# Carrie Prejean Abruptly Leaves Larry King Interview



## Arnold (Nov 13, 2009)

*oh lord...*
Carrie Prejean Abruptly Leaves Larry King Interview - Yahoo! TV Blog


----------



## Mudge (Nov 13, 2009)

Stupid is as stupid does.


----------



## Pirate! (Nov 13, 2009)

So where's this home video?


----------



## Arnold (Nov 13, 2009)

Pirate! said:


> So where's this home video?



the porn video? not sure but I would like to see it!


----------



## Arnold (Nov 13, 2009)

Former Miss California Carrie Prejean made 7 other sex tapes, dozens of nude pics - report


----------



## Mudge (Nov 13, 2009)

So she isn't really a conservative, she just likes to look down her nose at others


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 13, 2009)




----------



## lnvanry (Nov 13, 2009)

screw all this media BS...where is the damn video?


She's freaking hot...solid business move if she is trying to make a career change


----------



## Big Smoothy (Nov 13, 2009)

I don't think beauty pageants should ask a contestant controversial social or political questions to begin with.

Just another "created controversy" by the media.


----------



## KelJu (Nov 14, 2009)

Mudge said:


> So she isn't really a conservative, she just likes to look down her nose at others




Looking down your nose at others behavior is the conservative way. She is just being a good conservative.


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 14, 2009)

After reading a bit more on this chick...I feel for her.  She evidently made the video when she was 17 for her BF and dbag sold it after she became well known...she is understandably salty and about it and you can't blame her for it.  She got stiffed with a loaded political question when she was about to hit the pinnacle of her career.  I am not a conservative nor do I agree with her about gay marriage, but I can understand why she has become so defensive and bitchy.  I don't blame her for ditching the interview.

Its a shame she's going to sucked into a political fringe group.  She's articulate and attractive, but political far sides will taint your career.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Nov 15, 2009)

lnvanry said:


> After reading a bit more on this chick...I feel for her.  She evidently made the video when she was 17 for her BF and dbag sold it after she became well known...she is understandably salty and about it and you can't blame her for it.  She got stiffed with a loaded political question when she was about to hit the pinnacle of her career.  I am not a conservative nor do I agree with her about gay marriage, but I can understand why she has become so defensive and bitchy.  I don't blame her for ditching the interview.
> 
> Its a shame she's going to sucked into a political fringe group.  She's articulate and attractive, but political far sides will taint your career.



Wrong, she made multiple videos, and she was 20 in the one in question.  Her BF came out saying her handlers wanted him to lie about her age and he refused.  She is defensive and bitchy because everything that comes out of her mouth is a lie.


----------



## KelJu (Nov 15, 2009)

Dale Mabry said:


> Wrong, she made multiple videos, and she was 20 in the one in question.  Her BF came out saying her handlers wanted him to lie about her age and he refused.  She is defensive and bitchy because everything that comes out of her mouth is a lie.


----------



## KelJu (Nov 15, 2009)

I love those good christian morals.


----------



## Mudge (Nov 15, 2009)

KelJu said:


> Looking down your nose at others behavior is the conservative way. She is just being a good conservative.



Maybe you're right. Freak in the bed, in rest-stop bathroom stalls, princess in public.


----------



## Mudge (Nov 15, 2009)

lnvanry said:


> She's articulate



Well, she is smarter than Miss South Carolina 2007... I think?

YouTube - Miss Teen USA 2007 - South Carolina answers a question


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 15, 2009)

Dale Mabry said:


> Wrong, she made multiple videos, and she was 20 in the one in question.  Her BF came out saying her handlers wanted him to lie about her age and he refused.  She is defensive and bitchy because everything that comes out of her mouth is a lie.



where did you read all that?  I can't say I'm well informed in the topic cause I don't keep up with the celeb gossip...regardless though, I'd still hit it


----------



## Dale Mabry (Nov 15, 2009)

lnvanry said:


> where did you read all that?  I can't say I'm well informed in the topic cause I don't keep up with the celeb gossip...regardless though, I'd still hit it



Who wouldn't?


----------



## clemson357 (Nov 20, 2009)

KelJu said:


> Looking down your nose at others behavior is the conservative way. She is just being a good conservative.





And playing victim is the liberal way.


Saying that a marriage requires two consenting adults of majority age and opposite gender is no more of a moral judgment than it is to say that a sandwich requires two pieces of bread.  It is definitional, nothing more.


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 20, 2009)

clemson357 said:


> And playing victim is the liberal way.
> 
> 
> Saying that a marriage requires two consenting adults of majority age and opposite gender is no more of a moral judgment than it is to say that a sandwich requires two pieces of bread.  It is definitional, nothing more.



Definition is relative to context and time...the same way, blacks were defined as 3/5 of a vote during elections or Native Americans were defined as non sovereign people.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Nov 21, 2009)

lnvanry said:


> or Native Americans were defined as non sovereign people.



That's not a fair comparison, whitey thought he was in India so they were Indians.  Once we realized we were not in India, the foreign Indian invader was dealt with accordingly.


----------



## KelJu (Nov 21, 2009)

clemson357 said:


> And playing victim is the liberal way.


You can roll your eyes all you want, it doesn't stop it from being true. Conservatives claim to be the moral elite, but rarely ever live up to their own imposed standards. Liberals have just as much wrong with them, because any ideology is inherently ignorant. But if pointing out the faults of the liberal ideology helps to reconcile the inconsistencies of your conservative views, so be it. 




> Saying that a marriage requires two consenting adults of majority age and opposite gender is no more of a moral judgment than it is to say that a sandwich requires two pieces of bread.  It is definitional, nothing more.




Sure, and no different than saying whites and blacks should drink from different fountains. You have a serious problem with the inability to have human empathy for others if you can't see that it is hurtful and wrong to deny rights to specific groups. Or maybe you just see gays as not human. Either way, you are a borderline sociopath, and the main reason that conservatives will die out in the next 30 years.

And wtf do you mean definitional? That's so fucking dumb. Every law on the books has multiple interpretations. That is why we have a judicial branch with a supreme court in the first place. The laws are all dynamic, not definitional. The interpretation changes with the the beliefs of the people interpreting them.


----------



## T_man (Nov 21, 2009)

It's natural to be black. It's not natural to be gay.


----------



## tucker01 (Nov 21, 2009)

T_man said:


> It's not natural to be gay.



Why not?

Homosexuality exists in a ton of species.


----------



## KelJu (Nov 21, 2009)

T_man said:


> It's natural to be black. It's not natural to be gay.




That's not true, its just an attempt to justify bigotry. 20 years ago, interracial relationships were said to be unnatural by the same type of people who are now saying homosexuality is unnatural. 

