, or delusions, mental illness and bold faced lies at
worst.

On 11/24/16 12:11 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:
Kurt V. Ullman has brought this to us :


You assert your invisible friends exist and use them as the basis for
influencing public policy. I simply ask for empirical evidence of the
existence of your invisible friends, there is nothing unreasonable about
my request.

The original fallacy is to assume things not in evidence. I merely
commented that your belief was based in faith as much as any Christians
since you couldn't prove yours any more than they could prove theirs. MY
feelings either way was not made.

Without empirical evidence, your assertions are little more than hearsay
at best, or delusions, mental illness and bold faced lies at worst.
And thus we get further evidence of the intolerance that is equal to
fundamentalists of any faith.

On 11/23/2016 7:24 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
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.

Marriage and civil unions aren't equal, so I wouldn't expect the same rates.

--
Maggie

On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 07:56:12 -0800, "Sterling Archer"
wrote:

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.
NOWHERE have I indicated I wanted the laws of the land to be changed
based on my interpretation of scriptures you do not believe in. Lets
just get THAT straight. However you have been spouting off (totally
without any base in fact to support you) that the US constitution and
government were NOT based on "christian principals" and are demanding
that everyone else toes your hysterical atheistic line.

You have no more right than the "alt right" to demand your
interpretation, or your superior knowledge of truth, be given any more
credence than their beliefs.

You are a very evangelistic religious zealot of the hysterical
atheistic persuasion. Period Dot End.

On 11/23/2016 8:18 PM, 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.


It's the religion of Secular Humanism.


--
Maggie

Kurt V. Ullman formulated on Thursday :
On 11/24/16 12:11 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:
Kurt V. Ullman has brought this to us :


You assert your invisible friends exist and use them as the basis for
influencing public policy. I simply ask for empirical evidence of the
existence of your invisible friends, there is nothing unreasonable about
my request.

The original fallacy is to assume things not in evidence. I merely commented
that your belief was based in faith as much as any Christians since you
couldn't prove yours any more than they could prove theirs. MY feelings
either way was not made.

Without empirical evidence, your assertions are little more than hearsay
at best, or delusions, mental illness and bold faced lies at worst.
And thus we get further evidence of the intolerance that is equal to
fundamentalists of any faith.

Only a theist would refer to the scientific method as being
"intolerant". Produce the empirical evidence and I will happily accept
your assertions as being factual. Absent evidence, your claims are no
more than fantasy.

On 11/23/2016 8:19 PM, wrote:
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.

We can TRY, and will keep trying.

--
Maggie

On 11/23/2016 8:38 PM, wrote:
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.


I totally agree with you!

--
Maggie

On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 08:49:16 -0800, "Sterling Archer"
wrote:

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.....
How about you disprove my statement with empirical proof - by
shutting up and refraining from making every thread on usenet a
platform for you to grandstand about your "superior knowledge" and
spreading your hysterical atheistic dogma???
You have about 12 hours until I just stuff you into my bin.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 09:11:38 -0800, "Sterling Archer"
wrote:

Kurt V. Ullman has brought this to us :
On 11/24/16 11:49 AM, Sterling Archer wrote:

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.....
Prove your evidence. Until then, atheism is every bit a leap of faith as
any religion. You can't prove lack of existence, any more than they can
existence. Actually, aetheism is very much a religion in its own right with
ill tempered Fundamentalists and every thing.


The original logical fallacy is to demand proof of a negative.

You assert your invisible friends exist and use them as the basis for
influencing public policy. I simply ask for empirical evidence of the
existence of your invisible friends, there is nothing unreasonable
about my request.

Without empirical evidence, your assertions are little more than
hearsay at best, or delusions, mental illness and bold faced lies at
worst.
Your illusions of superiority are also, in your own words, little
more than hearsay at best, or delusions, mental illness and bold
faced lies at worst.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 12:37:38 -0500, "Kurt V. Ullman"
wrote:

On 11/24/16 12:11 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:
Kurt V. Ullman has brought this to us :


You assert your invisible friends exist and use them as the basis for
influencing public policy. I simply ask for empirical evidence of the
existence of your invisible friends, there is nothing unreasonable about
my request.

The original fallacy is to assume things not in evidence. I merely
commented that your belief was based in faith as much as any Christians
since you couldn't prove yours any more than they could prove theirs. MY
feelings either way was not made.

