What will happen when the courts overturn South Dakota's ban on same-sex marriage? Look at Minnesota, where legislators beat the courts to the punch and made gay marriage legal last year, and you'll see the answer is, not much:
...something unexpected has happened in the year since the issue became one of the state’s most high-profile and hotly debated topics: Outside of a handful of districts across the state, gay marriage has quietly faded into the background this campaign season. Statewide GOP candidates for governor and the U.S. Senate are talking about the economy, not social issues. Even DFL incumbents in rural districts say the issue doesn’t come up as much as they thought it would.
“I don’t think the issue is totally dead, but people have seen the sky isn’t falling,” said DFL Rep. Tim Faust, whose Hinckley-area district, like Radinovich’s, voted in favor of the ban while he voted in favor of legalization. “Massive amounts of people have not gotten divorced; it hasn’t been the disaster that was predicted by the other side. Things are changing across the country... [Brianna Bierschbach, "Whatever Happened to the Gay-Marriage Backlash?" MinnPost, 2014.07.14].
Marty, don't work up too much of a sweat fighting Jennie and Nancy Rosenbrahn's lawsuit against the state. As Minnesota shows, defeating discrimination and letting homosexuals marry doesn't have much of a discernible downside.
The falsehoods about gay marriage are just like the death panel lies and all of the rest of the nonsense dreamed up by the right wing fundamentalists. In fact, the only thing that gay marriage has done is to promote respect for one another and a feeling that everyone belongs in communities. Now if we can just do the same regarding race and religions, then we have something even stronger, complete unity.
Cory, permitting gay marriage is not about eliminating discrimination. Dogs, children, and polygamists will still be disenfranchised by the marriage is only for consenting adults mantra. Where did that standard come from anyway?
Sibson,come clean. You are,in actuality, former Pennsylvania wingnut Sinator Rick(I love talking about sex between dogs and humans) Sanitorium. Aren't you?
Steve, doesn't Westboro Baptist Church have a web site where you would be more comfortable with your thoughts?
Steve, can anyone marry their TV, cell phone, vehicle? They cannot because they are considered property. Animals are considered property in the court of law, so people cannot marry their pets or livestock. The only way that will change is if the laws regarding animals is changed to be that animals are not property and are given equal status as humans. For example, if ever the slaughter of cows is considered the same as murdering a human.
Children 16 years old and younger are not allowed to marry without parental/guardian consent.
Gay marriage is for the same reason a straight marriages, for financial and legal purposes. When a straight couple live together without being legally married, there is no protection for either parties when they break up. There is no division of assets, who gets the the property depends on who can prove who paid for the properties. There is also no division of debts. Whomever signed the contract for goods/services is the one responsible. For example, when both sign a lease, both are equally responsible for paying rent, if only one person signs the lease, the person who signed it is 100% responsible.
There is also the inheritance and other legal issues. Unless someone has a will, in a straight relationship for which the couple is not legally married, any inheritance or benefits goes to the next of kin, the party who is living with someone without being legally married is not considered the next of kin.
In sum, there is more to marriage than sex, there is a heap of financial and legal responsibilities that go with it. When a gay couple become legally married, they have all the same rights and responsibilities of a straight couple who marry.
I hope this doesn't become another thread about watching Sibby pound sand down a rathole.
Jeni, be careful about talking to Steve about changing laws to make animals "human". Remember, it was conservatives that gave us "corporations are people, too"! (grin)
Thanks for the laugh Loren! :)
Most people who hate gays are really closeted gays. Come on out Mr. Sibson, you ain't foolin anyone. Hell, you can even stay neo-confederate and come out. LBGT vote in all elections for each party, so come out!
Given the recent decision in Hobby Lobby and the apparent proclivity of the religious members of the SCOTUS it may not matter what states decide to do, what every single lower court rules, nor what the popular opinion of Americans is on gay marriage.
The Courts recent decisions, including granting a stay on the contraceptive opt out regulation over Sotomayor's dissent, seems to suggest the Court has decided to take a much more activist role than in the past, especially on hot bud religious questions.
It will be interesting to see what US District Judge Karen Schreier decides on the State's Motion to Dismiss and the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. As an aside, I note that Marty Jackley did not sign off on the State's Motion to Dismiss. Instead, it appears to have been drafted based on arguments developed by a Deputy AG, an Assistant AG, and a private attorney. It seems their basic argument is that a 2006 decision by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859, constitutes binding precedent on the district court and requires dismissal. Here is a link to Bruning:
I had not noticed Bruning before and was thus surprised by the citation, especially since most of the media reports I have read asserted that all the lower courts deciding this issue were unanimous in striking down anti-gay marriage rulings. If the Eighth Circuit sticks by its 2006 Bruning ruling (a likely outcome since the vast majority of current Eighth Circuit judges are George W. Bush appointees), there already is a conflict between the Tenth Circuit and the Eighth Circuit justifying SCOTUS review.
The one potential saving grace seems to be Justice Kennedy's sympathy toward the issue, especially after the Lawrence decision striking down Texas sodomy laws. If he remains consistent we will probably see a 5-4 decision overruling Bruning.
The sad part is that we will waste a ton of resources, create even more division, and for what - to try to stop a change in law that has not hurt its opponents in any way whatsover as evidenced by Minnesota's experience.
Gay marriage is alive and well here in MN. All the gays in SD are welcome to come on over to live a better life. There are many staunch heterosexuals here who are fiercely proud to have stood up against discrimination and hate.
Sibson, as a child did you fall on your head?
I think Sibson wants to marry a dog, or did he already?
I haven't heard of any discrimination or bad mouthing of gay marriage here in MN, except, of course, for the Catholic Church, which has lost all credibility amongst most people anyway. Minnesotans are smart enough to know it is good for all aspects of business. I do remember talking to one elderly neighbor last year after Gov Dayton has signed the bill. She exclaimed to me " I never knew there were so many people that were into anal sex!" Funny,huh! (Thousands of Minnesotans were at the capital the day it passed celebrating, and she saw it on TV. My elderly neighbor is a democrat and agreed that people ought to be able to marry someone from the same sex.
Roger, I am just trying to understand the worldview of those who claim animals and children have rights, but are now being discriminated against when it comes to what you people call equal marriage.
I am asking for what source do you base your standards. For Biblical Christians the standard is God's Word, the Bible. Yesterday my Bible read was from Romans 1:
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
Sibby, gay men are beautiful.
Jenny, then for the sake of marriage equality, marry one.
Gay men are beautiful and very loving and just want to live in peace. That's why I am telling every closet gay/lesbian in SD: come on over to MN. Minneapolis has one of the biggest and most supportive gay and lesbian populations in the country.
Sibson, the train has left the station and you missed it. I didn't bother reading your sermon at the bottom of your post since we have already heard it.