Its a dumb argument. Homosexuality occurs all in nature in all sorts of species. Homosexuality is more natural than shoes and socks. 

Most of modern western life isn't natural. It is fully constructed by humans with synthetic tools, materials, and methods. But, to disenfranchise someone because you call it unnatural is absurd.


----------



## fufu (Nov 21, 2009)

KelJu said:


> That's not true, its just an attempt to justify bigotry. 20 years ago, interracial relationships were said to be unnatural by the same type of people who are now saying homosexuality is unnatural.
> 
> Its a dumb argument. Homosexuality occurs all in nature in all sorts of species. Homosexuality is more natural than shoes and socks.
> 
> Most of modern western life isn't natural. It is fully constructed by humans with synthetic tools, materials, and methods. But, to disenfranchise someone because you call it unnatural is absurd.



post of the year!


----------



## Mudge (Nov 21, 2009)

I remember a few years ago there was a story, about a duck that was found fucking the carcass of another MALE duck.

I think in 1989 the majority of people still bitching about interracial relationships were in small southern towns.


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 21, 2009)

T_man said:


> It's natural to be black. It's not natural to be gay.



Homosexuality happens in nature all the time with a plethora of species


----------



## clemson357 (Nov 21, 2009)

KelJu said:


> Or maybe you just see gays as not human.




You have no clue what you are talking about.  You try to respond without actually contemplating what you are responding to.


I make no moral judgment about gay people.  In fact, I really don't care about gay marriage - I'm indifferent on the issue.

What I do care about is a bunch of naive peacenik-wannabes trying to pretend as if they were participating in a civil rights revolution.  The issue is supposedly about some minor tax technicalities and health benefits - give me a fucking break.  I guarantee you if those issues were moot people would still be trying to play victim.  

And the statist Democrats are capitalizing on your naivety.  How many gays do you think voted for Obama based on this issue?  Why don't you do a fucking google search on how many gays have been kicked out of the military under Obama's watch.  Fucking statist hypocrits, and you are too foolish to see it.


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 21, 2009)

The times I've been married it had NOTHING to do with tax breaks and health insurance etc. I really don't think many couple of any sort put those reasons foremost when considering becoming wed to one another. "I love you, I want to spend my life with you..." _probably_ the number 1 deciding factor in most proposals.


----------



## KelJu (Nov 21, 2009)

clemson357 said:


> You have no clue what you are talking about.  You try to respond without actually contemplating what you are responding to.
> 
> 
> I make no moral judgment about gay people.  In fact, I really don't care about gay marriage - I'm indifferent on the issue.
> ...




What the fuck do you mean statist hypocrits? What the fuck is the matter with you?

The issue is about treating people the same! Same! Same! No different! Fucking same! Jesus fuck me in the ass Christ, you are so dense. 

The issue is about treating people the same! Its not about tax deductions. The whole point is gays don't want to be treated like second hand citizens. They want to have the right to marry who they want to. That's it. End of story. It has no thing to do with fucking Obama. It has nothing to do with gays in the military. I don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You going off on some stupid rant about how democrats suck. No shit Sherlock. Of coarse they suck. They are apolitical party. We know they suck. What are you talking about everybody being fooled? Everybody knows they suck. What the fuck does it have to do with anything that Carrie Prejean said?

I'll tell you what. You go start a thread about how democrats suck. In this thread, we'll stick to the topic at hand which is Carrie Prejean. That way I don't have to burnout neurons trying to figure out what the fuck is wrong with you.


----------



## clemson357 (Nov 23, 2009)

KelJu said:


> What the fuck do you mean statist hypocrits? What the fuck is the matter with you?
> 
> The issue is about treating people the same! Same! Same! No different! Fucking same! Jesus fuck me in the ass Christ, *you are so dense.*
> 
> The issue is about treating people the same! Its not about tax deductions. The whole point is gays don't want to be treated like second hand citizens. They want to have the right to marry who they want to. That's it. End of story. It has no thing to do with fucking Obama. It has nothing to do with gays in the military. I don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You going off on some stupid rant about how democrats suck.* No shit Sherlock.* Of coarse they suck. They are apolitical party. We know they suck. What are you talking about everybody being fooled? Everybody knows they suck. What the fuck does it have to do with anything that Carrie Prejean said?




It is amazing that you could post something so sophomoric and be so condescending at the same time.  Clearly you have no idea how far in over your head you are.

Let me break it down for you into a series of very simple factual statements, because apparently you cannot bridge even the smallest intellectual gap on your own.

1. Carrie Prejean said the following: "I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anyone out there but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be between a man and a woman."

2. Keju characterizes Carrie Prejean: "Looking down your nose at others behavior is the conservative way. She is just being a good conservative."

3.  "Looking down your nose" is an expression meaning that a person is being snobbish, elitist, making a moral or character judgment about another person.

4.  Clemson357 responds: saying that marriage is between a man and a woman is NOT a moral judgment.

5.  The clear implication of Clemson's statement to anyone with an IQ over 90 is that Carrie Prejean was not "looking down her nose," and thus Keju's characterization is incorrect.

6.  Kelju completely misses the implication, or dodges the issue, because he responds with a series of emotion-based nonsense about "empathy" and "hurtful."

7.  Kelju has yet to make any intelligent attempt at explaining why it is a moral judgment to say that marriage is between a man and a woman.



The universe is built on discriminations.  Our welfare system discriminates against the employed.  Our Social Security system discriminates against the young and the able-bodied.  Our tax system discriminates against the successful.  Our criminal justice system discriminates against felons.  Our marriage laws discriminate on the basis of age, gender, genealogy, and volition.  Our driving laws discriminate on the basis of age and sobriety.

I am sure there are lots of people that would like to be treated THE SAME!  THE SAME!  THE SAME!!!  I wouldn't mind collecting a Social Security check, being taxed at the ridiculously low rate that you are probably taxed, or being able to legal drive while intoxicated.  But the fact of the matter is that all things aren't the same, and as such they aren't treated the same.




KelJu said:


> I'll tell you what. You go start a thread about how democrats suck. In this thread, we'll stick to the topic at hand which is Carrie Prejean. That way I don't have to burnout neurons trying to figure out what the fuck is wrong with you.



I'll tell you what, you go shine your conterfeit moderator badge, and I'll continue to post what I want where I want.


----------



## T_man (Nov 23, 2009)

IainDaniel said:


> Why not?
> 
> Homosexuality exists in a ton of species.



Write me a list. I'll get my gun.

jokes

Lets not bring controversial issues into this, stupid arguments start from the smallest shit


----------



## danzik17 (Nov 23, 2009)

How about option #3?