Without empirical evidence, your assertions are little more than hearsay
at best, or delusions, mental illness and bold faced lies at worst.
And thus we get further evidence of the intolerance that is equal to
fundamentalists of any faith.
As bad as any Fundy Christian or Muslim - and quite possibly
significantly worse.

used his keyboard to write :
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 07:56:12 -0800, "Sterling Archer"
wrote:

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.
NOWHERE have I indicated I wanted the laws of the land to be changed
based on my interpretation of scriptures you do not believe in. Lets
just get THAT straight. However you have been spouting off (totally
without any base in fact to support you) that the US constitution and
government were NOT based on "christian principals" and are demanding
that everyone else toes your hysterical atheistic line.

You have no more right than the "alt right" to demand your
interpretation, or your superior knowledge of truth, be given any more
credence than their beliefs.

You are a very evangelistic religious zealot of the hysterical
atheistic persuasion. Period Dot End.

All this time I thought you were cold, calculating and logical. Now I
discover you are really quite emotional and illogical.

Please, where is your empirical evidence of these invisible friends?
What about the evidence of the repeal of the Treaty of Tripoli?
Produce empirical evidence of your supernatural fairy tales and I will
be happy to admit my error and defer to the wishes of your omnipotent,
omniscient invisible friends.

On 11/23/2016 9:23 PM, wrote:
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.

Exactly. Sexual orientation is open to many outside influences from the
time of adolescence 'til adulthood. Babies can't make those decisions.
When gays say they were "born" that way, they imply they had no choice,
which, is a lie that's been repeated over and over again, so sarcasm
obviously it must be true /sarcasm ?

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"


It's all about choice. Always has been.

--
Maggie

wrote :
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.....
How about you disprove my statement with empirical proof - by
shutting up and refraining from making every thread on usenet a
platform for you to grandstand about your "superior knowledge" and
spreading your hysterical atheistic dogma???
You have about 12 hours until I just stuff you into my bin.

LOL, demanding proof of a negative, the refuge of theists, the
superstitious and the illogical.

It must really suck for you that you must confront challenges which you
cannot silence.

As for your bin, meh.

On 11/24/2016 5:22 AM, Robert Green wrote:
(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).

geesh ... I'll be changing the FAKE email again, soon, since I'm not
counting down to thanksgiving day, now. I'll probably change it to
something like 'counting down to Christmas day', next, and after that
.... 'counting down to New Years day'!

--
Maggie

On 11/24/2016 8:24 AM, 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.

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.


My country has a bad reputation by doing many things it shouldn't be
doing. The definition of marriage being changed to include other
combinations besides one man and one woman is one issue I believe needs
to be corrected.

It's important to me. I believe it's wrong, and by allowing it to happen
in America has opened this country up for terrible consequences.

--
Maggie

On 11/24/2016 9:04 AM, 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?



More typical M BS. Whether it is determined at birth, or later by hormones
or some other physical process, is not the issue.

geee ... so actual physiology has no bearing on physical development?


The issue is that it's
not a matter of choice.

It is a matter of choice. Babies aren't born with a sexual orientation.
They are born with a gender. Orientation is a behavior, and sexual
behavior is learned.


--
Maggie

On 11/24/2016 9:22 AM, trader_4 wrote:
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.



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?

Do you really think it's settled? Nope! Not by a long shot. In years to
come conservative justices will be on the SC thanks to TRUMP, and they
will have the opportunity to reverse many decisions that liberals passed
years before them. I'm patient, and have been known to wait years for
one thing or another to happen. I will see this happen, too.



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.


How do you think civil rights laws were changed here in the US? The SC
"interpreted" the Constitution in a more liberal light. Sometimes, they
get it right, and sometimes they'll get it wrong. Religious freedom is
a major tenant of our Constitution and cases specifically put into the
court system for the sole purpose of changing laws like the definition
of marriage will be revisited to the SC, and the next time we won't
lose. Marriage will return to being defined as being between one man
and one woman, and any other combination will be called something else
with it's own regulations and rules. That's just ONE thing conservative
judges will do in the future.

--
Maggie

On 11/24/2016 9:27 AM, trader_4 wrote:
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.



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

You're wrong.

us about the decision process you went through to make your sexual orientation
"choice".

Orientation is the summary of experiences whereby people make multiple
choices along the way. Everything we do is a choice.

--
Maggie

On 11/24/2016 9:43 AM, 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.



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

Offended?? I'm ashamed that our country has gone so deep down into the
pit as it has gone. I want America to be great again.

--
Maggie

Muggles formulated on Thursday :
On 11/24/2016 9:43 AM, 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.



