On 11/24/2016 12:49 PM, Muggles wrote:
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.


Why not? They have the same types of expenses, medical insurance, and
even children. Why can they not get the same tax rate? Is marriage a
superior nion? Maybe the gay civil union is superior. Other than your
opinon can you make a sensible argument of one of the other?

On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 09:50:56 -0800, "Sterling Archer"
wrote:

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.
Very respectfully, sir, you would not recognize the scientific
method if it kicked you in the balls.
You have not responded to and accepted the proof that your "item 11"
is at best a red herring, not having ANY force of law. It was taken
totally out of context and the treaty was repealed and replaced,
without any wording CLOSE to the mis-interpreted version of the first
treaty.

You are a very closed minded, intollerant, religious fanatic and too
dumb to realize it - yet you put yourself forward as the most
intelligent specimen of the most intelligent group of the epitome of
evolution from pond scum.

A sad, sad situation at best.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 10:12:19 -0800, "Sterling Archer"
wrote:

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.
I know a whole lot more about the American political system and
legal system than you know of the Canadian - and quite possibly from
your gross missrepresentation of American political history,
significantly more than you do.

I am quite confident I also know more about both scientific and
hysterical atheism than you do about Christianity - particularly the
nonconformists of the protestant reformation.

What REALLY must suck is to be so ignorant of your condition that you
flaunt it proudly, letting the whole news-net world see how pitiful
you really are.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 12:20:03 -0600, Muggles
wrote:

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.
I think you have an overly simplistic understanding of human
sexuality.
That said, just because someone desires something, does not mean that
it is right for them, or good for them. A man may be super
hetro-sexual - attracted to anything of the feminine gender - or a
woman may be so "highly sexed" that she is dianosed as a nymphomaniac
- yet yeilding to those desires or impulses is no less a "sin" than
homosexuality.

There are also those unfortunate few whose bodies and minds just plain
don't match - a woman stuck in a man's body, and vice versa.

Those are not as numerous as many would have us believe, but they do
exist..

Going through life single and celibate is NOT the worst thing that can
happen to a person.

(married to the wrong partner for life is a lot worse - among other
scenarios)

On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 12:31:18 -0600, Muggles
wrote:

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.



Muggles??? I think you are just about as befuddled as Sterling and
Trader - and your disenchantment with Trump 4 years from now will be
close to that of Sterling's disenchantment with Theism.

The man (Trump) is a charlatton and an opportunist.
His appointments to the supreme court are unlikely to be anything
close to what you are dreaming they will be.
As dishonest and crooked as the man is, he MIGHT just avoid ending up
the"worst US President in History" by riding the middle road, and
actually completing many of the initiatives the rebs blocked in the
last 8 years.

The man is no "christian", no "republican" and no "conservative"

On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 10:58:42 -0800, "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?
If you need to ask that question, you know less of american and
world history than I gave you credit for......

On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 15:09:19 -0600, Muggles
wrote:

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
Now come on, Muggles!!! Don't you see when Sterling reads that he
agrees 100%, but he feels HE is the supreme being, the "sovereign
ruler of the universe" and "great legislator of the Universe"
That is assuming he is capable of following a hyperlink and reading
a sentance of more than 10 words - keeping his attention focused on
something more than an inch beyond the limits of his highly regimented
but very limited scope of "understanding".

On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 17:41:50 -0600, Muggles
wrote:

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.
America will be the greatest it has ever been, in his eyes, when
there is no reference to religion or "gods" allowed anywhere in the
USA. After all, the Islamists only hate us because we are seen as
"Christian".
All men will be equal when there is no respect for anything anyone
"believes" and when everything will align with the limitted
"scientific proof" that is deamed to be correct by the small-thinking
litteralist quasi-scientific leaders of the ignorant and uneducated
masses.

The USA is well on it's way, with it's deteriorating and hopelessly
inadequate public school system and it's "politically correct"
universities almost straight out of "Animal Farm" - and a political
system perverted to prevent government from accomplishing anything
that benefits "the masses".

Oh yes, America is getting SO CLOSE to greatness!!!!!!!

And it really has very little to do with abortion, Gay marriage, and
all the consrevative "hot buttons"

On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 19:18:40 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

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?
Ed - I think you are really pushing beyond your weight on this one.
Let it lie. You won't win on either side - you're not looney enough
to agree fukly with Sterling - and if you dissagree on one point you
are worse than a heretic to him. - and you won't win with Muggles
either. On both sides it's like wrestling with a pig. You both get
muddy, but only the pig really enjoys it.

On 11/24/2016 9:02 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 12:20:03 -0600, Muggles
wrote:

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.