Gays have the right to have equal "partner" status in the eyes of the law and government, but don't go trying to make a law about marriage in itself as a status.  Marriage is a religious institution and as such government has no place regulating it.  If you have a problem with it, take it up with the Church/Pope.


----------



## Pirate! (Nov 23, 2009)

You guys really shouldn't keep bumping this thread unless you have a link to the vids.


----------



## T_man (Nov 24, 2009)

I think we're all missing the point here.

Would she not get it?


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 24, 2009)

Not from you.


----------



## T_man (Nov 24, 2009)

for sure she would


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 24, 2009)

T_man said:


> for sure she would


....do you with a strap on and you wouold have nothing to say about it..


----------



## KelJu (Nov 24, 2009)

T_man said:


> I think we're all missing the point here.
> 
> Would she not get it?



Damn, she is smoking hot in that picture.


----------



## KelJu (Nov 24, 2009)

clemson357 said:


> It is amazing that you could post something so sophomoric and be so condescending at the same time.  Clearly you have no idea how far in over your head you are.
> 
> Let me break it down for you into a series of very simple factual statements, because apparently you cannot bridge even the smallest intellectual gap on your own.
> 
> ...





Lol, I'm not even going to read any of this this.


----------



## Arnold (Nov 24, 2009)

KelJu said:


> Lol, I'm not even going to read any of this this.



LOL, he seems very angry with you!


----------



## maniclion (Nov 24, 2009)

danzik17 said:


> How about option #3?
> 
> Gays have the right to have equal "partner" status in the eyes of the law and government, but don't go trying to make a law about marriage in itself as a status.  Marriage is a religious institution and as such government has no place regulating it.  If you have a problem with it, take it up with the Church/Pope.


MARRIAGE IS A ANCIENT INSTITUTION MORE SPIRITUAL THAN ANYTHING, IT IS NOT WHOLLY OWNED BY CHRISTIANS.  People were getting married well before Zoroastrianism gave birth to Judaism and way before Jesus..... Civilizations with totally different beliefs had/have forms of wedlock.

Besides in this Country it's only a legal binding contract, the religious ceremony has nothing to do with the states civil ceremony.  You can take the religion out of the equation and just sign the papers in front of the state sanctioned agent or you can combine them as one....

I'll tell you what if it's only a religious institution, I have been to the marriage ceremony of 2 men, wed by a Christian Preacher recognized by a Church that has no qualms about same sex marriage, full exchange of vows and rings and kissing....therefore it must be recognized by the state right since it was by the Church.....


----------



## T_man (Nov 24, 2009)

maniclion said:


> MARRIAGE IS A ANCIENT INSTITUTION MORE SPIRITUAL THAN ANYTHING, IT IS NOT WHOLLY OWNED BY CHRISTIANS.  People were getting married well before Zoroastrianism gave birth to Judaism and way before Jesus..... Civilizations with totally different beliefs had/have forms of wedlock.
> 
> Besides in this Country it's only a legal binding contract, the religious ceremony has nothing to do with the states civil ceremony.  You can take the religion out of the equation and just sign the papers in front of the state sanctioned agent or you can combine them as one....
> 
> *I'll tell you what if it's only a religious institution, I have been to the marriage ceremony of 2 men, wed by a Christian Preacher recognized by a Church that has no qualms about same sex marriage, full exchange of vows and rings and kissing....therefore it must be recognized by the state right since it was by the Church.....*



Well that wasn't a true representation of the church. That's like the church saying that killing is okay. That preacher's powers as a pastor/vicar are void if he would consider doing such a thing as okay in the eyes of the church lol.

It says in the Bible that homosexuality isn't okay. Infact it says it in many religious scripts, not just Christian.
But nowhere does it say that being a different race is immoral (going back to a previous point that it was thought that interracial marriage was unnatural)


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 24, 2009)

T_man said:


> Well that wasn't a true representation of the church. *1-That's like the church saying that killing is okay*. That preacher's powers as a pastor/vicar are void if he would consider doing such a thing as okay in the eyes of the church lol.
> 
> It says in the *2-Bible that homosexuality isn't okay*. Infact it says it in many religious scripts, not just Christian.
> But nowhere does it say that being a different race is immoral (going back to a previous point that it was thought that interracial marriage was unnatural)


1-Read your history kid....some religions OK it, maybe not directly.
2-Citation needed.


----------



## T_man (Nov 24, 2009)

min0 lee said:


> 1-Read your history kid....some religions OK it, maybe not directly.
> 2-Citation needed.



1.) I said in most I didn't say all. Most of the major ones anyways.

Do I really need to quote you verses in the Bible honestly?


----------



## maniclion (Nov 24, 2009)

T_man said:


> Well that wasn't a true representation of the church. That's like the church saying that killing is okay. That preacher's powers as a pastor/vicar are void if he would consider doing such a thing as okay in the eyes of the church lol.
> 
> *It is fully supported by the church.  The whole denomination is based on the Golden Rule.  Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  You wouldn't want Gay men telling you marriage with a woman and a man is not right....*
> 
> ...


The Bible says a lot of stuff, so does Mein Kampf.....


----------



## Arnold (Nov 24, 2009)

T_man said:


> Do I really need to quote you verses in the Bible honestly?



please don't.


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 24, 2009)

Pirate! said:


> You guys really shouldn't keep bumping this thread unless you have a link to the vids.



Thats what I'm screaming...where is the GD video.

THe photos are a nice touch though


----------



## T_man (Nov 24, 2009)

maniclion said:


> The Bible says a lot of stuff, so does Mein Kampf.....



What the fuck kind of reasoning is that lol. By that reasoning it should be okay to rape a girl because you would want them to rape you back? Its okay to kill someone if you're feeling suicidal and dont mind them killing you either?
Thats bs... you're taking it way out of context

But anyway back to topic:





Struggling to read a book with no words. Still looks sexy.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 24, 2009)

T_man said:


> 1.) I said in most I didn't say all. Most of the *major ones anyways.*
> 
> Do I really need to quote you verses in the Bible honestly?


8 *Buddhist Burma*





 Human sacrifices were still occurring in Buddhist Burma in the 1850s. When the capital was moved to Mandalay, 56 ???spotless??? men were buried beneath the new city walls to sanctify and protect the city. When two of the burial spots were later found empty, royal astrologers decreed that 500 men, women, boys, and girls must be killed and buried at once, orthe capital must be abandoned. About 100 were actually buried before British governors stopped the ceremonies. 