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

Offended?? I'm ashamed that our country has gone so deep down into the
pit as it has gone. I want America to be great again.

You say "again", during which period of time did you consider America
to be greater than it is currently?

On 11/24/2016 9:44 AM, trader_4 wrote:
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.



geesh ...

"Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the
Seventeenth Day of September *in the Year of our Lord* one thousand
seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United
States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto
subscribed our Names...."
Article VII

http://www.heritage.org/constitution...station-clause

Which side of the argument you stand on regarding this statement is
probably related to your own personal beliefs regarding the role God
played in the foundation of our country.

Here are 2 interesting arguments:

http://joshblackman.com/blog/2012/08...-constitution/

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apco...=7&article=297

--
Maggie

On 11/24/2016 9:49 AM, trader_4 wrote:
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.


But of course it's OK to deny two gay people in a committed relationship
the same rights that heterosexual people have. Go figure.

geez ... Nothing can stop anyone from have a "committed relationship",
but gay couples are not equivalent to heterosexual couples. They are
DIFFERENT! They should be acknowledged at being different, just as
people of different races are DIFFERENT.

Why gay couples want to be seen as equal to hetero couples is puzzling,
but they are DIFFERENT. There is nothing wrong with BEING different.
There IS something wrong with wanting to be like other people JUST
because you think that will make you equal.

Equality is a farce. We preach equality to the nth degree, but we
aren't equal because we're all DIFFERENT. That's not a bad thing.


--
Maggie

After serious thinking Muggles wrote :
Seventeenth Day of September *in the Year of our Lord* one thousand
seven hundred and Eighty seven

A date naming convention popular in the day. It is nothing more than a
translation from the Latin term: anno Domini (also AD). To imply the
use of this term codifies jesus christ as god and as having any
significance other than establishing the date is disingenuous and
interprative overreach.

On 11/24/2016 1:20 PM, Muggles wrote:
It is a matter of choice. Babies aren't born with a sexual orientation.
They are born with a gender. Orientation is a behavior, and sexual
behavior is learned.


-- Maggie


You must be a Baptist?

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/sermons/homorights.html

On 11/24/2016 2:33 PM, Mike Hunt wrote:
On 11/24/2016 1:20 PM, Muggles wrote:
It is a matter of choice. Babies aren't born with a sexual orientation.
They are born with a gender. Orientation is a behavior, and sexual
behavior is learned.


-- Maggie


You must be a Baptist?

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/sermons/homorights.html


Nope.

--
Maggie

On 11/24/2016 1:39 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:
After serious thinking Muggles wrote :
Seventeenth Day of September *in the Year of our Lord* one thousand
seven hundred and Eighty seven


A date naming convention popular in the day. It is nothing more than a
translation from the Latin term: anno Domini (also AD). To imply the
use of this term codifies jesus christ as god and as having any
significance other than establishing the date is disingenuous and
interprative overreach.

The interpretation of why that phrase in there is dependent upon the
perspective you're willing to accept.

It is ENTIRELY possible the phrase represented their acknowledgment of
their belief in Christ as Lord.

--
Maggie

On 11/24/2016 12:58 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:
Muggles formulated on Thursday :
On 11/24/2016 9:43 AM, 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.

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

Offended?? I'm ashamed that our country has gone so deep down into the
pit as it has gone. I want America to be great again.

You say "again", during which period of time did you consider America to
be greater than it is currently?

I don't think there is any one specific period of time I'd be able to
name that would satisfy your query mostly because you have an agenda and
you're adamant about supporting your own "Godless" point of view.

--
Maggie

On 11/24/2016 9:50 AM, trader_4 wrote:
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.




Now the village idiot knows more about the subject than researchers. They

I'm guessing you did NOT actually read what the scientists said??

don't know. She does.


Here ya go:

"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*.


IOW, empirical evidence has not been proven.

--
Maggie

On 11/24/2016 9:55 AM, trader_4 wrote:
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?

The Government IS the people! Why should there be ANY question as to
whether or not *the people* could pray at any govt meeting??


--
Maggie

On 11/24/2016 10:00 AM, trader_4 wrote:
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.



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?


One thing you just don't get it just because someone has faith and
believes in God, it doesn't mean they've mastered emulating Christ.

--
Maggie

Muggles presented the following explanation :
On 11/24/2016 1:39 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:
After serious thinking Muggles wrote :
Seventeenth Day of September *in the Year of our Lord* one thousand
seven hundred and Eighty seven


A date naming convention popular in the day. It is nothing more than a
translation from the Latin term: anno Domini (also AD). To imply the
use of this term codifies jesus christ as god and as having any
significance other than establishing the date is disingenuous and
interprative overreach.