My "worldview" on gay marriage is not based on the bible and neither is America's. I draw my conclusions based on law, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Civil Rights Act. Marriage bans are being overturned right and left based on the laws these documents provide.
Equality, when it comes to people, doesn't have multiple meanings, it means one thing and one thing only. ALL people have the same rights and protections.
I don't see any worldview when it comes to gay marriage, I see individuals seeking the same rights and opportunities you have had all your life. It is a elementary concept Steve and it is fast becoming the law in most states.
You really need to do some basic research about the rights of children and animals. The rights of animals are primarily to protect them from abuse.
The same applies to children rights, it isn't that anyone is giving them the right to vote, to marry, or make sexual decisions they aren't capable of making. Children, like animals, need protection from abusers and strong laws to punish those that abuse children and animals.
Your perverted "worldview" of marriage and sex with children and animals, is just that, perverted. I'm beginning to get a sense that these behavior you keep harping on are actually part of your own agenda legalizing deviant behavior.
Any rational person knows what you are advocating is morally and legally wrong, why can't you understand that.
Sibby: We all need to read this:
“Repeat after me: “You’re taking the passage out of context.”
Any summarizing discussion of Romans 1 takes the passage out of context when there is no mention of Romans 2:1-4, which actually continues to verse 11. In Romans 2:1 Paul gives the “therefore” which explains the purpose for everything in the previous chapter. The word “therefore” tells you the reason Paul wrote everything that came before it. Everything leading up to Romans 2:1 is foundational to this main point.
Romans 2:1ff is what Paul wanted you to walk away with when you were finished. The first verse of Romans 2 is actually the conclusion of Romans 1.
Paul wrote Romans 1:18–2:1 to urge us to stop judging one another, but we manage to use it as the basis for judging people big time.. Here is Romans 2:1 in three translations:
Therefore, you have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. (NIV)
Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things. (RSV)
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. (KJV)
• Whereas all human beings are idolaters, and
• Whereas [most] human beings are fornicators, and
• Whereas [a few] human beings are homosexuals, and
• Whereas all human beings have a depraved mind,
• Therefore, stop judging one another.
So you see, in context, Paul was telling us that we are without excuse if, for example, we condemn homosexuals. because we are foolish gossips and heartless braggers, which are sins of the depraved, or useless. mind. (Interesting, the Greek word translated with the horrible sounding words “reprobate” and “depraved” means “useless.”)
Paul did NOT write Romans 1 to prove how wicked gays and lesbians are. He wrote it to urge us all to stop all the judging and condemnation. If you insist on using Romans 1 to prove how evil homosexuals are, then “You are without excuse,” because your judgment is “inexcusable” (KJV). There is no excuse for judging one another. We have been warned.”
Read it all here: http://biblethumpingliberal.com/2011/05/21/clobber-passage-romans-1/
"Your perverted "worldview" of marriage and sex with children and animals, is just that, perverted."
No, my worldview says all sexual immorality is perverted. Tell me how you decide ones are not and others are?
Well, sane Madville readers, you can't say I didn't try ... :)
Dave, Romans chapter two addresses hypocrites who judge. 1 Corinthians 5 makes it perfectly clear that Paul does not forbid judging those within the church:
1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? 3 Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. 4 When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5 hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord. 6 Your boasting is not good. Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? 7 Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast--as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-- 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. 12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."
Marriage equality is the law: Marty Jackley has chosen not to interfere with crimes of perversion at the FLDS compound near Pringle and the catholic pope said 1 of 50 clergy is a pedophile. Actual crimes have been committed in South Dakota for decades yet the GOP establishment props them up while taking bribes as campaign donations.
Steve, you have unwittingly nailed it. "No, MY worldview says all sexual immorality is perverted".
You see Steve, I don't have to decide anyone's sexual immorality nor do I want to, it's not my business and it sure in hell isn't yours.
According to the Bible daughter can be sold into slavery. (Exodus 21:7) So, why are we trying to get Boko Haram in Nigeria to release kidnapped girls? Isn't it there Biblical duty to sell these daughters into slavery?
According to Mr. Sibson and his bible gays, gossips, and disobedient children "deserve death"--He is #1-not a hypocrite or #2 he didn't read what he posted or #3 He didn't understand what he posted--- He did though provide a perfect example as to why in 2004 surveys showed 71% thought religion was gaining influence in this country, in 2014- 77% said it's influence was dropping---- We owe all the Mr.Sibson,s a big thank you for that obvious and over due advancement of reason.
"I am just trying to understand the worldview of those who claim animals and children have rights, but are now being discriminated against when it comes to what you people call equal marriage."
Steve, I know you have a fascination with bestiality, but by all means please cite someone here who has stated dogs (or any other animal for that matter) has the right to marriage?
You're being purposefully obtuse. The incredibly sad fact here is you have never stopped to consider what marriage actually is. It is a mutual decision between two people that is based upon an honest desire to be together. You seem to suggest marriage is decided by one person (either that or you suggest dogs are sentient beings capable to entering into such agreements).
Thus I have to ask - are you married Steve? If so, was your marriage a decision you entered into with no consideration for your spouse? Do you really think that is how the concept of marriage works? If not, then why are you continuing to beat this dead horse when numerous individuals have already debunked your logic?
Move on to a valid argument Steve... if you can find one.
These posts are a way of trying to convert you into the confused man's view of religion. He is hoping to fleece some of you into contributing to his dwindling flock. Mr. Sibson should be paying advertising fees for this service to Cory.
“You’re taking the passage out of context.”
Dave, the liberal blogger took the name out of context. As I said previously, Chapter 2 addresses hypocrisy. Here is the true context:
Chapter 2 is devoted primarily to the just condemnation of the Jew regardless of his special position as “God’s chosen nation.” Jews are not exempt from wrath. In Romans 2:1-16, Paul will show that God judges both Jew and Gentile impartially. In Romans 2:17-24, Paul shows that this judgment will come even though they have the Jewish heritage and the Law given them. In Romans 2:25-29, Paul will show that this judgment will come even if one does so called “good works”. This will set up the need for both Jew and Gentile to be saved by faith in Christ. In our section today, we will see that God rightly judges the hypocritical heart that is 1) blinded to sin (Romans 2:1-3) and 2) hardened to repentance (Romans 2:4-5).
"I don't have to decide anyone's sexual immorality nor do I want to, it's not my business and it sure in hell isn't yours."
So when are you going to start promoting true marriage equality then?
"The incredibly sad fact here is you have never stopped to consider what marriage actually is. It is a mutual decision between two people that is based upon an honest desire to be together."
Based on what standard do you argue that marriage is limited to "two people"?
Because it's in the SDDP platform, Stevie.
Sibby,you are confusing yourself so bad,I don't know how you decide to pee-standing up or sitting down.
