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 couple’s 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 family’s young children received death threats and the store’s social networking platforms were overrun by militant LGBT activists posting obscene and profane messages.

The Kleins were eventually ordered to pay $135,000 in “emotional damages” to the lesbians.

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

“The 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 “gay 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 nation’s most prominent religious liberty law firms. They are appealing the fines levied by Avakian’s office.

“We will never know if Mr. Avakian’s unprecedented attack on religious liberty played a role, but we are hopeful that there is a path toward justice,” attorney Hiram Sasser told me. “Everyone’s 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.

“Perhaps 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.

--
Maggie

On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 10:35:30 PM UTC-6, 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.
--
Maggie


As far as I know, it's never been illegal for a homosexual male to marry a homosexual female. ヽ(ヅ)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Smug Monster

On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 02:31:57 -0800 (PST), Uncle Monster
wrote:

As far as I know, it's never been illegal for a homosexual male to marry a homosexual female. ?(?)?

They've even announced a colorized version of it

http://deadline.com/tag/the-dick-van-dyke-show/

Low budget though. All the filming will be done in a motor
vehicle.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 22:35:30 -0600, 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 couple’s 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 family’s young children received death threats and the store’s social networking platforms were overrun by militant LGBT activists posting obscene and profane messages.

The Kleins were eventually ordered to pay $135,000 in “emotional damages” to the lesbians.

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

“The 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 “gay 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 nation’s most prominent religious liberty law firms. They are appealing the fines levied by Avakian’s office.

“We will never know if Mr. Avakian’s unprecedented attack on religious liberty played a role, but we are hopeful that there is a path toward justice,” attorney Hiram Sasser told me. “Everyone’s 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.

“Perhaps 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.
Sadly I think that ship has already sailed

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.

--
Maggie

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

Cindy Hamilton

On 11/22/2016 4:31 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 10:35:30 PM UTC-6, 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.


As far as I know, it's never been illegal for a homosexual male to marry a homosexual female. ヽ(ヅ)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Smug Monster


smile

--
Maggie

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

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

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


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

Sadly I think that ship has already sailed

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

--
Maggie

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.

--
Maggie

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

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

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


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

Sadly I think that ship has already sailed

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

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

You marrying someone of the same sex? A marmot? Two otters? IOW,
eff off.

Why should two guys/girls be deprived of the same misery of marriage
yer narrow definitiion difines?

nb

On 11/22/2016 1:07 PM, notbob wrote:
On 2016-11-22, Muggles wrote:
On 11/22/2016 7:18 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 22:35:30 -0600, Muggles
wrote:

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

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


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

Sadly I think that ship has already sailed

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


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

Why should I *not* give a "rat's ass"???

You marrying someone of the same sex? A marmot? Two otters? IOW,
eff off.

NO!

Why should two guys/girls be deprived of the same misery of marriage
yer narrow definitiion difines?


Let them call their misery a civil union!


--
Maggie

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.

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.

--
Maggie

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

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

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

+1

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

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.

--
Maggie

On 11/22/2016 4:13 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 11:35:30 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:

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




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


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

Any OTHER combination is NOT marriage and, therefore, not qualified for
rights defined under marriage. Civil unions should have rights defined
in reference to civil unions alone.

--
Maggie

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

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


+1

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


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

--
Maggie

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

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

+1

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

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

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

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.

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

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


+1

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


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

--
Maggie

The bible also supported and justified slavery as one of it's principles.
And the US was formed allowing slavery as part of it's custom and govt
enforced laws, so I guess that was all peachy keen too, eh?

On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 5:29:45 PM UTC-5, Sterling Archer wrote:
trader_4 explained on 11.22.2016 :
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 5:13:09 PM UTC-5, Sterling Archer wrote:
Muggles formulated the question :
I believe it's wrong to label gay, or any other combination of union
"marriage". Marriage was an institution created by God to join one man
and one woman in matrimony, and it reflects the relationship between
Gods church and his people. Any other combination is not "marriage",
and a perversion of the institution God created.