The interpretation of why that phrase in there is dependent upon the
perspective you're willing to accept.

It is ENTIRELY possible the phrase represented their acknowledgment of
their belief in Christ as Lord.

Ludicrous.

On 11/24/2016 3:02 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:
Muggles presented the following explanation :
On 11/24/2016 1:39 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:
After serious thinking Muggles wrote :
Seventeenth Day of September *in the Year of our Lord* one thousand
seven hundred and Eighty seven


A date naming convention popular in the day. It is nothing more than a
translation from the Latin term: anno Domini (also AD). To imply the
use of this term codifies jesus christ as god and as having any
significance other than establishing the date is disingenuous and
interprative overreach.

The interpretation of why that phrase in there is dependent upon the
perspective you're willing to accept.

It is ENTIRELY possible the phrase represented their acknowledgment of
their belief in Christ as Lord.


Ludicrous.

Why?

I provided you 2 different links with 2 interesting arguments for both
sides. Did you even read them? IF, you have any intention of having an
open mind about such things, you'd at least ponder and discuss the
viability of both arguments. OTOH, if all you're willing to do is march
in lock step with your own "Godless" agenda, then I can see why you
wouldn't even consider such a discussion.

Are you THAT invested in your conclusion that you're unwilling to
consider you may just be wrong about what this country was based on?


Here are 2 interesting arguments:

http://joshblackman.com/blog/2012/08...-constitution/

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apco...=7&article=297


--
Maggie

Muggles formulated on Thursday :
On 11/24/2016 12:58 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:
Muggles formulated on Thursday :
On 11/24/2016 9:43 AM, 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.

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

Offended?? I'm ashamed that our country has gone so deep down into the
pit as it has gone. I want America to be great again.

You say "again", during which period of time did you consider America to
be greater than it is currently?

I don't think there is any one specific period of time I'd be able to
name that would satisfy your query mostly because you have an agenda and
you're adamant about supporting your own "Godless" point of view.

Godlessness has nothing to do with the topic.

My query was not made in quest of satisfaction, but rather an
explanation of your statement.

At what point in the history of our nation was America greater than it
is now?

I can understand why you are afraid of answering the question, but that
is entirely about your perspectives, rhetoric and hypocrisy. Come now,
demonstrate some integrity and face your personal demons by answering
the question.

On 11/24/2016 3:09 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:
Muggles formulated on Thursday :
On 11/24/2016 12:58 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:
Muggles formulated on Thursday :
On 11/24/2016 9:43 AM, 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.

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

Offended?? I'm ashamed that our country has gone so deep down into the
pit as it has gone. I want America to be great again.

You say "again", during which period of time did you consider America to
be greater than it is currently?


I don't think there is any one specific period of time I'd be able to
name that would satisfy your query mostly because you have an agenda and
you're adamant about supporting your own "Godless" point of view.


Godlessness has nothing to do with the topic.

OH yes it does. Your stance is America had nothing to do with God
inspiring it's founders. THAT equates to you pursing an argument
supporting a Godless viewpoint in America's birth.

My query was not made in quest of satisfaction, but rather an
explanation of your statement.

At what point in the history of our nation was America greater than it
is now?

I can understand why you are afraid of answering the question, but that
is entirely about your perspectives, rhetoric and hypocrisy. Come now,
demonstrate some integrity and face your personal demons by answering
the question.

At times I've come to the conclusion that trying to "explain" various
things to some people that I've said would either take too long to do
so, or would be a waste of time trying.

You've already made up your mind that you'll counter anything I've said,
so IMO, I think it would be a waste of time for me to "explain" to you
/various points in history that I feel America is greater than it is
now/ because then I'd have to "explain" to you WHY I've come to those
conclusions.

It might turn into an interesting discussion if I did go into more
detail, but I'm not so sure you can actually participate in a discussion
like that without inserting your own distaste or hate if/when I refer to
faith, so you can score some sort of "point".

OTOH, I am tempted to give it a try... haven't made up my mind, yet.

--
Maggie

on 11.24.2016, Muggles supposed :
On 11/24/2016 3:09 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:
Muggles formulated on Thursday :
On 11/24/2016 12:58 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:
Muggles formulated on Thursday :
On 11/24/2016 9:43 AM, 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.
Well. she is offended. You cannot do anything that offends others.
Offended?? I'm ashamed that our country has gone so deep down into the
pit as it has gone. I want America to be great again.
You say "again", during which period of time did you consider America to
be greater than it is currently?