Here is a quote that puts it into context Steve:
"Proposals to legalize multiple-partner marriages, should they ever seriously arise in the legislatures and the courts, would be considered separately from laws regarding single-partner marriages, just as the law now considers alcohol separately from crack cocaine, and hasn't slid helplessly down the slope to legalize them both."
I realize you have this need to evade questions because you don't have a legitimate argument, so I'll accept your lack of a response to my prior questions as your consession that you are unable to cite anyone who has advocated for marriage protections for dogs, and that you have never stopped to consider what the concept of marriage is actually about.
In short - you are once again proving you are nothing other than a troll.
"I'll accept your lack of a response to my prior questions as your consession that you are unable to cite anyone who has advocated for marriage protections for dogs"
That makes my point: that the marriage equality crowd are hypocrites. In addition, arguing that marriage beyond two is the same as taking cocaine lacks logic.
I have pointed to the Bible as the correct standard for marriage, but no one has provided a standard for the premise that marriage is to be limited to two and only two consenting adults. It is obvious that the courts are now giving special rights in the name of equal rights. It exemplifies the hypocrisy Paul was addressing with the Jewis legalists in Romans 1 & 2.
Sibson, your book is a lie.
Sibby, I think you're cherry picking. The Bible sanctions a wide range of sexual behaviors, many of which modern society is loathe to tolerate. Abraham and David practiced polygamy, and "various Bible passages mention not only traditional monogamy, but also self-induced castration and celibacy, as well as the practice of wedding rape victims to their rapists."
That's the real Biblical precedent. But If you want to marry dog, I think you're probably on your own, bud.
Here's a link for your consideration: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/biblical-marriage-iowa-scholars-op-ed_n_3397304.html
The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision.
Bill, you don't understand the Bible. The Old Testament is about the fallen sinful nature of man who committed many acts of sexual immorality. God did not sanction those acts. You are continuing to demonstrate the apostate nature of your beliefs, and are a false teacher.
and the new testament is apocryphal.
Steve, I don't think you are going to be successful in changing anyone's beliefs or opinions.
Maybe it is time to consider Matthew 10:14
I have had to do that when I have tried to convince others that consuming alcohol is a poison to the mind, body and soul.
Not always easy to shake the dust off, but I think even Jesus recognized that when he was not be able to change others minds, it was time for him to move on.
Steve, the Bible is NOT and will NOT be a part of recent legal rulings challenging the ban on gay marriage.
As Craig pointed out, any proposals for child marriage, or the ridiculous notion of dog marriage, is not a part of the federal court rulings, those decisions have to brought individually before the federal courts, why do you refuse to comprehend that?
BCB brought forward an excellent analysis of the status of the gay marriage ban, since there wasn't a single mention of the Bible, I'm betting you didn't bother to read it.
Steve you completely ignore that these legal challenges are based on law and not the Bible or you own judgments on sexual immorality.
The Bible is not a legal argument, period.
David, good work on Romans. It gets even better. The word translated as "homosexual", literally means "soft cloth." It's associated with "effeminate men." Those on the right might insist that "effeminate" equals "gay", but I don't buy that, nor do the top students of ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. (Languages of the New Testament.)
I'm sure I'm not the only person here who knows, or has known non-macho gentlemen who are heterosexual. They may not care to hunt, shoot guns, play football, or slap other men on the butt, but they are straight as can be.
This thread raises this quotation: Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. —Proverbs 26:4 (King James version)
Mr. Sibby, who are you to tell Mr. Fleming that he does not understand the Bible? Perhaps it is you who does not understand it. What if Mr. Fleming is totally right about the Bible? That would be a hoot indeed. Especially if he taught classes on it.
From 2 Samuel:
Nathan said to David, “You are the man! Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, b‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul. 8 And I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your arms and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah. And if this were too little, I would add to you as much more. 9 cWhy have you despised the word of the Lord, dto do what is evil in his sight? eYou have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and fhave taken his wife to be your wife and have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.’ 11 Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house. And I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. 12 For you did it secretly, gbut I will do this thing before all Israel and before the sun.’ ” 13 hDavid said to Nathan, i“I have sinned against the Lord.” And Nathan said to David, j“The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. 14 Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly kscorned the Lord,2 the child who is born to you shall die.” 15 Then Nathan went to his house."
What a guy! He not only sanctioned polygamy, he thought it was okay to take the guy's wives and then give them to somebody else. Then forgive the guy, and kill his kid.
Pretty sure I understand what the above says, Sibby.
Why is it that you don't? Can't you read, buddy?
Religion, and what any religious book, be it the Bible, the Koran, the Talmud, the Book of Mormon or any other book, from any religion says, doesn't mean a damn thing in the context of equal marriage rights for all Americans. So to Sibby or anyone else who makes a case for a position based on some religious book I can only say, "isn't that nice" now go read the only document that matters when the issue of equal rights in the United States comes up, the US Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment. Until they can find a loophole through that one Steve and all others who adopt his line of argument are nothing more than clanging cymbals.
Sibby has gone down this road many times before. nothing new here
And his line of reasoning is fatally flawed. We are a nation of laws, not a theocracy governed by religions teachings.
Nick, what standard are those laws based on? I am not saying the Bible should be the standard. Why are you equal marriage advocates only allowing one form of immorality?
And Deb, I am not surprised that you would agree with false teaching of the Bible.
"Can't you read, buddy?"
Bill, you have eyes but cannot see. You have no clue what the Old Testament says.
Since none of you have validated the premise that this gay marriage movement is really about equal rights, then I will provide the truth about what this is about. It is a Neo-Marxist attempt to destroy America's moral foundation. Check out Sexual Bolshevism:
Sexual Bolshevism (also known as Sexual Perversion) encompasses a pattern of degenerate sexual behaviour in a few human beings. The category includes homosexualism, pedophilia, miscegenation, transsexualism and bestiality. Cultural norms of human society the world-over, have developed an evolutionary rejection of these social ills as a means of survival. Along with third-world miscegenation and abortion, homosexuality is a primary peversion promoted in society, under the guise of "tolerance", "equality" and "diversity" as part of a rival Jewish supremacist stategy to attack ethnic European demographics.
Particularly after the failure of state-communism and working-class ethnic Europeans largely rejecting the attempt by the Judeo-Bolsheviks to enslave and destroy gentile society, radical Jewish supremacists began to mould Sexual Bolsheviks into a new proletariat. They feature as tools alongside other manipulated participants in identity politics currents, such as third-world immigrants and radical feminists. In the area of the homosexual agenda; inspired by the cultural Marxism of the Frankfurt School, a group of US-based Jews developed a variation of critical theory which they call "Queer theory". Michael Warner,✡ Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick✡ and Judith Butler✡ are at the forefront of this.
Good grief, there we went again. Sibby, didn't I ask you to go research Chad Haber and Lee Stranahan? Make yourself useful!
A moral foundation built on genocide and slavery.
