1
   

The downfall of America's society... what is the cause?

 
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Feb, 2006 08:20 pm
http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Feb, 2006 08:23 pm
You have got to be kidding me? Shocked Now, that is completely ridiculous.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Feb, 2006 08:32 pm
Leviticus is ridiculous.

Thats what my Protest sign would say. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Feb, 2006 08:34 pm
Who the hell let Leviticus in the bible anyway?

Who edited that thing?
0 Replies
 
2PacksAday
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Feb, 2006 08:58 pm
"About This Site"

As you may have realized, this site is a parody. It is meant to poke fun at people like Fred Phelps, and at people who protest against gay people and gay marriage."

http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/about.php
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Feb, 2006 09:08 pm
Amigo wrote:
Leviticus is ridiculous.


I can't think of anything that rhymes better with either of those words. (Doesn't mean anything, I know... just thinkin'.)
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Feb, 2006 09:16 pm
Oedipus....Aeschylus...all your best Greeks....
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Feb, 2006 10:19 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
Amigo,

And just what was the purpose of giving that link? We all know there are people out there who feel that way. Trouble is, when people don't feel that way it seems they are labeled that way just because they don't happen to agree with yours and others points of view?

You are right flushd. It is crazy and sickening. It's even more sickening when people try to make others look as if they are that way just because their views differ.


MA I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to speak for Amigo, but I can tell you the reason that I posted a link to that sites FAQ[/u] last month in this post addressed to you.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1802430#1802430

You see that site uses the same Biblical based reasoning that you use to justify their disgusting behavior. Please do read through that FAQ and their Biblical quotes. Feel the love.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Feb, 2006 11:24 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
Amigo,

Well, if this was not a public issue then I would imagine that none of us would be discussing it. And, as I said, I don't know of any state that is actually going to have a public vote on this.


Allow me to make you aware of Arizona once again.

Quote:
Dear Arizona Pastors:

I write to inform you that your church can support the Protect Marriage Arizona Amendment without losing its 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status. This includes circulating petitions at your church and speaking out in favor of the amendment.

We are living in exciting and challenging times. Marriage in the United States is on the brink of destruction at the hands of activist judges who would redefine it into meaninglessness. In the face of out-of-control judicial acts, like those we saw last year in Massachusetts, people across the country are standing up for marriage.

As I write to you, 18 states have passed constitutional amendments protecting marriage from judicial redefinition. Here in Arizona, a grassroots movement is rising up to allow the people of Arizona to vote on a measure to protect marriage in November of 2006.
The name of that measure is the Protect Marriage Arizona Amendment.

http://www.azpolicy.org/assets/pdf/PMAChurchLetter.pdf

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1810192#1810192

The "Protect Marriage Arizona" initiative Arizonan's reads.

Quote:
AN INITIATIVE MEASURE

PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF
ARIZONA; AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA;
BY ADDING ARTICLE XXX; RELATING TO THE PROTECTION
OF MARRIAGE

1. Be it enacted by the People of Arizona:
2. 1. Article: XXX. Constitution of Arizona is proposed to be added
3. as follows if approved by the voters and on proclamation of the Governor:
4. ARTICLE XXX. MARRIAGE
5. TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT MARRIAGE IN THIS
6. STATE, ONLY A UNION BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE
7. WOMAN SHALL BE VALID OR RECOGNIZED AS A
8. MARRIAGE BY THIS STATE OR ITS POLITICAL
9. SUBDIVISIONS AND NO LEGAL STATUS FOR UNMARRIED
10. PERSONS SHALL BE CREATED OR RECOGNIZED BY THIS
11. STATE OR ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS THAT IS SIMILAR
12. TO THAT OF MARRIAGE.

13. 2. The Secretary of State shall submit this proposition to
14. the voters at the next general election as provided by article XXI,
15. Constitution of Arizona.

http://www.protectmarriageaz.com/pages/the_amendment.php

In the state of Arizona there are counties and municipalities that currently grant medical benefits to dependent "unmarried domestic partners". The Protect Marriage Arizona initiative would prohibit recognizing these domestic partners whether they be same sex or not.
0 Replies
 
2PacksAday
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 12:09 am
I could not in good conscious vote to allow gay marriage, nor could I vote against it...as the constitution gives everyone the freedom of choice. I have conflicting views on the issue, and I would have to take the "abstain" route myself. A chicken **** attitude...perhaps...but if forced to make a decision, I would vote no. For those of you on the pro side, I'm sure an abstain vote would help you much more so than a flat out no.

But as far as the health insurance issue goes, they should be allowed to share the benefits with whomever they choose, same sex partner or not.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 12:30 am
2PacksAday wrote:
I could not in good conscious vote to allow gay marriage, nor could I vote against it...as the constitution gives everyone the freedom of choice. I have conflicting views on the issue, and I would have to take the "abstain" route myself. A chicken **** attitude...perhaps...but if forced to make a decision, I would vote no. For those of you on the pro side, I'm sure an abstain vote would help you much more so than a flat out no.

But as far as the health insurance issue goes, they should be allowed to share the benefits with whomever they choose, same sex partner or not.


Health insurance is just one of the side issues concerning this subject.

2packs,
What does your good conscience have to say about the effect of bigotry on the lives of real people as in the case of this couple?