I don't think there is any one specific period of time I'd be able to
name that would satisfy your query mostly because you have an agenda and
you're adamant about supporting your own "Godless" point of view.


Godlessness has nothing to do with the topic.

OH yes it does. Your stance is America had nothing to do with God
inspiring it's founders. THAT equates to you pursing an argument
supporting a Godless viewpoint in America's birth.

My query was not made in quest of satisfaction, but rather an
explanation of your statement.

At what point in the history of our nation was America greater than it
is now?

I can understand why you are afraid of answering the question, but that
is entirely about your perspectives, rhetoric and hypocrisy. Come now,
demonstrate some integrity and face your personal demons by answering
the question.

At times I've come to the conclusion that trying to "explain" various
things to some people that I've said would either take too long to do
so, or would be a waste of time trying.

You've already made up your mind that you'll counter anything I've said,
so IMO, I think it would be a waste of time for me to "explain" to you
/various points in history that I feel America is greater than it is
now/ because then I'd have to "explain" to you WHY I've come to those
conclusions.

It might turn into an interesting discussion if I did go into more
detail, but I'm not so sure you can actually participate in a discussion
like that without inserting your own distaste or hate if/when I refer to
faith, so you can score some sort of "point".

OTOH, I am tempted to give it a try... haven't made up my mind, yet.

Gotta love the theist approach, if you question them or demand
evidence, then you are full of hate. LOL

Honestly, don't do me any favors. You made a silly statement about
making America great again, but, you are incapable of of answering the
simple question:

"At what point in the history of our nation was America greater than it
is now?"

Apparently, in your orbit, words, facts, history and empirical evidence
do not matter. Maybe you should ask yourself a couple of questions:
"Was America, at any point in the past, ever a better place for a
greater percentage of it's residents then it is today? OR Was it a much
better place for a much smaller percentage of it's residents and a much
worse place for many others?" If you were to be truly honest in your
analysis, you would stop parroting the Trump rhetoric.

America is a great and honorable, but imperfect nation. We are CLOSER
now to the goals of our founders than at any time in our history;
liberty, justice and equality for all without prejudice against or bias
towards any law abiding residents. The nation is not perfect by any
means, but you apparently are incapable of citing one period in our
history in which the nation was comprehensively "greater".

You always disappoint when it comes to thoughtful introspection and
logical analysis.

On 11/24/2016 5:30 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:
on 11.24.2016, Muggles supposed :
On 11/24/2016 3:09 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:
Muggles formulated on Thursday :
On 11/24/2016 12:58 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:
Muggles formulated on Thursday :
On 11/24/2016 9:43 AM, 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.
Well. she is offended. You cannot do anything that offends others.
Offended?? I'm ashamed that our country has gone so deep down
into the
pit as it has gone. I want America to be great again.
You say "again", during which period of time did you consider
America to
be greater than it is currently?


I don't think there is any one specific period of time I'd be able to
name that would satisfy your query mostly because you have an agenda
and
you're adamant about supporting your own "Godless" point of view.


Godlessness has nothing to do with the topic.

OH yes it does. Your stance is America had nothing to do with God
inspiring it's founders. THAT equates to you pursing an argument
supporting a Godless viewpoint in America's birth.

My query was not made in quest of satisfaction, but rather an
explanation of your statement.

At what point in the history of our nation was America greater than it
is now?

I can understand why you are afraid of answering the question, but that
is entirely about your perspectives, rhetoric and hypocrisy. Come now,
demonstrate some integrity and face your personal demons by answering
the question.

At times I've come to the conclusion that trying to "explain" various
things to some people that I've said would either take too long to do
so, or would be a waste of time trying.

You've already made up your mind that you'll counter anything I've said,
so IMO, I think it would be a waste of time for me to "explain" to you
/various points in history that I feel America is greater than it is
now/ because then I'd have to "explain" to you WHY I've come to those
conclusions.

It might turn into an interesting discussion if I did go into more
detail, but I'm not so sure you can actually participate in a discussion
like that without inserting your own distaste or hate if/when I refer to
faith, so you can score some sort of "point".

OTOH, I am tempted to give it a try... haven't made up my mind, yet.


Gotta love the theist approach, if you question them or demand evidence,
then you are full of hate. LOL

I'm not a theist, so you're off to a slow start.

Honestly, don't do me any favors. You made a silly statement about
making America great again, but, you are incapable of of answering the
simple question:

"At what point in the history of our nation was America greater than it
is now?"