We'll I know what the Samuel passage above says about marriage in the eyes of the God of King David. What do you think it says? What was it that David did wrong? What's the lesson? I can answer with one word, Sibby. Can you? (Hint: it wasn't having more than one wife or being gay.)
I, for one, would really like to see Mr. Sibby's research on that Stranahan fellow. Sibby, see what's with those stumpy arms, would you?
Now just back the truck up: the whole point of the Minnesota article is to note the empirical fact that none of the disenfranchisement or social chaos that Sibby's theorizing insists will happen has happened. You can keep wishing for a remake of Sodom and Gomorrah, Steve, but the facts so far are showing same-sex marriage isn't worth the family-values freakout.
People make commitments. Some people fail to live up to those commitments. That failure has little if anything to do with the commitments their neighbors make and break. I didn't get married because my neighbors got married, and I won't get divorced because my neighbors get divorced. (Actually, I won't get divorced, period.)
P.s. Sibby, do you think the women in the Samuel story had equal rights?
Bill, Did any of the people of the Old Testament live up to the standards set later by Jesus Christ?
As Sibson pursues his irrelevancy on gay marriage, I would like to bring back the topic of this thread.
From most reports from around the country, Minnesota is learning what other states with gay marriage already know. Support from the public, especially the younger generation are propelling the acceptance of the LGBT community and gay marriage. The archaic ideologies of the Sibson's are being thrown to the wayside by courts across the country.
I'm old enough to remember the era of Jim Crow laws and the laws banning interracial marriage. In the 60's the biblical moralist said that if these marriages were ever sanctioned it would be the end of American civilization in 50 years.
It has been beyond those 50 years and the sky hasn't fallen and interracial marriage is the norm. Social pressure and those that recognized the meaning of equality fought for and won those rights in the name of Civil Rights.
Just as those that opposed interracial marriage, those that are anti-gay don't understand basic rights unless it applies to them.
Thanks to the younger generation and Civil Rights advocates, Steve Sibson has become a dinosaur and hasn't realized it. In time, gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states and Sibson can do absolutely nothing about it.
In a few years South Dakota will be like Minnesota and the LGBT and gay marriage will be a thing of the past.
The Steve Sibson's will sit back and wonder what the hell was the fight about.
With all the blogs about gay marriage, there is the inevitable comment about the "gay agenda". I have yet to see a copy of this document of this planned gay takeover of America, has anyone?
Cory, it is feel good propaganda. Deception. Here is the real homosexual agenda:
A Self-Styled 'Gay Revolutionary' Offers a Challenge to Straight America:
"We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, ...wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us. All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our holy gods are handsome young men. ...We shall be victorious because we are fueled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed..."
Michael Swift - Boston Gay Community News - February 15-21, 1987 (From the Traditional Values Coalition Special Report, Vol. 18., No. 10)
"Support from the public, especially the younger generation are propelling the acceptance of the LGBT community and gay marriage."
That is due to the indoctrination of children in our government schools. Here is more hypocrisy on this issue:
A habit or behavior is deemed unhealthy if it has been proven to have debilitating results. Smoking, drugs, alcohol abuse, overeating and other behaviors all fall into this category. But research has shown that homosexual behavior has the same results: nationally, less than 2% of practicing homosexuals live to age 65.
If the tobacco companies tried to get on a school campus to convince children to smoke, they would never be allowed. If the breweries shoed up and tried to convince under-age children to start drinking, parents would be up in arms. If health classes started teaching kids to overeat, or shop classes started teaching students how to build bombs, society would be outraged.
Yet pro-homosexual groups are encouraged to come to schools and teach young children how nice and normal homosexuality is. Today children are actually being indoctrinated about the benefits of homosexuality, in spite of the fact is has been proven to be an unhealthy lifestyle.
Gay marriage is love and love is the law here in MN, so back off Sib. What part of love don't you understand?
So Jenny finally came up with the standard, love. So the people of Minnesota hate dogs? Do they hate children? Do they hate relationships that go beyond two people? Come on Jenny, lets promote real equal marriage.
Gay guys just want one man to love and honor in their marriage, Sibby, if that's what you're worried about.
Larry, that study has already been brought up. It is a spiked study. Again, we have feel good propaganda that is designed to deceive. You will find more of that in Deb's apostate church.
right, sib: your anecdotal evidence is always better than an empirical one, my bad.
Jenny, not so:
The goal of secular progressives is to indoctrinate the youth. This is why public schools — even at the elementary level — are pushing the homosexual agenda. Same-sex “marriage” is not — and never has been — about expanding the benefits of marital unions. Most homosexuals, especially young males, are not interested in getting married. They are aggressively promiscuous. For many, a stable, monogamous relationship is the last thing on their minds. Rather, the purpose of same-sex marriage is to legitimate homosexual behavior, thereby making it morally acceptable and part of the social mainstream. In short, it’s about fostering a cultural revolution — one that overturns Judeo-Christian civilization.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/5/america-home-of-the-gay/#ixzz37VDbM900
Israel embraces marriage equality, no? Also, barely half of Israelis believe god gave them the land they occupy while 82% of evangelicals espouse it.
Steve, are you so absent from reality that you actually believe that piece of garbage you posted?
The people you refer to as part of your gay agenda that stalk schools, scout groups, government schools,etc. are most likely pedophiles that have both sexual preferences.
If that piece of nonsense were true, most gay activist groups would be following that agenda, they don't. In fact that is not an agenda at all, it reads like a manifest of one deviant SOB, similar to a lot of stuff you post.
I do not believe that men and women can be pulled into such a massive conspiracy as you suggest with the gay agenda. That is purely delusional and paranoid thinking. If you are not gay Steve, why are you so fearful of them?
Men and women "choose" their relationships and sexual lifestyles by their own free will. Are you afraid that some gay guy is going to take that away from you?
Roger, lead has been a problem in the Mitchell water supply for decades: Steve is just another sad statistic.
" have both sexual preferences"
I fully agree that there is discrimination against gays by those who accept heterosexual immorality. That is wrong. Further, I do not believe homosexuals should be singled, because we all fall short. What I have a problem with is the deception that promotes sinful behavior (of both preferences) as AOK to children in order to win a culture war that is designed to destroy America's traditional culture.
Yes the culture war is lost. So what is my purpose? To expose the hypocrisy, deceptions, and lies. Maybe a couple of people will get the truth in time to save themselves.
"I do not believe that men and women can be pulled into such a massive conspiracy as you suggest with the gay agenda."
Then how to you explain how this issue has gone from unacceptable to acceptable then? Even churches are accepting sin as being love. God loves sin? Yeah, you would have to reject the Bible in order to believe that.
worship a book of literature and the characters ultimately assassinate the reader.
Once again Sibson, I don't have to accept or reject the Bible, gay marriage is NOT about religion, the courts are consistently making that statement and over turning gay marriage bans.