I think you have an overly simplistic understanding of human
sexuality.

I've been around many babies aside from my own and none of them had any
sexual orientation. They had gender.

Sexual orientation doesn't develop until adolescence. That's not
simplistic.

That said, just because someone desires something, does not mean that
it is right for them, or good for them. A man may be super
hetro-sexual - attracted to anything of the feminine gender - or a
woman may be so "highly sexed" that she is dianosed as a nymphomaniac
- yet yeilding to those desires or impulses is no less a "sin" than
homosexuality.

There are also those unfortunate few whose bodies and minds just plain
don't match - a woman stuck in a man's body, and vice versa.

Those are not as numerous as many would have us believe, but they do
exist..

Going through life single and celibate is NOT the worst thing that can
happen to a person.

(married to the wrong partner for life is a lot worse - among other
scenarios)


All of that said, all people still have a choice what they do.

--
Maggie

On 11/24/2016 9:09 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 12:31:18 -0600, Muggles
wrote:

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.


Muggles??? I think you are just about as befuddled as Sterling and
Trader - and your disenchantment with Trump 4 years from now will be
close to that of Sterling's disenchantment with Theism.

I really don't think I'm going to be disenchanted with Trump in 4 years.
If he does half of the things he wanted to do.. if he actually gets
something done at all, I'll be happy. From the way things are looking
his first 100 days is being planned out now, and I'm thinking the man is
going to get plenty done.

The man (Trump) is a charlatton and an opportunist.
His appointments to the supreme court are unlikely to be anything
close to what you are dreaming they will be.

A conservative will do fine. Multiple conservatives over his first 4
years will be even better.

As dishonest and crooked as the man is, he MIGHT just avoid ending up
the"worst US President in History" by riding the middle road, and
actually completing many of the initiatives the rebs blocked in the
last 8 years.

The man is no "christian", no "republican" and no "conservative"


The man is a wheeler dealer, and will actually get something done.

--
Maggie

On 11/24/2016 9:24 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 15:09:19 -0600, Muggles
wrote:

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


Now come on, Muggles!!! Don't you see when Sterling reads that he
agrees 100%, but he feels HE is the supreme being, the "sovereign
ruler of the universe" and "great legislator of the Universe"
That is assuming he is capable of following a hyperlink and reading
a sentance of more than 10 words - keeping his attention focused on
something more than an inch beyond the limits of his highly regimented
but very limited scope of "understanding".


I've encountered people with his approach before. Guess I'll see which
way he goes.

--
Maggie

On 11/24/2016 9:37 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 17:41:50 -0600, Muggles
wrote:

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.

America will be the greatest it has ever been, in his eyes, when
there is no reference to religion or "gods" allowed anywhere in the
USA. After all, the Islamists only hate us because we are seen as
"Christian".
All men will be equal when there is no respect for anything anyone
"believes" and when everything will align with the limitted
"scientific proof" that is deamed to be correct by the small-thinking
litteralist quasi-scientific leaders of the ignorant and uneducated
masses.

yeah I've heard that "ignorant uneducated masses" mantra before.

The USA is well on it's way, with it's deteriorating and hopelessly
inadequate public school system and it's "politically correct"
universities almost straight out of "Animal Farm" - and a political
system perverted to prevent government from accomplishing anything
that benefits "the masses".

Oh yes, America is getting SO CLOSE to greatness!!!!!!!

And it really has very little to do with abortion, Gay marriage, and
all the consrevative "hot buttons"


Well, dealing with a few of the issues you mentioned would be a good
beginning!

--
Maggie

On 11/24/2016 6:18 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:
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

You sound like the college cry babies ...

--
Maggie

On 11/24/2016 6:18 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
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?

Gee ... where did I say that?

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.

Do you think racial quota's are fair? Do you think it's fair to have
Black History month and not have Asian history month or Caucasian
history month?

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.

gee ... where did I say that?? Acknowledging we're different doesn't
equal suppressing anyone.

Gays and other races cannot marry.

Being gay is not a race.

They don't get equal rights.

NONE of us have equal rights because we're all different.

Do you not see the idiocy of what you wrote?

I see that you really don't understand what I've actually said and gone
off into tangents that I never addressed.


--
Maggie

On 11/24/2016 6:28 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 11/24/2016 12:49 PM, Muggles wrote:
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.


Why not?

What don't you understand about things that aren't equal??


They have the same types of expenses, medical insurance, and
even children. Why can they not get the same tax rate? Is marriage a
superior nion? Maybe the gay civil union is superior. Other than your
opinon can you make a sensible argument of one of the other?