7 *Thuggee Murders*





 Members of lndia???s Thuggee sect strangled people as sacrifices to appease the bloodthirsty goddess Kali, a practice beginning in the 1500s. The number of victims has been estimated to be as high as 2 million. Thugs were claiming about 20,000 lives a year in the 1800s until British rulers stamped them out. At a trial in 1840, one Thug was accused of killing 931 people. Today, some Hindu priests still sacrifice goats to Kali.
 6 *Mountain Meadows Massacre*





 The Mountain Meadows massacre was a mass killing of the Fancher-Baker wagon train at Mountain Meadows in Utah Territory on September 11, 1857, by a group of Mormons and Paiute Indians. The Arkansas emigrants were traveling to California shortly before Utah War started. Mormons throughout the Utah Territory had been mustered to fight the invading United States Army, which they believed was intended to destroy them as a people. Initially intending to orchestrate an Indian massacre, two men with leadership roles in local military, church and government organizations, Isaac C. Haight and John D. Lee, conspired for Lee to lead militiamen disguised as Native Americans along with a contingent of Paiute tribesmen in an attack.
 The emigrants fought back and a siege ensued. Intending to leave no witnesses of Mormon complicity in the siege and avoid reprisals complicating the Utah War, militiamen induced the emigrants to surrender and give up their weapons. After escorting the emigrants out of their fortification, the militiamen and their tribesmen auxiliaries executed approximately 120 men, women and children.
 5 *The Inquisition*





 The Medieval Inquisition is a series of Inquisitions (Roman Catholic Church bodies charged with suppressing heresy) from around 1184, including the Episcopal Inquisition (1184-1230s) and later the Papal Inquisition (1230s). It was in response to large popular movements throughout Europe considered apostate or heretical to Christianity, in particular Catharism and Waldensians in southern France and northern Italy. These were the first inquisition movements of many that would follow.
 Torture was used after 1252. On May 15, Pope Innocent IV issued a papal bull entitled Ad exstirpanda, which authorized the use of torture by inquisitors. The Inquisitors were forbidden to use methods that resulted in bloodshed, mutilation or death. One of the more common forms of medieval inquisition torture was known as strappado. The hands were bound behind the back with a rope, and the accused was suspended this way, dislocating the joints painfully in both arms. Weights could be added to the legs dislocating those joints as well.
 The organization is still active today under the name of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Prior to becoming Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Ratzinger was the head of the congregation.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 24, 2009)

*4 The Witch Hunts*





 When Puritans settled in Massachusetts in the 1600s, they created a religious police state where doctrinal deviation could lead to flogging, pillorying, hanging, cutting off ears, or boring through the tongue with a hot iron. Preaching Quaker beliefs was a capital offense. Four stubborn Quakers defied this law and were hanged. In the 1690s fear of witches seized the colony. Twenty alleged witches were killed and 150 others imprisoned.
 3 Roman Persecution of Christians





 Christians were first, and horribly, targeted for persecution as a group by the emperor Nero in 64 AD. A colossal fire broke out at Rome, and destroyed much of the city. Rumors abounded that Nero himself was responsible. To divert attention from the rumors, Nero ordered that Christians should be rounded up and killed. Some were torn apart by dogs, others burnt alive as human torches. Over the next hundred years or so, Christians were sporadically persecuted. Then in the mid-third century, emperors initiated even more intensive persecutions. This, ???The Great Persecution???, is considered the largest. Beginning with a series of four edicts banning Christian practices and ordering the imprisonment of Christian clergy, the persecution intensified until all Christians in the empire were commanded tosacrifice to the gods or face immediate execution. This persecution was to be the last, as Constantine I soon came into power and in 313 legalized Christianity.
*2 Aztec Human Sacrifice*





 The Aztecs began their elaborate theocracy in the 1300s and brought human sacrifice to a golden era. About 20,000 people were killed yearly to appease gods ??? especially the sun god, who needed daily ???nourishment??? of blood. Hearts of sacrifice victims were cut out, and some bodies were eaten ceremoniously. Other victims were drowned, beheaded, burned or dropped from heights. In a rite to the rain god, shrieking children were killed at several sites so that their tears might induce rain. In a rite to the maize goddess, a virgin danced for 24 hours, then was killed and skinned; her skin was worn by a priest in further dancing. One account says that at King Ahuitzotl???s coronation, 80,000 prisoners were butchered to please the gods.
*1 Islamic Jihads*





 Islamic jihads (holy wars), mandated by the Koran, killed millions over 12 centuries. In early years, Muslim armies spread the faith rapidly: east to India and west to Morocco. Then splintering sects branded other Muslims as infidels and declared jihads against them. The Kharijis battled Sunnirulers. The Azariqis decreed death to all ???sinners??? and their  families. In 1804 a Sudanese holy man, Usman dan Fodio, waged a bloody jihad that broke the religious sway of the Sultan of Gobir. In the 1850s another Sudanese mystic, ???Umar al-Hajj, led a barbaric jihad to convert pagan African tribes.


----------



## T_man (Nov 24, 2009)

Great min0. But that doesn't really say anything about homosexuality?


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 24, 2009)

T_man said:


> Great min0. But that doesn't really say anything about homosexuality?


I didn't get a chance to do a search but I don't understand how the church can be against homosexuality when most of the people in charge are themselves gay.


----------



## Arnold (Nov 24, 2009)

min0 lee said:


> I didn't get a chance to do a search but I don't understand how the church can be against homosexuality when most of the people in charge are themselves gay.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 24, 2009)

*What the Bible Says - And Doesn't Say - About Homosexuality*

*by Rev.T_BagMan, co-founder of Soulforce*
*LIKE YOU, I TAKE THE BIBLE SERIOUSLY!*

 Many good people build their case against homosexuality almost entirely on the Bible. These folks value Scripture, and are serious about seeking its guidance in their lives. Unfortunately, many of them have never really studied what the Bible does and doesn't say about homosexuality.
 We gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Christians take the Bible seriously, too. Personally, I've spent more than 50 years reading, studying, memorizing, preaching, and teaching from the sacred texts. I earned my master's and doctoral degrees at a conservative biblical seminary to better equip myself to "rightly divide the word of truth." I learned Hebrew and Greek to gain a better understanding of the original words of the biblical texts. I studied the lives and times of the biblical authors to help me know what they were saying in their day so I could better apply it to my own.
I'm convinced the Bible has a powerful message for gay and lesbian Christians -- as well as straight Christians. But it's not the message of condemnation we so often hear.
 I'm not expecting you to take my word for it, though. I ask only that you'd consider what my research has taught me about the passages used by some people to condemn God's gay and lesbian children. Then decide for yourself...
*MY FIRST PREMISE:*