The law does not give a damn about your perception about sexual immorality, sodomy have been struck down in every state that has them and not because it is primarily a gay activity, but because straight couple married and unmarried engage in anal sex for both pleasure and for birth control.
Steve, are you absolutely 100% sure that your children have not had a gay teacher, are you sure that some preacher you listened to and learned from was not gay?
Is your town's police and fire department gay free? Do you really know if they are? How about your best friend and his wife, are you certain that he isn't gay and is hiding it?
Steve, the LGBT community is all around you and has been for a long time, this gay marriage thing and homosexuality is not a new revelation, well maybe for you it is, this topic has been argued since the beginning of time and with each passing year the LGBT community are gaining their rights that the Constitution should have granted them in the first place.
The MN legislature passed this law because the year prior the citizens handily voted down a Republican attempt to enshrine discrimination into the state's constitution. Incidentally, MN was the first state in which the people of a state voted to treat all citizens equally.
It's not a surprise that this is all going well here. Marriage for all is very good for business. The leadership of SD is plainly is not interested in creating an effective business environment.
Marriage equality was not forced on MN. MN reached out and welcomed marriage for all with open arms.
Sure, Steve, and I can find some Westboro Baptist Christians who say some vile things. Shall I propose legislation refusing to recognize Christian marriage?
(And have you noticed that Steve Sibson and Lee Stranahan never appear in the same thread together? I think they are really the same person. :-P )
Hot damn Cory, maybe they are one in the same, scary notion for sure.
Steve, like Lee, need to tend to their own blogs and quit interrupting and corruption intelligent conversations with their perversions.
On a related note, Pride had a very successful event over the weekend. The Pride celebration was held at Wilson Park and according to reports was well attended by many supportive Rapid Citians that believe in their cause
Thanks, Roger! I hear Josie Weiland was slated to speak on behalf of her Uncle Rick. Did you get to hear her speech?
I was out of town over the weekend and missed the event, would have loved to hear Josie.
Robin Page spoke to the group and helped kick off the festivities.
"Steve, the LGBT community is all around you and has been for a long time, this gay marriage thing and homosexuality is not a new revelation"
Roger I am not the one that has singled out gays for special treatment. And so far there has been no intelligent response to why they should be granted so-called "equal marriage" while others don't.
Again Cory, there is a difference between Biblical Christians and apostate Christians. The former are not controlled by hate. Hate seems to be a common thread among the apostate Christians and the attitude toward me of those promoting the Neo-Marxist worldview on this thread .
"Pride had a very successful event over the weekend."
Again more evidence that the indoctrination in our schools and other institutions have altered the worldview of America, which exactly what the Neo-Marxist agenda is all about. America is not longer family friendly. And like I said above, there is a lot of hate going around. Hatred toward men, toward whites, and especially toward Biblical Christians.
Special treatment? Read the 14th Amendment.
Christianity, or any other religion doesn't have a say. The US Constitution does.
Unless Steve wants Sharia law. Theocracy is a failed form of government, it leads to never ending war against the apostates.
Sibby,prove a negative.
Better still,flog a dead horse.
Not too long ago it was unacceptable for girls to assist with the Catholic Mass, now it is acceptable.... horrible, horrible... what is this world coming into????????!!!!!!!
My point is, changes happen, and will continue to happen whether we want them to or not. If we cannot adapt to those changes, we are doomed.
Homosexuals are not receiving special treatment in Minnesota. They have to freeze their butts shoveling their sidewalks just like everyone else.
"The US Constitution does."
"Read the 14th Amendment."
Nick, the 14th undermined the original constitution. Instead of a Constitutional Republic, USofA is a Neo-Fascist all powerful Corporation. And the Neo-Marxist agenda has those on the left supporting it.
And Nick, the 14th amendment does not protect the other sexual perversion? From an earlier comment:
Sexual Bolshevism (also known as Sexual Perversion) encompasses a pattern of degenerate sexual behaviour in a few human beings. The category includes homosexualism, pedophilia, miscegenation, transsexualism and bestiality.
I've discovered much like any troll, Steve refuses to stay on topic and discuss one line of reasoning. When flaws are shown in his logic, he simply moves on to another topic. Whether it is biblical references (which have no bearing on the US Constitution and are not the basis for the law of the land), or references to bestiality, immorality, pedophelia, polygamy, or referencing some random statements 25 years ago which likely are taken out of context but at the very least are no more representative of a population than the members of Westboro Baptist Church are.... Steve simply cannot remain on track and shows an honest disregard for the framework of a legitimate discussion.
A troll is a troll whether he knows it or not. Steve adds nothing to this discussion, will soon be on the wrong side of history, and seems to have a strong desire for others to listen to him. Since he can't get anyone to post comments to his blog, he trolls elsewhere in a vain attempt to stir the pot as he cries out "listen to me! I need to be heard!".
You are a sad, sad man Steve - and I have no doubt you are struggling with a deep, dark secret that you are scared will one day come to light.
"Steve simply cannot remain on track and shows an honest disregard for the framework of a legitimate discussion."
Craig, actually you are playing the role of a troll by not addressing the point that other forms of sexual perversion is not including in the so-called marriage equality argument.
And being on the wrong side of history on this issue is a compliment. Thank you.
Sibby, I must say that I am a bit surprised to see a blatantly racist post from you. I cannot believe that you would call inter-racial marriages ("miscegenation") a perversion.
I suppose this slip reveals more about your underlying thought processes when you call others neo-this and neo-that and it especially helps with understanding why you preach against our current President (although he is not guilty of your so-called "miscegenation" perversion since he is married to a spouse of the same race), as well as groups, such as liberals, who believe integration is an improvement over segrating people by race.
Asked and answered, Sibby.
Animals are incapable of giving consent.
For that reason, they are not bound by any of our laws.
In other words, as much as you might want to marry your dog, there is no way to know for sure that your dog wants to marry you.
So you two will just have to go on living in sin, Sib.
Suck it up, buddy.
Maybe someday Fido will have a sentience breakthrough and start speaking in tongues or something. Then you and s/he can start a whole new right-to-puppylove movement.
Meanwhile, love's a bitch, huh, Sib?
You can add Sibby's name to sexual Bolshevism. I think he get's his rocks off reading the gibberish he posts. Didn't your lord command you to love yourself,Sib? If so I think you have carried it a bit too far.
In an earlier thread I posted a comment about a survey of the general public's lack of understanding of the Bible, many believing Sodom and Gomorrah were a married couple, along with Noah and his wife Joan of Arc.
Stephen Colbert exposed more biblical ignorance in an interview of Georgia representative Lynn Westmoreland, who had introduced legislation to require the posting of the 10 commandments in public buildings so the public would know about these commandments and would follow them. When Colbert asks Westmoreland to name the 10 commandments, he responded hesitantly by naming 3 and admitting he did not know the rest. Here is the video, and the dialog about the 10 commandments occurs at 5 minutes in.