Then write laws specifically applicable to those unions.

They are not marriages.

--
Maggie

On 11/25/2016 12:31 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 11/24/2016 6:18 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 11/24/2016 2:32 PM, Muggles wrote:

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.


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

Gee ... where did I say that?

Look what you typed above.




I see that you really don't understand what I've actually said and gone
off into tangents that I never addressed.



If you cannot follow what you said you are really in need of help. Look
at what you said above.

On 11/24/2016 11:38 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 11/25/2016 12:31 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 11/24/2016 6:18 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 11/24/2016 2:32 PM, Muggles wrote:

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.


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

Gee ... where did I say that?

Look what you typed above.


I said people are different and it's ok to acknowledge that. What's
wrong with saying that?


I see that you really don't understand what I've actually said and gone
off into tangents that I never addressed.



If you cannot follow what you said you are really in need of help. Look
at what you said above.

There is NOTHING wrong with what I said.

--
Maggie

laid this down on his screen :

Very respectfully, sir, you would not recognize the scientific
method if it kicked you in the balls.
You have not responded to and accepted the proof that your "item 11"
is at best a red herring, not having ANY force of law. It was taken
totally out of context and the treaty was repealed and replaced,
without any wording CLOSE to the mis-interpreted version of the first
treaty.

You are a very closed minded, intollerant, religious fanatic and too
dumb to realize it - yet you put yourself forward as the most
intelligent specimen of the most intelligent group of the epitome of
evolution from pond scum.

A sad, sad situation at best.

Let's see, if I understand your argument correctly, you're right, I'm
not only wrong but I am dumb, closed minded, intolerant, a religious
fanatic, and my favorite, pond scum.

That is very persuasive. LOL

Now, where is your evidence the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli was repealed?

Where is your empirical evidence to substantiate the existence of your
invisible friends?

formulated on Thursday :

I know a whole lot more about the American political system and
legal system than you know of the Canadian - and quite possibly from
your gross missrepresentation of American political history,
significantly more than you do.

I am quite confident I also know more about both scientific and
hysterical atheism than you do about Christianity - particularly the
nonconformists of the protestant reformation.

What REALLY must suck is to be so ignorant of your condition that you
flaunt it proudly, letting the whole news-net world see how pitiful
you really are.

To recap: Your knowledge and understanding is superior to mine,
additionally, I am ignorant and pitiful.

I must admit, considering your inability to produce evidence, your
fallback arguments adequately represent your superior knowledge and
intellect.

ROTFL!

On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 12:37:47 PM UTC-5, 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.

And only one poster here is doing that. End of story.



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.


He has nothing to prove. It's like saying someone believes that little
green men live on Mars and someone else says I won't believe that until
you show evidence of it, prove it. Those "beliefs" are to be equated?



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.

Nonsense. No one is saying they can't believe what they want to believe.
Only that they should not expect us to believe it without proof and that
our laws should not be based on their unproven religious beliefs.

On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 12:50:40 PM UTC-5, Sterling Archer wrote:
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.

+1

explained :


You say "again", during which period of time did you consider America
to be greater than it is currently?
If you need to ask that question, you know less of american and
world history than I gave you credit for......

And yet, no one is willing to answer the question, remarkable.

LOL

On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 12:55:24 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
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

We don;t want to force you to live by anything other than the constitution,
which says all people are to have equal protection under the law. When you
decide that marriage has to be between a man and woman, because of your
religious beliefs, or for any reason, then it's you folks who are denying
others their rights. The SC ruled and said so.

Even your boy Trump says the issue is irrelevant, "it's done" and he's not
going to get involved.

On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 12:57:09 PM UTC-5, wrote:
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.

Wow, I'm sure he's quaking in his boots! If you kill file him he'll
be in good company. That's what intolerant people do and why they remain
ignorant.

On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 1:01:29 PM UTC-5, Sterling Archer wrote:
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.

+1


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.

Plus he claims you are the intolerant one, yet he just threatened to kill
file you because he disagrees with you. And killfiled by Clarabelle,
what a blow that would be.

On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 1:11:25 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
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

Still waiting for you or one of the other homophobes to tell us about
the process you went through in making your sexual preference decision.
First you claim it involves hormones. Then you tell us it's just a choice.
So, tell us your evaluation process, your thought process, and tell us
all about that glorious day when you decided your sexual preference.
You'd be the first.