_Most people have not carefully and prayerfully researched the biblical texts often used to condemn God's lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender children._
 As you may know, biblical ignorance is an epidemic in the United States. A recent study quoted by Dr. Peter Gomes in _The Good Book_ found that 38 percent of Americans polled were certain the Old Testament was written a few years after Jesus' death. Ten percent believed Joan of Arc was Noah's wife. Many even thought the epistles were the wives of the apostles.
 This same kind of biblical ignorance is all too present around the topic of homosexuality. Often people who love and trust God's Word have never given careful and prayerful attention to what the Bible does or doesn't say about homosexuality.
*For example, many Christians don't know that:*

*Jesus says nothing about same-sex behavior.*
*The Jewish prophets are silent about homosexuality.*
*Only six or seven of the Bible's one million verses refer to same-sex behavior in any way -- and none of these verses refer to homosexual orientation as it's understood today.*
 Most people who are certain they know what the Bible says about homosexuality don't know where the verses that reference same-sex behavior can be found. They haven't read them, let alone studied them carefully. They don't know the original meaning of the words in Hebrew or Greek. And they haven't tried to understand the historical context in which those words were written. Yet the assumption that the Bible condemns homosexuality is passed down from generation to generation with very little personal study or research. The consequences of this misinformation are disastrous, not only for God's gay and lesbian children, but for the entire church.


----------



## KelJu (Nov 25, 2009)

min0 lee said:


> I didn't get a chance to do a search but I don't understand how the church can be against homosexuality when most of the people in charge are themselves gay.




Bahahahahaha! 
Gay and pederasses!



			
				George Carlin said:
			
		

> But, in the meantime what they ought to be doing is telling these priests who took a vow of chastity to keep their hands off the altar boys! Keep your hands to yourself, Father! You know? When Jesus said "Suffer the little children come unto me", that's not what he was talking about!


----------



## danzik17 (Nov 25, 2009)

maniclion said:


> MARRIAGE IS A ANCIENT INSTITUTION MORE SPIRITUAL THAN ANYTHING, IT IS NOT WHOLLY OWNED BY CHRISTIANS.  People were getting married well before Zoroastrianism gave birth to Judaism and way before Jesus..... Civilizations with totally different beliefs had/have forms of wedlock.
> 
> Besides in this Country it's only a legal binding contract, the religious ceremony has nothing to do with the states civil ceremony.  You can take the religion out of the equation and just sign the papers in front of the state sanctioned agent or you can combine them as one....
> 
> I'll tell you what if it's only a religious institution, I have been to the marriage ceremony of 2 men, wed by a Christian Preacher recognized by a Church that has no qualms about same sex marriage, full exchange of vows and rings and kissing....therefore it must be recognized by the state right since it was by the Church.....



That's missing the point.  I'm well aware that marriage is not purely a Christian tradition.  The point is that marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution.  Government has no business regulating that.  Take it up with the Pope, Buddha, Uber Rabbi, whoever the hell is the leader of your particular religion.  If you want gays to have equal rights to be partners in the eyes of the law, I'm all for that.


----------



## maniclion (Nov 25, 2009)

danzik17 said:


> That's missing the point.  I'm well aware that marriage is not purely a Christian tradition.  The point is that marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution.  Government has no business regulating that.  Take it up with the Pope, Buddha, Uber Rabbi, whoever the hell is the leader of your particular religion.  If you want gays to have equal rights to be partners in the eyes of the law, I'm all for that.


So you are saying people without religion can't get married?  It's not only a religious matter, it can be cultural, spiritual or purely political, like marriage of a Princess to an allies Prince to join Kingdoms.  I say that religions need to regulate their own people and keep their noses out of the personal affairs of consenting adults, at times it takes the government to step in as moderator and see that happens.  People go to a Justice of the Peace and are married all the time with no religion involved, and like I stated before some go and have a ceremony of a religious nature and call themselves married even though it's not legally recognized by the government......


----------



## danzik17 (Nov 25, 2009)

maniclion said:


> So you are saying people without religion can't get married?  It's not only a religious matter, it can be cultural, spiritual or purely political, like marriage of a Princess to an allies Prince to join Kingdoms.  I say that religions need to regulate their own people and keep their noses out of the personal affairs of consenting adults, at times it takes the government to step in as moderator and see that happens.  People go to a Justice of the Peace and are married all the time with no religion involved, and like I stated before some go and have a ceremony of a religious nature and call themselves married even though it's not legally recognized by the government......



I think we're coming at this from two different angles.  I am saying that the government should have no right to force any religious figure to either marry or recognize the marriage of a gay couple.

If they want to go sign some papers in front of a judge to attain equals rights, then as I've said before I'm all for that.


----------



## maniclion (Nov 25, 2009)

danzik17 said:


> I think we're coming at this from two different angles.  I am saying that the government should have no right to force any religious figure to either marry or recognize the marriage of a gay couple.
> 
> If they want to go sign some papers in front of a judge to attain equals rights, then as I've said before I'm all for that.


Gay men and Lesbian women just want to be able to get married, no one can force a Church to perform the ceremony, I've seen Churches turn down Man/Woman marriages because they conceived out of wedlock.  These folks just want to make a valid commitment to one another the same as Husbands and Wives do all of the time.
Sure they can have legal papers drawn up that basically make them joined financially and able to make decisions if the other one is say in a coma or on life support.....but that's a costly tedious way to go about what could be handled with one move.... And yes in some places they can have a civl union and then go have a wedding....
If they want to combine the two into one ritual and be married the same as a man and woman are, they should be able to as well....  Many times the civil and spiritual ceremony are performed as one act and recognized by the state as such having given rights to the person performing the marriage the right to act as an agent witnessing on the states behalf......  You are just trying to avoid the fact that civil union, equal partnership, etc is marriage, maybe not in the eyes of your lord or god.  Why so many hang onto "Marriage" the word as only able to be performed in its Christian Holy Matrimonial context is beyond me, their are Marriages of the Atheist, Buddhist, Hindi, Wiccan kind all of the time.


----------



## danzik17 (Nov 25, 2009)

maniclion said:


> Gay men and Lesbian women just want to be able to get married, no one can force a Church to perform the ceremony, I've seen Churches turn down Man/Woman marriages because they conceived out of wedlock.  These folks just want to make a valid commitment to one another the same as Husbands and Wives do all of the time.
> Sure they can have legal papers drawn up that basically make them joined financially and able to make decisions if the other one is say in a coma or on life support.....but that's a costly tedious way to go about what could be handled with one move.... And yes in some places they can have a civl union and then go have a wedding....
> If they want to combine the two into one ritual and be married the same as a man and woman are, they should be able to as well....  Many times the civil and spiritual ceremony are performed as one act and recognized by the state as such having given rights to the person performing the marriage the right to act as an agent witnessing on the states behalf......  You are just trying to avoid the fact that civil union, equal partnership, etc is marriage, maybe not in the eyes of your lord or god.  Why so many hang onto "Marriage" the word as only able to be performed in its Christian Holy Matrimonial context is beyond me, their are Marriages of the Atheist, Buddhist, Hindi, Wiccan kind all of the time.