Sorry Steve - but we have in fact answered that question numerous times in numerous threads. You may not like the answer, but the question has not been ignored.
You on the other hand.... evade, evade, evade. Common troll tactics.
"I cannot believe that you would call inter-racial marriages ("miscegenation") a perversion."
I didn't know what the word meant, until I looked it up. By what standard do we back the "judgment" that a certain act is perverted? For the Jewish, it was God's requirement to keep their families pure and not marry those outside His chosen people. That is where the term Sexual Bolshevism came from. My Biblical position is that there is one race, one blood. I disagree with singling out races as much as I disagree with singling out homosexuals.
The terms that I am asking the pro-equal marriage crowd are pedophilia and bestiality. No one has provided reasons why those perversions do not qualify for equal marriage rights, while homosexuality does. So far the answer is the stand is "two consenting adults". From what source does that standard come from?
Right, bat, it's not uncommon for people why flog others with their supposed biblical devotion to not know what they are talking about. Sibby, for example, completely misses the irony in the Samuel2 story wherein, God himself is choosing David over Saul to be king of his people, mainly because Saul failed to carry out the genocide per the Almighty's instructions. Further, God gives David and his son Solomon hundreds of wives and concubines, and only becomes upset when David commits adultery.
In other words, the things we think should be illegal are sanctioned by God, and the things we tend to let slide (adultery for example) are a big deal to the Old Man. I'll take the Constitution over the Old Testament anyway, and Sibby is bonkers to say we should do the opposite.
His only saving grace is the possibility that he doesn't know what the heck he's talking about.
"pedophilia and bestiality. No one has provided reasons why those perversions do not qualify for equal marriage rights, while homosexuality does"
Yes we have, Sibby, multiple times. Pay attention.
Meh. My next marriage, I want it to be with a corporation. That way, maybe elected officials and SCOTUS will listen to me and corporate sugar daddy.
I could give a damn about what anyone's religion says about gay marriage. If I am not mistaken, it seems most gay unions are civil services. Allow these folks equal rights and privileges under the law and let each sort it out within his/her own religion. Quit putting YOUR religious views on ME!
I would pay any price to see Stephen Colbert interview Steve Sibson.
"Yes we have, Sibby, multiple times."
Please provide links.
I don't remember reading in the Constitution that marriage is restricted to two consenting adults. So where did that principle come form?
And how come it is not being followed:
In the United States, all but one state requires that a couple be 18 in order to marry without parental permission. Nebraska sets the age of majority at 19. Although a few states will waive this requirement if there is a pregnancy, the couple may still have to have court approval.
Delware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, and Oklahoma: Allow pregnant teens or teens who have already had a child to get married without parental consent. However in Florida, Kentucky, and Oklahoma, the young couple must have authorization from a court. Maryland requires that the minor be at least 16. Even with parental approval, many states will require court approval when a person is 16 years of age or less.
So why don't the marriage equality advocates push for more children getting married? They are the ones pushing sex in the government schools.
And Bill, it is sad that you have elevated your godhead so that you can question God's justice.
Sibby, it is sad that you haven't.
Roger, that would be an interesting encounter. But Sibby brings important points to the table - before anyone sticks a pejorative label on something, such as his unfortunate "miscegenation" comment, it might be helpful to know what exactly it is that is being labeled.
And that really brings up another point about gay marriage. I suspect many sexually insecure opponents really do not even understand what gay marriage really means, just as Sibby did not understand what "miscegenation" meant when he called it a perversion. It may be that a preoccupation with sex leads them to mistakenly focus only on the sexual aspect while ignoring the full concept of two adults loving each other and choosing to live their lives together, sharing joys and sorrows, ups and down, for better or worse.
"It may be that a preoccupation with sex leads them to mistakenly focus only on the sexual aspect while ignoring the full concept of two adults loving each other and choosing to live their lives together, sharing joys and sorrows, ups and down, for better or worse"
BCB, that does not seem to be the real agenda, otherwise no one would object to marrying dogs.
We cannot legally marry our TVs, computers, cell phones, microwave ovens, our vehicles and etc. because they are considered property.
Animals, whether pets or livestock, are legally considered property. If animals were to be given the same status as humans, anytime we have a hamburger, hot dog, fish sticks, or any meat product, it would be the same as cannibalism.
If trying to advocate for marriage between an animals and humans to be legal, try first make it legal to marry cell phones. A lot of people are very attached to their cell phones.
BTW, humans having sex with animals amounts to animal cruelty because it rape. Is rape acceptable?
Don't forget Matthew 10;14.
JeniW, I understand that dogs are not humans, but if the criteria to marriage is "love", then many love their dogs. Some even admit that they are part of the family. So can't we make law changes and include dogs in the marriage equality equation? Can we then get their vet bills paid for by Obamacare? True Neo-Marxists would appreciate the argument that it is unfair that only rich people can afford to have dogs because of the vet bills.
Maybe we should chip in and buy Sibby a dog. He sounds like he wants one bad.
If you want to marry a dog or a child, hop on down to your county courthouse and try to get a marriage license. Remember that the marriage license is a legal document.
When same-sex couples in South Dakota go to the courthouse to get a marriage license they are denied and that is what gay marriage is all about. It is not about special rights or privileges, it is about the same rights you have had all your life.
Soon same-sex couples will be able to get their marriage licenses and have the same right to marry who they choose, just as you have. If you think that with legalizing gay marriage you now have the right to marry a dog or child, go to the courthouse and apply for a marriage license.
Bear is right, you seem to have a preoccupation or obsession with sexual immorality and deviancy to the point that it is disgusting. You are getting very close to justifying bestiality and even worse, using bible verses to condone pedophilia.
As bear states, your obsession sex has distracted you from a discussion on marriage and all that it represents to both straight and gay couples.
As a Christian Steve, wouldn't it be healthy to witness the happiness gay couples share? As it happens, gay couples are Christians too and have recognized the inadequacies of that man written Bible. Are these gay couples less of a Christian than you are? I'm certain you'll find a label of neo-something and condemn and judge them because they aren't your kind of Christian. Really Steve, your opinion doesn't matter to those that are seeking intimacy in their lives.
Jackilope, if you marry a corporation, you can least be assured of a healthy sex life. A corporation won't miss any chance to screw you.
Excellent Cory, quote of the day.
Sibson is fond of saying to Bill Flemming, "you have eyes but cannot see, you have ears but cannot hear" or some such thing.
I say of Sibson, "you can read but you can't comprehend".
Hahaha! Marrying a corporation! So funny! Jackilope and Cory, thanks for the laughs.
"It is not about special rights or privileges, it is about the same rights you have had all your life."