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

+1

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

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

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

That would be fine with me. And as I've said before, if such a god
existed, how probative it would have been to have some things in the
bible that were not known at the time, but would later be discovered
and confirmed by man. Some examples:


There are 8 planets around the sun.
The earth revolves around the sun.
The earth is 4.5 bil years old
Gold will one day be known by the number 78, cooper 29, silver 49

If the bible had THAT, it would be powerful evidence. Instead
the bible has the universe created in 6 days, about 6,000 years
old, man and dinosaurs living together, and other tall tales.

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

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




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


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


There most certainly is a denial of rights, because a same sex couple
was denied the same rights that a heterosexual couple was granted.
When you're taxed differently, can't adopt, are denied survivor benefits,
can't make decisions for a comatose loved one in the hospital, based
on govt laws, it is a denial of rights.



Any OTHER combination is NOT marriage and, therefore, not qualified for
rights defined under marriage. Civil unions should have rights defined
in reference to civil unions alone.

--
Maggie

And unless those civil rights of civil unions are the same as those
of marriage, then you have a denial of equal protection under the law.
Funny, you claim to be a conservative, but obviously the constitution
escapes you. It didn't escape the SC though.

trader_4 wrote on 11.22.2016 :
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 5:29:45 PM UTC-5, Sterling Archer wrote:
trader_4 explained on 11.22.2016 :
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 5:13:09 PM UTC-5, Sterling Archer wrote:
Muggles formulated the question :
I believe it's wrong to label gay, or any other combination of union
"marriage". Marriage was an institution created by God to join one man
and one woman in matrimony, and it reflects the relationship between
Gods church and his people. Any other combination is not "marriage",
and a perversion of the institution God created.

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

+1

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

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

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

That would be fine with me. And as I've said before, if such a god
existed, how probative it would have been to have some things in the
bible that were not known at the time, but would later be discovered
and confirmed by man. Some examples:


There are 8 planets around the sun.
The earth revolves around the sun.
The earth is 4.5 bil years old
Gold will one day be known by the number 78, cooper 29, silver 49

If the bible had THAT, it would be powerful evidence. Instead
the bible has the universe created in 6 days, about 6,000 years
old, man and dinosaurs living together, and other tall tales.

None of that is worth discussion until the existence of deities has
been established, as mentioned above.

Without a foundation, ALL religious dogma is just so much used toilet
tissue.

On 11/22/2016 4:46 PM, Muggles wrote:

You marrying someone of the same sex? A marmot? Two otters? IOW,
eff off.

NO!

Why should two guys/girls be deprived of the same misery of marriage
yer narrow definitiion difines?


Let them call their misery a civil union!



Tradition aside, why? In some counties you can buy a wife. If a 70
year old man buys a 14 year old girl is that a sacred marriage? Is that
more special than two people that truly love each other?

On 11/22/2016 5:26 PM, Muggles wrote:

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


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


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

We've been happily married for over 50 years, but without a piece of
paper I think we'd still be doing the same thing.

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

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

+1

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

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

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

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

--
Maggie

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.

--
Maggie

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

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


+1

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

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



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

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

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

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

--
Maggie

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

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




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


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


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

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

--
Maggie

On 11/22/2016 5:12 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 11/22/2016 4:46 PM, Muggles wrote:

You marrying someone of the same sex? A marmot? Two otters? IOW,
eff off.

NO!

Why should two guys/girls be deprived of the same misery of marriage
yer narrow definitiion difines?


Let them call their misery a civil union!



Tradition aside, why? In some counties you can buy a wife. If a 70
year old man buys a 14 year old girl is that a sacred marriage? Is that
more special than two people that truly love each other?

We aren't talking about "some countries". We're talking about America.

--
Maggie

On 11/22/2016 5:20 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 11/22/2016 5:26 PM, Muggles wrote:

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


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

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

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


We've been happily married for over 50 years, but without a piece of
paper I think we'd still be doing the same thing.