Actually I'm against it because I don't want government regulation of any kind in that area of my my life.  I'm an atheist for the record, however if the government intervenes in one religion then it sets a precedent to intervene in all of them which can (not will but CAN) eventually lead to a state sponsored religion.  I also believe that forcing the issue is a violation of the first amendment and the separation of church and state.

I'm not approaching this from the same moral standpoint that you are, I'm approaching it from a political one.  If we change the question to "Should XXX religion allow gay marriage?" then I will approach it differently.

So I say again, if you want a law to be drawn up that will allow a judge to grant the same rights to a gay couple as ones married by ANY religion, go for it.    Don't try to force any minister, rabbi, witch doctor, WHATEVER into marrying a gay couple because that turns said religion into an extension of the state.


----------



## maniclion (Nov 25, 2009)

danzik17 said:


> Actually I'm against it because I don't want government regulation of any kind in that area of my my life.  I'm an atheist for the record, however if the government intervenes in one religion then it sets a precedent to intervene in all of them which can (not will but CAN) eventually lead to a state sponsored religion.  I also believe that forcing the issue is a violation of the first amendment and the separation of church and state.
> 
> I'm not approaching this from the same moral standpoint that you are, I'm approaching it from a political one.  If we change the question to "Should XXX religion allow gay marriage?" then I will approach it differently.
> 
> So I say again, if you want a law to be drawn up that will allow a judge to grant the same rights to a gay couple as ones married by ANY religion, go for it.    Don't try to force any minister, rabbi, witch doctor, WHATEVER into marrying a gay couple because that turns said religion into an extension of the state.


No one is asking any religion to change it's doctrine, all they want is for the state to recognize them as married.  The reason we are having problems is because religious institutions keep scaring people into thinking what you are.....The gay folks I know wouldn't want to get married in a Church that doesn't accept them anyway so i don't get where your fear is coming from.....There might be a handful of homosexual people who want that the government force churches to perform the ceremony for them but they are few, mostly dikes where the more feminine of the 2 wants to have a wedding where her mother and father did....I say too bad for you and why would you want to in a place full of such negativity toward your lifestyle?


----------



## clemson357 (Nov 26, 2009)

KelJu said:


> Lol, I'm not even going to read any of this this.




I wouldn't either if I were you.  It is clearly beyond you.


THE SAME!!  THE SAME!!!  THE SAME!!!!  Lol.  What a joke.


----------



## jmorrison (Nov 26, 2009)

KelJu said:


> Looking down your nose at others behavior is the conservative way. She is just being a good conservative.



What an asanine statement.  Like laying all the problems in the world at the feet of financial betters is the liberal way.



You say "SAME SAME SAME".  Ok, fair enough.  Explain to me why the FUCK my income is taxed at a higher rate than yours (assumption of course).  Why is my time worth less to me than yours is to you?  Because I can "afford" it?  Simply because I am more financially successful?  Why not a flat tax system so that everyone pays the SAME SAME SAME?!  I'll tell you why.  Because the liberal viewpoint is that everyone who makes more money, MUST be snobbish elitists with skewed morals, and they should share the wealth.

Kiss my ass, just treat me the same and tax me at the same rate as everyone else.  I worked hard to get where I am, and to make what I do, instead of wasting my time smoking pot or pursuing a degree in the arts or some other life wasting liberal pursuit.  How is that for looking down my nose?


----------



## T_man (Nov 26, 2009)

min0 lee said:


> I didn't get a chance to do a search but I don't understand how the church can be against homosexuality when most of the people in charge are themselves gay.



okay first, what the fuck? i'm not even going to take this post seriously lol you're a joker


----------



## KelJu (Nov 26, 2009)

clemson357 said:


> I wouldn't either if I were you.  It is clearly beyond you.
> 
> 
> THE SAME!!  THE SAME!!!  THE SAME!!!!  Lol.  What a joke.



Yeah, your probably right. Maybe you should go revise it, and type it out again. I'll think about reading the revised version... lol!


----------



## T_man (Nov 26, 2009)

min0 lee said:


> *What the Bible Says - And Doesn't Say - About Homosexuality*
> 
> *by Rev.T_BagMan, co-founder of Soulforce*
> *LIKE YOU, I TAKE THE BIBLE SERIOUSLY!*
> ...



Secondly, look at the author of this article. People twist things to make it seem as they wan't to find "loopholes" for their sins. There are no loopholes in the Bible. Things are just taken out of context.

This is a bullshit article and I can't believe you take it seriously. The Bible was written in context for the people who lived at the time as they were the ones who wrote it and so used a different format of speech. Just because it doesn't say "homosexuality" does not mean it isn't spoken of.

Leviticus 18:22 (KJV): "_Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination._" 

Paul writes in Romans 1:22-27:


_Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

    For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. _


----------



## jmorrison (Nov 26, 2009)

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with anything you said T-Man, but I will state that gays wishing to be married are not looking for acceptance from the church, only the legal right to be married by the state.  Due to the separation of church and state, the beliefs of the christian church really have no business even being brought up in the LEGAL debate, and should really only be considered if one is debating their personal moral compasses.


----------



## KelJu (Nov 26, 2009)

jmorrison said:


> What an asanine statement.  Like laying all the problems in the world at the feet of financial betters is the liberal way.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You haven't been here long enough to get to know me. So to understand anything I say, you have to know right up front that I believe that politics in the US is garbage. Democrat or republican, they are just different flavors of shit. If you are one of "those people" that get offended when someone takes a stanley steamer on your political ideas, then suck it up. If you are conservative, then you suck. If you are liberal, you suck. Sadly most of us here land somewhere in the middle looking around at the ridiculousness of it all wondering how shit got so fucked up.   

The whole point...the whole argument here boils down to Carrie Prejean being a judgmental cunt about other people's way of life, yet she can't live up to her own self proclaimed morals. She thinks that gays should be disenfranchised to where they can't take part in a government sanctioned institution. 

I said that conservatives are look down their nose. Nearly all people do to a certain degree, but conservatives want to legislate your relationships, and what you do in the bedroom. They want to tell one group of people that they can take part in a government recognized legal contract, but at the same time tell another group of consenting adults that they can't. You can't do that in America. Its discrimination, plain and simple. 