Roger, there is where we have the rub. You want to reduce one restriction but keep the rest. As I tried to argue in previous comments, society protects itself by restricting marriage. And to what standard? I have argued a Biblical one. But that has been watered down with fault free easy divorce. Now we want to water it down with this so-called equal marriage argument. Whose standard is it that allows marriage to be downgraded for two types of sexual immorality, but still maintain restrictions on other types of immoral relationships. If so, then stop calling it equal rights and equal marriage. Call it something that is truthful. In fact, stop calling it marriage. Marriage is between one man and one woman. What this is really about is forcing all of us to disregard sinful behavior. No one is stopping two men from living with each other, nor two women. Just leave marriage, the basis to a stable family and society structure alone.
And Bill, since you like to trash the OT, what did God do about Sodom? Don't you think he just might do it again, Mr. Man of Reason?
You've been on here for two days, Sibby, and you haven't changed anyone's stance. You and your bible can't control people, you can try but it is not going to work. I don't know why republicans are so obsessed with the sexual preferences of consenting adults. The Republican mantra of freedom is a joke when it comes to gay marriage.
Roger, I suspect Sibby's apparent reliance on a Bible verse for pedophilia is probably based on Numbers 31:17-18, so long as the child is a virgin girl. His fascination with bestiality could be based on Ezekiel 23:20, although that references donkey testicles and horse emissions rather than dogs.
Sibby, you make an interesting statement - "What this is really about is forcing all of us to disregard sinful behavior. No one is stopping two men from living with each other, nor two women. Just leave marriage, the basis to a stable family and society structure alone."
So I take it unmarried same sex sodomy and carnal knowledge is okay with you, but you think the real sin is to promise to love, honor and cherish another person for the rest of one's life? Interesting distinction.
Sibby a special right is when you clergy meddle in politics and get to keep your tax exempt status. Churches made a deal with the devil to keep their noses out of politics and then they wouldn't have to pay their fair share. And don't try to insert dogs into this post.
I think Sibby has a calling to be a preacher.
Steve, marriage is the entering of a legal contract. All legal contracts have rights and responsibilities that go with it. Marriage is more than just love and sex, it is a legal contract regarding finances, the division of assets and debts in the event that the marriage does not work out. It also has to deal with the "next of kin" issues. When a straight couple marry, the "next of kin" is automatically the the spouse. Unless there is a will, inheritance and property become the right and responsibility of the "next of kin." This is to help provide protection for each party. There are probably other issues related to the "next of kin" status.
Without that contract, the next of kin is the immediate family of the individual, including parents, siblings and children. Without the legal contract, one of the parties will be SOL in terms of financial support and division of assets and debts, and etc. I have explained this already.
Without the legal protection of a marriage contract, one or both parties face financial non-support, and may have to resort to public assistance.
When a couple, whether straight, gay, platonic or whatever enter into a relationship without a legal contract, they have no protection in the eyes of the law.
I have entered into a business contract with my partners, I, as well as them have the rights and responsibilities of that business so that none of us receive more of the benefits, or suffer more of a loss than than the others.
What gay couples are seeking is the protection of a legal contract that has all the rights and responsibilities that go with it. Some gay couples seek a spiritual union/contract, some churches provide that, others do not. A gay couple is not going to seek a spiritual union/contract at a church that has determined that they are not "good enough."
It is no different than the legal contract that you entered into with your spouse (if you have one.)
People entered into legal contracts of all kinds, be it to rent or buy homes/apartments, purchasing a car, entering into a two year contract with a cell phone company and etc. The contracts are for the protection of the parties involved.
Nice comment JeniW! Your additions to love, honor and cherish, are right on point. Thanks!
Good job, JeniW. It doesn't get any more clear than that.
So Steve, this is what comes down to for you. You dislike the term gay marriage and want the world to quit using it based on a definition of marriage.
Regardless of what you believe Steve, same-sex marriage, civil-unions, or whatever you may wish call it, will forever be called gay marriage. Slowly but surely society and government refer to same-sex unions as gay marriage. That is not going to change regardless of what you think, it is being accepted universally.
Like I said Steve, you read but don't comprehend. I have never argued marriage equality. The legal argument is not for special privilege, it never has been. The debate is that that gays have the same rights and privileges granted by the Constitution that you do, and that includes the right to marry a consenting adult. It is that simple.
For a state to deny that right is to discriminate against gay couples, and that sir is illegal. States do not have the right to pass laws that discriminate against anyone. It is that basic.
Now if you want to continue your deviant immoral sex debate, tell it to the Supreme Court. I'm certain they'll tell you to shut up and sit down and that any sexual activity, whether Steve deems it immoral sex or not , is the business of two consenting adults and not that of Steve Sibson.
Any sexual perversion between animals and children is against the law in most states. Do you understand that Steve, it is illegal and there are various forms of punishment for sex acts you are concerned about.
When the Supreme Court eventually rules on gay marriage, you can be certain its decision will come with the caveat that gay marriage is specific to the case and doesn't include any of Steve Sibson's deviant and immoral sex acts with children and dogs.
Also consider this Steve, there are already nearly 20 states that have legalized gay marriage, Minnesota had the courage to legalize it without a court order and Pennsylvania decided not to appeal their gay marriage ban.
All of your Bible and immoral sex arguments, as well as the limited definitions, were shot down in the early rulings and currently aren't being used by states still fighting to retain their gay marriage ban.
Your arguments are elementary and meaningless when it comes to supporting the gay marriage ban, the courts, not me, are telling you that it simply is not legal discriminate against gay couples.
Roger, I need to quibble with just one aspect of your excellent comment. In MN, when 2 same sex adults get hitched, it's called "Marriage". No qualifiers, no distinctions. Marriage is marriage, 2 adults. End of story.
I must have been typing at the same time JeniW and missed her comment, at any rate, great comment JeniW.
Here's the link you asked for Steve. Funny how you don't think someone has made a valid argument unless they provide one. All that reveals is that you don't really know how to think – just look things up. You have demonstrated that more times that any of us would care to count.
I can't quibble with that, I'm certain that as gay marriage becomes more clearly defined it will indeed be called marriage with no qualifiers.
What I'm saying is that in MN at the present time, when 2 people are married, including same sex couples, it's just "marriage". It's not in the future here and many other states. It's already simply Marriage.
"I have never argued marriage equality. The legal argument is not for special privilege, it never has been."
Those two back to back sentences contradict.
"The debate is that that gays have the same rights and privileges granted by the Constitution that you do, and that includes the right to marry a consenting adult."
I am not allowed to marry another man, so neither should gay men. I did marry a women. I support the right for gay men to marry a woman. I do not believe we should single them out and ban them from marriage.
We should not be redefining marriage based on no standards. This is confusing to children as they mature to adulthood. It brings instability to America's society, regardless of the pro-gay propaganda such as represented by Cory's post that started this thread.