There is a difference in choosing to not explain something vs. being
incapable of doing it. Intelligent people understand that difference.

Apparently, in your orbit, words, facts, history and empirical evidence
do not matter. Maybe you should ask yourself a couple of questions:
"Was America, at any point in the past, ever a better place for a
greater percentage of it's residents then it is today? OR Was it a much
better place for a much smaller percentage of it's residents and a much
worse place for many others?" If you were to be truly honest in your
analysis, you would stop parroting the Trump rhetoric.

You're channeling some passive aggressive female, now.

America is a great and honorable, but imperfect nation.

We WERE a great nation, but have slipped not only in the eyes of the
world, but in the eyes of many of it's own citizens.

We are CLOSER
now to the goals of our founders than at any time in our history;
liberty, justice and equality for all without prejudice against or bias
towards any law abiding residents.

No we aren't. Equality and justice for all only happens for people who
can afford to buy it.

The nation is not perfect by any
means, but you apparently are incapable of citing one period in our
history in which the nation was comprehensively "greater".

I repeat: There is a difference in choosing to not explain something vs.
being incapable of doing it. Intelligent people understand that difference.

You always disappoint when it comes to thoughtful introspection and
logical analysis.

I usually disappoint passive aggressive attempts to push me in any
particular direction that I'm not interested in going. If you'd like to
stop channeling that typical passive aggressive female I just mentioned,
we might have an interesting discussion.

--
Maggie

It happens that Muggles formulated :


Gotta love the theist approach, if you question them or demand evidence,
then you are full of hate. LOL

I'm not a theist, so you're off to a slow start.

Honestly, don't do me any favors. You made a silly statement about
making America great again, but, you are incapable of of answering the
simple question:

"At what point in the history of our nation was America greater than it
is now?"

There is a difference in choosing to not explain something vs. being
incapable of doing it. Intelligent people understand that difference.

Apparently, in your orbit, words, facts, history and empirical evidence
do not matter. Maybe you should ask yourself a couple of questions:
"Was America, at any point in the past, ever a better place for a
greater percentage of it's residents then it is today? OR Was it a much
better place for a much smaller percentage of it's residents and a much
worse place for many others?" If you were to be truly honest in your
analysis, you would stop parroting the Trump rhetoric.

You're channeling some passive aggressive female, now.

America is a great and honorable, but imperfect nation.

We WERE a great nation, but have slipped not only in the eyes of the
world, but in the eyes of many of it's own citizens.

We are CLOSER
now to the goals of our founders than at any time in our history;
liberty, justice and equality for all without prejudice against or bias
towards any law abiding residents.

No we aren't. Equality and justice for all only happens for people who
can afford to buy it.

The nation is not perfect by any
means, but you apparently are incapable of citing one period in our
history in which the nation was comprehensively "greater".

I repeat: There is a difference in choosing to not explain something vs.
being incapable of doing it. Intelligent people understand that difference.

You always disappoint when it comes to thoughtful introspection and
logical analysis.

I usually disappoint passive aggressive attempts to push me in any
particular direction that I'm not interested in going. If you'd like to
stop channeling that typical passive aggressive female I just mentioned,
we might have an interesting discussion.

I am shocked that you will not answer such a simple question. ;-)

Not a good day to be you muggles. ROTFL

On 11/24/2016 2:32 PM, Muggles wrote:

But of course it's OK to deny two gay people in a committed relationship
the same rights that heterosexual people have. Go figure.

geez ... Nothing can stop anyone from have a "committed relationship",
but gay couples are not equivalent to heterosexual couples. They are
DIFFERENT! They should be acknowledged at being different, just as
people of different races are DIFFERENT.

Why gay couples want to be seen as equal to hetero couples is puzzling,
but they are DIFFERENT. There is nothing wrong with BEING different.
There IS something wrong with wanting to be like other people JUST
because you think that will make you equal.

Good that you consider race being different. So Blacks and Asians,
being different than us Caucasians should not have the same rights?

I think you have a great interpretation. Different people should NOT
have the same equality as us. Blacks and Asians should not have any tax
deductions, should not vote, or have any of the equality we have. Once
we recongnize if you are different and not equal it is only a couple of
steps to out supremacy.

Equality is a farce. We preach equality to the nth degree, but we
aren't equal because we're all DIFFERENT. That's not a bad thing.

Yes, suppress the different people as you suggest. Gays and other races
cannot marry. They don't get equal rights.
Do you not see the idiocy of what you wrote?