The conservatives are wrong on this one. So, lets start the argument where it needs to start. Marriage is your business and no one else's. As long as consenting adults are involved, stay the fuck out of other people's business. Quite frankly, I don't believe marriage should be recognized by the government at all. Your marriage is between you and your spouse. Keep religion out of it, keep the government out of it, and keep other people's judgmental opinions out of it. 

That's my piece on the matter. I don't know how a discussion can deviate so damn far from the main point. You working hard has nothing to do with  Carrie Prejean being a hypocritical cunt. Hell, I work hard, too. I work two jobs, somewhere around 50-60 hours a week. Do I deserve a cookie or some shit? No! Fuck no! Damn near everybody at this forum works hard. That has no bearing on the discussion at hand. Taxes has no bearing on the argument. I hate taxes, everybody hates taxes. Why is taxes being brought into this.   

Do you think because you work hard and pay taxes, your opinion is right and carries more weight? Well it doesn't. Sorry to break it to you.


----------



## clemson357 (Nov 26, 2009)

KelJu said:


> Yeah, your probably right. Maybe you should go revise it, and type it out again. I'll think about reading the revised version... lol!



You can't cure stupid.  That is for sure.


----------



## KelJu (Nov 26, 2009)

clemson357 said:


> You can't cure stupid.  That is for sure.



Woot woot, last word contest!
Whoever fails to get the last word is a rotten egg.


----------



## jmorrison (Nov 26, 2009)

KelJu said:


> You haven't been here long enough to get to know me. So to understand anything I say, you have to know right up front that I believe that politics in the US is garbage. Democrat or republican, they are just different flavors of shit. If you are one of "those people" that get offended when someone takes a stanley steamer on your political ideas, then suck it up. If you are conservative, then you suck. If you are liberal, you suck. Sadly most of us here land somewhere in the middle looking around at the ridiculousness of it all wondering how shit got so fucked up.
> 
> The whole point...the whole argument here boils down to Carrie Prejean being a judgmental cunt about other people's way of life, yet she can't live up to her own self proclaimed morals. She thinks that gays should be disenfranchised to where they can't take part in a government sanctioned institution.
> 
> ...



I actually agree with almost 100% of the things you said here.  I tend to be a middle of the road politics kind of guy myself, and honestly believe that the right answer to most debates is somewhere in the middle.

Taxes have nothing to do with the argument at hand about Carrie Prejean, but have everything to do with your argument about wanting people to be treated the same.  For the record I agree with you that everyone should be equal under the law, but I don't see many liberals coming to the defense of those of us who do make a good living, and are unfairly taxed at higher rates.  Because to your average liberal, having money is equal to being the bad guy.

I actually support gay marriage, more on the grounds of my belief in the separation of Church and State than for any other reason, I just get tired of the snide commentary of liberals against anyone who has a different belief system.  I don't look down my nose at people who would rather smoke a joint than work a good job, but I don't want to hear about how their lack of money is my problem come time to pay the rent.


----------



## KelJu (Nov 28, 2009)

jmorrison said:


> I actually agree with almost 100% of the things you said here.  I tend to be a middle of the road politics kind of guy myself, and honestly believe that the right answer to most debates is somewhere in the middle.
> 
> Taxes have nothing to do with the argument at hand about Carrie Prejean, but have everything to do with your argument about wanting people to be treated the same.  For the record I agree with you that everyone should be equal under the law, but I don't see many liberals coming to the defense of those of us who do make a good living, and are unfairly taxed at higher rates.  Because to your average liberal, having money is equal to being the bad guy.
> 
> I actually support gay marriage, more on the grounds of my belief in the separation of Church and State than for any other reason, I just get tired of the snide commentary of liberals against anyone who has a different belief system.  I don't look down my nose at people who would rather smoke a joint than work a good job, but I don't want to hear about how their lack of money is my problem come time to pay the rent.





Rofl, ok then. We are arguing over something we agree on. I will respectfully bow out at this point.


----------



## soxmuscle (Nov 28, 2009)

Carrie Prejean is dating Kyle Boller?


----------



## diablomex (Nov 28, 2009)

jmorrison said:


> I actually agree with almost 100% of the things you said here.  I tend to be a middle of the road politics kind of guy myself, and honestly believe that the right answer to most debates is somewhere in the middle.
> 
> Taxes have nothing to do with the argument at hand about Carrie Prejean, but have everything to do with your argument about wanting people to be treated the same.  For the record I agree with you that everyone should be equal under the law, but I don't see many liberals coming to the defense of those of us who do make a good living, and are unfairly taxed at higher rates.  Because to your average liberal, having money is equal to being the bad guy.
> 
> I actually support gay marriage, more on the grounds of my belief in the separation of Church and State than for any other reason, I just get tired of the snide commentary of liberals against anyone who has a different belief system.  I don't look down my nose at people who would rather smoke a joint than work a good job, but I don't want to hear about how their lack of money is my problem come time to pay the rent.



the only people that say what you say about taxes are the people that have money.rich people or people that have a lot , would love that. if you do some real research, you'll know who actually pays more.about the gay marraige thing, i dont have a problem with it. but i think some people i talk to, say just leave the church out of it. and the guy that was trying to say what the bibles says about gay people is crazy.im no crazy church guy, but i have read the bible enough to know the truth...dont try to interpret it, to make sense for you. read it like its laid out.until god or jesus writes a new book,dont change it for your own.i dont care about what people do behind close doors, but dont make things up..to make your point.if we're gonna debate about things,lets use facts.


----------



## jmorrison (Nov 29, 2009)

diablomex said:


> the only people that say what you say about taxes are the people that have money.rich people or people that have a lot , would love that. if you do some real research, you'll know who actually pays more.



Hruh?!

Last time I checked 25% of a dollar was 25 cents and 10% was a dime no matter how you sliced it.

It is not fair that I pay more or less out of every dollar I earn than anyone else in this country.  EVERYONE should be taxed at the same rate.  Whether it is 15% or 25%, no one should be taxed differently.

What research should I look at that will show me that somehow those that are taxed less pay more somehow?


----------



## Arnold (Nov 29, 2009)

we should all be taxed the same and it should be on our purchases, if you can afford a $5 million dollar house or a $1 million yacht you can afford the taxes on them.


----------



## maniclion (Nov 30, 2009)

jmorrison said:


> What research should I look at that will show me that somehow those that are taxed less pay more somehow?


Maybe look at how many people can afford a tax accountant or a whole team of tax accountants to squeeze and manipulate every last penny out of the gov. cut...maybe look into how many billionaires can afford to hire lobbyists to push tax cuts in congress so they can keep the largest chunk of change jingling in their in their pocket.....