Quote:

Meet the Soterwoods[/u]

The above link to an article that appeared in the local paper last month features real people and a slide show to help put faces on the quandary that same sex couples face when raising a family.
0 Replies
 
2PacksAday
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 12:47 am
It says they made a choice...."family comes first"
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 01:43 am
Mesquite Wrote:

Quote:
MA I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to speak for Amigo, but I can tell you the reason that I posted a link to that sites FAQ last month in this post addressed to you.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1802430#1802430

You see that site uses the same Biblical based reasoning that you use to justify their disgusting behavior. Please do read through that FAQ and their Biblical quotes. Feel the love.


Well, gotta tell you, Mesquite, I'm not responsible for how THEY or anyone else behaves or believes or anything else. I can only tell you how i feel and believe. I don't happen to feel or believe the way those on that site do. I don't care what they use to justify it, I believe they are wrong.

So, I really don't understand why it keeps coming up and if you could tell me why, I'd sure appreciate it.


Mesquite Wrote:

Quote:
In the state of Arizona there are counties and municipalities that currently grant medical benefits to dependent "unmarried domestic partners". The Protect Marriage Arizona initiative would prohibit recognizing these domestic partners whether they be same sex or not.


I do not live in Arizona. I have nothing to do with the laws in Arizona. So, guess you have to take that up with the citizens of Arizona.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 01:46 am
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11924.htm

disclaimer;I do not endorse anything.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 01:59 am
2PacksADay Wrote:

Quote:
I could not in good conscious vote to allow gay marriage, nor could I vote against it...as the constitution gives everyone the freedom of choice. I have conflicting views on the issue, and I would have to take the "abstain" route myself. A chicken **** attitude...perhaps...but if forced to make a decision, I would vote no. For those of you on the pro side, I'm sure an abstain vote would help you much more so than a flat out no.

But as far as the health insurance issue goes, they should be allowed to share the benefits with whomever they choose, same sex partner or not.


Ditto! Laughing

Mesquite,

As far as the couple wanting to adopt the child, I'm sorry to say that if that is the law then that is the law. So we have to abide by the law. If we don't like the law, we do what we can to get the law changed. That's how things work. And, they made a choice. They picked family first and did what was best for them. We all have to make choices we don't necessarily like to have to make but it's part of life.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 01:08 pm
Lash wrote:
Oedipus....Aeschylus...all your best Greeks....


and lest we forget, the multi-disciplined Octopus...
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 01:30 pm
mesquite wrote:
Allow me to make you aware of Arizona once again.

Quote:
.....Marriage in the United States is on the brink of destruction at the hands of activist judges who would redefine it into meaninglessness.


it is ? and how might that be ? if gays get married, will the marriage police show up at my door and force me to leave my wife at gun point ? doubtful at best that's going to happen.

now about the activist judges thing.

the judges who favored roe are "activist judges", yet the judges who were favored by religious conservatives due to an expected leaning away from roe are not "activist judges", but "strict constructionists"?

baloney. no bread, no mayo. just plain baloney.

if churches want to be involved in the political process in the way that they are now choosing, such as the christian coalition, who makes up, prints and distributes "voter's guides" touting the politicians they believe will promote religious values, they then should be paying taxes.

the purpose of religion and it's clerics is to ease the daily suffering of it's adherents, not to go around wrecking the lives of non-believers.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 05:40 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
Mesquite,

As far as the couple wanting to adopt the child, I'm sorry to say that if that is the law then that is the law. So we have to abide by the law. If we don't like the law, we do what we can to get the law changed. That's how things work. And, they made a choice. They picked family first and did what was best for them. We all have to make choices we don't necessarily like to have to make but it's part of life.


Yep, sometimes the more things change the more they stay the same. Just as 50 years ago families left the South and Arizona to escape the injustice of racial prejudice and segregation, they now leave to escape another form of bigotry driven injustice. In the case of the Soterwoods, Arizona is much the less for it.

Someday in the future I am sure that people will look back on these events and wonder "What were those neanderthals thinking?"
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 06:04 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
Mesquite Wrote:

Quote:
MA I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to speak for Amigo, but I can tell you the reason that I posted a link to that sites FAQ last month in this post addressed to you.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1802430#1802430

You see that site uses the same Biblical based reasoning that you use to justify their disgusting behavior. Please do read through that FAQ and their Biblical quotes. Feel the love.


Well, gotta tell you, Mesquite, I'm not responsible for how THEY or anyone else behaves or believes or anything else. I can only tell you how i feel and believe. I don't happen to feel or believe the way those on that site do. I don't care what they use to justify it, I believe they are wrong.

So, I really don't understand why it keeps coming up and if you could tell me why, I'd sure appreciate it.

It keeps coming up because the Westboro baptists provide such a clear insight into the root of the hatred. Those good Christians really know their Bible.


Momma Angel wrote:
Mesquite Wrote:

Quote:
In the state of Arizona there are counties and municipalities that currently grant medical benefits to dependent "unmarried domestic partners". The Protect Marriage Arizona initiative would prohibit recognizing these domestic partners whether they be same sex or not.


I do not live in Arizona. I have nothing to do with the laws in Arizona. So, guess you have to take that up with the citizens of Arizona.


Please. You were playing dumb as to our situation in Arizona so I merely took the opportunity to once again shine light into the darkness.

Momma Angel wrote:
Amigo,

Well, if this was not a public issue then I would imagine that none of us would be discussing it. And, as I said, I don't know of any state that is actually going to have a public vote on this.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1873193#1873193
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 09/26/2022 at 05:37:11