On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 1:17:31 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
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

In other words, you can't tell us how a gay couple has an effect on you.
Terrible consequences? What are these terrible consequences? A gay
couple can now adopt an unwanted child and give it a loving home. A
gay couple can now have the same rights, so that if one dies, the other
can collect pension survivor benefits. They can get the same tax break
as a hetero couple. What there is so bad? That affects you?
BTW, how many of those wonderful hetero marriages now ends in divorce,
kids ripped apart, with all kind of emotional problems? Where is your
evidence of this great harm of gay marriage?

On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 1:20:02 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
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?



Neither I nor anyone else her ever said that it didn't. The village idiot
is good at making up total BS strawmen.




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

Still waiting for you to tell us all about the day that you decided your
sexual preference. Tell us all about that glorious day.

On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 1:31:17 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
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.

Your boy Trump said so, and for you Trumpets, he can do no wrong.

It's about as settled as slavery. Not just here, but in most of the
rest of the developed world. Look at the countries with the most freedom,
the values consistent with ours. UK, Canada, France, Spain, Brazil,
Ireland, 21 in total, they recognize gay marriage. Which countries
don't? Russia, China, Iran, North Korea,.....

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.

The SC has never been quick to take up the same issue again, certainly
not in just a few years, once it's been settled. How have the similar
attempts gone to reverse ROEvWade? You had 8 years of Reagan, 4 of Bush,
8 more of Bush 43 and what happened?




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.



DReam on. And that wasn't the point. The point is that it's very rare
for the SC to take up the same issue again, in just a few years. The
toothpaste is out of the tube and you're not going to put it back.
What SC would want to wade into the bizarre world that we'd have if
this were now reversed? What would become of those millions of gay
marriages already in existence? And as I pointed out already, this
isn't just a US rights thing. Gay marriage is now the law in 21 other
countries, modern countries, like the UK (where did our principles, our
values, our laws come from?), France, Norway, Spain, Brazil. Should
we be with them on this issue or with Russia, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia
and the backward third world countries?
--
Maggie

On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 1:50:18 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
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

ROFL

This from the person who voted for Trump:

John McCain is no war hero!
I prefer vets who were not captured!
Mimicking the body movements of a disabled man to attack him
Look at that face! Who could vote for that?
Tweeting unflattering pics of Cruz's wife
I grab them by the pussy!
She had blood running out of her wherever.
That would be a pretty sight, you on your knees.

On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 2:21:29 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
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

Boy, that's as lame as it gets. They are referring to the year, which as
our dating system goes, is AD, meaning "year of the lord". They could
just as well have said 1787 AD. That this is all you can come up with
speaks for itself. You really have only scraps to deal with in your
attempt to justify denial of equal rights to all.

It happens that trader_4 formulated :


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

ROFL

This from the person who voted for Trump:

John McCain is no war hero!
I prefer vets who were not captured!
Mimicking the body movements of a disabled man to attack him
Look at that face! Who could vote for that?
Tweeting unflattering pics of Cruz's wife
I grab them by the pussy!
She had blood running out of her wherever.
That would be a pretty sight, you on your knees.

Maybe if you say "pretty please", she will tell you when America was
comprehensively greater then it is today? She won't answer the
question when I ask.....

On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 2:32:06 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
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.

I see, so people of different races should be treated differently under
our system of laws to, eh?



Why gay couples want to be seen as equal to hetero couples is puzzling,
but they are DIFFERENT.

Yeah, how puzzling. To want to enter into a committed lifelong relationship
with the one they love and to have the same rights as a hetero couple.
Wow, how puzzling indeed!


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.

Right, so blacks are different than whites and there is something wrong
with them wanting to be equal. THAT is exactly the argument that was
made to defend slavery, separate but equal, and all the mistreatment
of blacks.



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.


--


I see. You're sounding more and more like a white supremacist every day.
I can see your attraction to Trump and why people associate Trumpets
with your kind of values. That is your character, your values, but
not mine.

On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 3:54:56 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
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

And how are you going to like it when at your local town govt meeting,
muslims show up and after you've gotten through with your prayer, they
insist on rolling out the carpet and praying to their god? And then
the Westboro Baptists demand that they get to lead a prayer, where they
thank their god for dead US soldiers, because it's god punishing us for
gays and AIDS? And then the atheists demand their period of time, to
spout off and deny there is any god at all.
I could give you a hundred more examples, but everyone
else here gets the idea. The simpler solution is for you and everyone
else to keep your religion out of the town govt. Why BTW, is what the
overwhelming majority of govts do in this country anyway.

On Friday, November 25, 2016 at 12:31:44 AM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 11/24/2016 6:18 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
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?

Gee ... where did I say that?

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.

Do you think racial quota's are fair? Do you think it's fair to have
Black History month and not have Asian history month or Caucasian
history month?