--
Maggie

On 11/22/2016 6:48 PM, Muggles wrote:
WRONG! Homosexuals had the SAME rights heterosexuals had. They could
marry anyone they chose of the opposite gender.


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

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

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

On 11/22/2016 6:58 PM, Muggles wrote:


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

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



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

I had 12 years of Catholic school. They taught me how to think and make
up my own mind. They probably did not expect the result though.

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

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

+1

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

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

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

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

When non-secular whack-a-doodles bring their fairy tales and fantasies
into the realm of secular government legislation (as you attempted to
do above), sane people must step in to prevent their non-secular
insanity from influencing policy and law.

Belief and faith are simply nice sounding words used to describe mental
illness and delusions. Sane people must prevent the consideration of
legislation that is based upon mental illness and delusion.

The United States was not, is not and never will be a christian nation.
This country will not be governed by invisible friends or those who
pretend to speak on behalf of unsubstantiated deities.

Believe whatever you wish, but be prepared to be challenged to
substantiate your bull **** assertions about god(s) when you try to use
them to justify anything that impacts the population at large.
Actually, you should be prepared for challenges whenever you air your
mental illness and delusions in public.

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.

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

On 11/21/16 8:35 PM, Muggles wrote:
I want the definition of "marriage" to go back to what it was before -
the union of one man and one woman in matrimony. Any other combination
that wants to be united can be called something else.

great. there is absolutely no law preventing anyone from declaring what
sex they are

On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 14:13:12 -0800, "Sterling Archer"
wrote:

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

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



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

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


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

1. Arranged alliances

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

2. Family ties

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

3. Polygamy preferred

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

4. Babies optional

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

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

5. Monogamy established

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

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

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

6. Monogamy lite

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

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

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

7. State or church?

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

8. Civil marriage

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

9. Love matches

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

10. Market economics

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

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

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

11. Different spheres

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

12. Partnership of equals

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

13. Gay marriage gains ground

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

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

On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 16:21:17 -0600, Muggles
wrote:

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

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

Faith and deeply held respect for what God created is not superstition.
The only problem is you MAY not be correct.
Marriage within the church is "as you described it" - but it existed
in many VERY different forms for millenia.

See my latest post on the matter.

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


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

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

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

We will disagree on this point, too.

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


Since when is marriage about rights or privileges?

--
Maggie

On 11/22/2016 6:56 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 11/22/2016 6:58 PM, Muggles wrote:


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

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



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.

I had 12 years of Catholic school. They taught me how to think and make
up my own mind. They probably did not expect the result though.



--
Maggie

On 11/22/2016 7:12 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:
Muggles submitted this idea :
On 11/22/2016 4:29 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:
trader_4 explained on 11.22.2016 :
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 5:13:09 PM UTC-5, Sterling Archer
wrote:
Muggles formulated the question :
I believe it's wrong to label gay, or any other combination of union
"marriage". Marriage was an institution created by God to join
one man
and one woman in matrimony, and it reflects the relationship between
Gods church and his people. Any other combination is not "marriage",
and a perversion of the institution God created.

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

+1

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

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

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


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


When non-secular whack-a-doodles bring their fairy tales and fantasies
into the realm of secular government legislation (as you attempted to do
above), sane people must step in to prevent their non-secular insanity
from influencing policy and law.

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

Belief and faith are simply nice sounding words used to describe mental
illness and delusions. Sane people must prevent the consideration of
legislation that is based upon mental illness and delusion.

The United States was not, is not and never will be a christian nation.
This country will not be governed by invisible friends or those who
pretend to speak on behalf of unsubstantiated deities.

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

Believe whatever you wish, but be prepared to be challenged to
substantiate your bull **** assertions about god(s) when you try to use
them to justify anything that impacts the population at large.
Actually, you should be prepared for challenges whenever you air your
mental illness and delusions in public.

smile

--
Maggie