And Rob if we start depending on luxury tax those same people will just end up buying more shit from overseas, you think Donald Trumps dining room table was bought at Ikea down the street?  Ha, very likely he went and selected one from some high end place in Paris or Rome and had it air freighted on his own jet....


----------



## jmorrison (Nov 30, 2009)

maniclion said:


> Maybe look at how many people can afford a tax accountant



So following your logic, if you make enough money to afford an accountant to assist you in deciphering the best way to actually keep some of your hard earned money, since you are paying a higher income tax rate anyway...then you should pay more....?  You say this like hiring someone to help keep track of your finances is evil, and that we should just take it on the chin and not try to keep as much of OUR money that we EARNED?!

That my friend is why these people have money in the first place, careful investment, and good use of ready capitol...or did you think everyone who makes a nice living got where they are through some sort of priviledge or unfair advantage?  

By the way, hiring a CPA to help you set up your taxes, get incorporated, and advise you on the best way to protect your money is not a costly procedure, and everyone who has ANY spare cash would be well served to take this step.


----------



## maniclion (Nov 30, 2009)

jmorrison said:


> So following your logic, if you make enough money to afford an accountant to assist you in deciphering the best way to actually keep some of your hard earned money, since you are paying a higher income tax rate anyway...then you should pay more....?  You say this like hiring someone to help keep track of your finances is evil, and that we should just take it on the chin and not try to keep as much of OUR money that we EARNED?!
> 
> That my friend is why these people have money in the first place, careful investment, and good use of ready capitol...or did you think everyone who makes a nice living got where they are through some sort of priviledge or unfair advantage?
> 
> By the way, hiring a CPA to help you set up your taxes, get incorporated, and advise you on the best way to protect your money is not a costly procedure, and everyone who has ANY spare cash would be well served to take this step.


I didn't say any of it was evil, my point here is that the wealthy may have the highest tax rate but after all is said and done the actual amount they end up paying is far less....plus these folks don't have chunks of Social Security, Medicare, Health Ins., 401k etc, etc. taken out of their pockets each pay check.....

And believe me I'm not poor, we have our home paid for, we have solar electric and hot water so our utility bills are negligible, we have 2 paid for in cash BMW's.....the only bills we have are cell phone, food and a couple of strategic loans to pay off, ....the rest of our money goes straight to the bank and we can do what we want with it.....I have a normal job as an Alternative Energy Applications Consultant and then I have my own business repairing computers on the side, I'm sure I could sit with an accountant and try to find all the ways to keep more of my taxes but I feel that I have a decent enough life that I should pay may country for all it's given me.....

My biggest dream is to someday have a way to allot your tax dollars to the programs you find important, a website where you punch in your Social Secrty# and then your tax amount pops up and all the gov. institutions pop up and you can pick and choose how much goes to which ones, like more to education and the EPA none to NASA and Gov. Studies on why farts stink.....

I think less people would complain about taxes if we could do this.....


----------



## mcguin (Nov 30, 2009)

jmorrison said:


> I am not agreeing or disagreeing with anything you said T-Man, but I will state that gays wishing to be married are not looking for acceptance from the church, only the legal right to be married by the state.  Due to the separation of church and state, the beliefs of the christian church really have no business even being brought up in the LEGAL debate, and should really only be considered if one is debating their personal moral compasses.



a freaking men!!!!  *Due to the separation of church and state, the beliefs of the christian church really have no business even being brought up in the LEGAL debate, and should really only be considered if one is debating their personal moral compasses*


----------



## T_man (Nov 30, 2009)

jmorrison said:


> I am not agreeing or disagreeing with anything you said T-Man, but I will state that gays wishing to be married are not looking for acceptance from the church, only the legal right to be married by the state.  Due to the separation of church and state, the beliefs of the christian church really have no business even being brought up in the LEGAL debate, and should really only be considered if one is debating their personal moral compasses.



Hey I was just stating that the "Christian" priest who wed two gays wasn't following the scriptures and should have been discredited. If it's a social union it's, technically, fine, but if it's a religious union I don't think it can be valid.


----------



## KelJu (Nov 30, 2009)

T_man said:


> Hey I was just stating that the "Christian" priest who wed two gays wasn't following the scriptures and should have been discredited. If it's a social union it's, technically, fine, but if it's a religious union I don't think it can be valid.




Well it depends on how you interpret your religious teachings. There are hundreds of dominations of Christianity all based on different interpretations of the same book. So, how can you say the priest should be discredited for not following your interpretation  of the book?

Sounds extremely small minded to me.


----------



## clemson357 (Nov 30, 2009)

jmorrison said:


> What an asanine statement.  Like laying all the problems in the world at the feet of financial betters is the liberal way.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Liberals and other victim-card-players such as Kelju only support equality when it suits them.  That is why.


----------



## danzik17 (Nov 30, 2009)

A flat tax would be more fair anyway.  Currently, even though I'm not in a really high bracket I still pay around 25-30% in Fed Taxes.

Taxes in Capital Gains are like 15% I think?  Considering the majority of a rich person's gains are made from investments (USUALLY), then they are effectively taxes at a lower rate.

To summarize:  How about a 20% flat tax on everyone.  Done.  IRS Codebooks can be 1 line long.

"Take your total earnings.  Divide by 5.  Send to IRS.  K thanks."


----------



## clemson357 (Nov 30, 2009)

danzik17 said:


> A flat tax would be more fair anyway.  Currently, even though I'm not in a really high bracket I still pay around 25-30% in Fed Taxes.
> 
> Taxes in Capital Gains are like 15% I think?  Considering the majority of a rich person's gains are made from investments (USUALLY), then they are effectively taxes at a lower rate.
> 
> ...




The tax code absolutely needs to be simpler.

My point was more about selective equality.


----------



## jmorrison (Nov 30, 2009)

danzik17 said:


> A flat tax would be more fair anyway.  Currently, even though I'm not in a really high bracket I still pay around 25-30% in Fed Taxes.
> 
> Taxes in Capital Gains are like 15% I think?  Considering the majority of a rich person's gains are made from investments (USUALLY), then they are effectively taxes at a lower rate.
> 
> ...




I think it was Perot who suggested something like this.  He hired analysts, accountants, and all sorts of finance gurus and they came up with something that would have been somewhere around 25% for the first 5 years and then falling to 20% for each american, and barring financial crisis such as wars would eventually be able to fall again to 15% and stabilize there.  Seemed like a great idea then...seems like a great idea now.

Selective taxation is garbage.  A bloated and sloppy tax code does nothing but keep the average american in the dark, and allows too many loopholes.  Everyone SHOULD be taxed the same.  It's all about equality.


----------