Odd coming from the person who wants their prayers, their displays
at govt meetings, govt buildings. Obviously the same problems come
with that. If you can have your prayer, then the muslims should be
able to roll out their rug, have theirs too. And the jews. And the
Westboro Baptists should be able to have a prayer that includes telling
everyone that it's great that US soldiers get killed, because that's
how their god is punishing us for gays. The rational alternative of
course is to just keep all religion out of those govt locations.



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.

gee ... where did I say that?? Acknowledging we're different doesn't
equal suppressing anyone.


It sure does when you deny gay couples the same marriage rights under
our laws as hetero couples. Are you that dense?


Gays and other races cannot marry.

Being gay is not a race.

No one here ever said it was.



They don't get equal rights.

NONE of us have equal rights because we're all different.


That is probably the most stupid thing you've posted here yet. And
why no one respects you.



Do you not see the idiocy of what you wrote?

I see that you really don't understand what I've actually said and gone
off into tangents that I never addressed.


--
Maggie

No, Ed's right, you are indeed the village idiot!

trader_4 formulated on Friday :
All this time I thought you were cold, calculating and logical. Now I
discover you are really quite emotional and illogical.

+1


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.

Plus he claims you are the intolerant one, yet he just threatened to kill
file you because he disagrees with you. And killfiled by Clarabelle,
what a blow that would be.

Whereas I do not condone such emotional outbursts, I can understand why
he is so upset. When the issues are reduced to their base elements, he
and his kind are unable to produce empirical evidence to support their
assertions.

He and Jenn are realizing they don't have a factual, stable leg to
stand upon and their "beliefs" have the shoddiest of foundations. When
some people surround themselves only with others who share their
delusions, it can be quite infuriating when they encounter strangers
who recognize and challenge their psychotic beliefs. When they become
infuriated, they strike out, frequently in bizarre and illogical
outbursts such as those of clare.

I don't take it personally, it doesn't make sense to be offended by
mental illness.

On 11/25/2016 7:47 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 12:55:24 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 11/23/2016 8:38 PM, wrote:

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!



We don;t want to force you to live by anything other than the constitution,
which says all people are to have equal protection under the law. When you
decide that marriage has to be between a man and woman, because of your
religious beliefs, or for any reason, then it's you folks who are denying
others their rights. The SC ruled and said so.

The SC can overturn it in the future, too, with the addition of
conservative judges on the court.

Even your boy Trump says the issue is irrelevant, "it's done" and he's not
going to get involved.

It's not the job of POTUS to legislate, but it is his job to appoint SC
justices to fill open vacancies. Why do you think one big reason
there's been such a battle over who would become POTUS? Whoever wins
the presidency is going to change the direction of the US for the next
generation, at least, based on who they appoint to the SC.

--
Maggie

On 11/25/2016 9:42 AM, trader_4 wrote:

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.
--
Maggie

And how are you going to like it when at your local town govt meeting,
muslims show up and after you've gotten through with your prayer, they
insist on rolling out the carpet and praying to their god? And then
the Westboro Baptists demand that they get to lead a prayer, where they
thank their god for dead US soldiers, because it's god punishing us for
gays and AIDS? And then the atheists demand their period of time, to
spout off and deny there is any god at all.
I could give you a hundred more examples, but everyone
else here gets the idea. The simpler solution is for you and everyone
else to keep your religion out of the town govt. Why BTW, is what the
overwhelming majority of govts do in this country anyway.



That won't happen. Remember, Maggie said those people are different and
they don't have equal rights. Only us same people have equal rights so
don't worry about the different ones.

On 11/25/2016 7:54 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 1:11:25 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
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.



Still waiting for you or one of the other homophobes to tell us about
the process you went through in making your sexual preference decision.

Every time I see that question asked it gives me a chuckle. It's an
attempt to turn the discussion away from the fact that babies aren't
born with a sexual orientation, therefore, it's a moot argument to claim
anyone is born gay.

First you claim it involves hormones. Then you tell us it's just a choice.

What don't you get? It's basic growth of humans... we're born BABIES
having a gender. We have to go through adolescence and at that time our
hormones begin to manifest. At that time we become aware of our
sexuality, AND we make choices based on all the information we're
exposed to. As we mature we become responsible for the choices we make
because the law has set an age of consent and responsibility, which,
doesn't negate the fact that even as children we make choices and are
still responsible for those choices, too.

Our lives are filled with choices and every time we act on anything it's
because we made a choice from our available options.


So, tell us your evaluation process, your thought process, and tell us
all about that glorious day when you decided your sexual preference.
You'd be the first.


What don't you get??

--
Maggie