And if this society wants to redefine marriage that violates the religious beliefs of a large segment of America's population, it would be unconstitutional based on religious freedom to force us to accept the redefinition of marriage. It is especially sad to have to deal with the intolerance exhibited by the likes of Bill Fleming and others. With that said, I appreciate the civility that you and BCB have exhibited discussing this issue.
"I am not allowed to marry another man, so neither should gay men. I did marry a women. I support the right for gay men to marry a woman. I do not believe we should single them out and ban them from marriage."
Is this Sibby coming out of the closet or what? Is there any other way to even begin to follow his [lack of] logic here?
"Is this Sibby coming out of the closet or what?"
No Mr. Bigot. The lack of logic is in regard to the pro-gay left thinking they can have the cake and eat it to. In other words, they want rights that the are not willing to grant to others.
"Your arguments are elementary and meaningless when it comes to supporting the gay marriage ban, the courts, not me, are telling you that it simply is not legal discriminate against gay couples."
But you have no problem with the court discriminating against polygamists, pedophiles, and those who love their dog. The court is granting special rights in the name of the 14th amendment by violating the 14th amendment. Is the court practicing justice? No. The Constitutional Republic has been destroyed and America is being destroyed from within. Once that is fully accomplished, Americans will beg to be united into the one-world system.
Yes, Deb, there is no "gay marriage". There is true marriage based on Biblical Christianity and then there is marriage based on apostasy. And you support the later.
I don't understand the first part of Steve's comment either. Possibly it is some sort of coming out. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
I for one don't want gay guys marrying straight women, young straight guys have a hard enough time convincing girls to accept them. If all the buff, fashion conscious gay guys had started hitting on girls I would have never stood a chance.
As to Steve's last concern, I'm aware of no proposal that would force a religion to marry gay couples if the church was opposed to it. I know the Catholic church will not marry straight couples if the priest determines they shouldn't be married. There may be an appeal process to the local bishop but I'm not sure. In the US religions have complete discretion as to whom to dispense sacraments to. First Amendment, Freedom of Religion, I'm sure everyone has heard of it.
Sibby your psychosis is showing.
Nick, what I am saying is all of us men are banned from marrying another man, and all of us men are allowed to marry a woman. There currently is no discrimination and we have equal marriage. If you want to ban gay men from marrying women, then that would be discrimination.
Steve has shown (once again) that he doesn't understand what marriage is about when he condones a gay man marrying a woman. It isn't about mutual love for one another nor is it about a desire for two people to commit their lives to one another. It is just a legal document.
How sad for Steve's wife.
Then again Steve thinks because he cannot marry a gay man... nobody else should be able to either. Not sure I understand that logic because it suggests because Steve cannot give birth to a child then no woman should be able to either, or because Steve cannot carry a loaded firearm into a Federal Courthouse, well then nobody else (including law enforcement) should be able to either.
It is fairly ignorant logic to assume there should only be one set of rules that apply to everyone and in every situation, or that we should base our laws upon what we have done in the past rather than what is Constitutionally appropriate. If Steve ignores his biblical argument (which is entirely irrelevant in our nation) he doesn't have much to stand on, thus he continues to dive into logical fallacies such as suggesting gay marriage is no different then pedophilia and bestiality. Classy guy.
Bill is also on to something here. That deep dark secret Steve is hiding... his latest comments seem to crack the door open.
So Nick, if you attend a church that says homosexuality is a sin and you agree in that religious tenet and also own a bakery that provides wedding cakes. Can you be forced to provide a wedding cake that has idolatry represented by two men holding hands?
"Then again Steve thinks because he cannot marry a gay man... nobody else should be able to either. Not sure I understand that logic"
Craig, it is the same logic others have used to say that one cannot marry their dog or children...it is against the law.
The argument is that marriage is a fundamental human right, restricted by law to a union between consenting adult [human beings]. The law excludes children and dogs Steve, because:
1. they aren't consenting adults in the former and
2. human beings in the latter.
How nuts does a guy have to be to fail to comprehend this obviousness?
Did you take your meds this morning.
Call your shrink?
I think an alcoholic, drug addict, or violent straight person should not be able to marry. There are way too many dysfunctional straight families out there already.
How about this dude from Minnesota http://www.bluestemprairie.com/bluestemprairie/2014/07/listen-to-bob-freys-2004-dinosaurs-have-always-lived-with-man-mn-senate-committee-testimony.html
So while there are truly sane people from the land of 10,000 lakes, there are also mentally challenged folk like this dude and Michelle Bachmann that roam the place. Ya gotta take the bitter with the sweet.
"I think an alcoholic, drug addict, or violent straight person should not be able to marry."
"there are also mentally challenged folk like this dude and Michelle Bachmann that roam the place'
Those comments and those of Bill Fleming provide us with the bigotry of the intolerant left. Fleming has yet to address how the 14th Amendment is being used to undermine itself. He ignores the argument and instead issues personal attacks.
Why have so many (including judges [I thought we are not to judge?]) decided that they are now gods who can dictate what acts are immoral and which ones are OK and allowable for legal marriage?
Sibby you are being ridiculed because your arguments are ridiculous. If you insist on posting ridiculous crap here, you should expect it to be returned in kind.
Here's a tolerant right wing nut job for you,Sibby. Enjoy.
This tolerant blowhard was tipped off by another tolerant rwnj-the Pima Co Sheriff.
Agreed. Enough talk about bestiality. That opens far different legal questions from those at stake in the discussion of what Minnesota has legalized, what the courts in 16 states have legalized, and what equality and human rights demand in every state.
That was Pinal Co,not Pima. My bad.
"what equality and human rights demand in every state"
The demands restrict marriage to only two and to only adults. It is not equal. We are issuing special rights to a specific class while discriminating against others. To argue that this discrimination has not hurt Minnesota's society ignores what will happen next. More discrimination against Christians. I very much doubt that any of you will feel bad when Christians are forced to bake wedding cakes with immoral idolatry, or chose to instead close down their shops so not to face so-called civil lawsuits. Perhaps we can rename those to uncivil lawsuits, just like we are redefining marriage.
Mr. Sibson uses an ancient term used in writings (after the dinosaurs) that goes something like this, "Joe bigot Little Joe and Smart Tony." That would mean Joe's offspring or children. Only a neo-confederate would use such old talk these days.
"Sibby you are being ridiculed because your arguments are ridiculous."
And the courts should be ridiculed for their ridiculous arguments that include using the 14th amendment to undermine the 14th amendment. No one has addressed that issue. Instead you issue personal attacks, and now Cory wants to restrict free speech so such court arguments can remain protected. The argument that Minnesota's society has not been harmed is one that uses pragmatism to trump principles. And those who insist on maintaining principles should be ridiculed and forced to comply. This describes a totalitarian state. I am not here to stop it. I am here to warn people not to be part of its implementation, especially those who consider themselves Christians. And most importantly, I am warning those who put themselves out as a Christian pastor. The way of the world is the wrong way. Jesus Christ is the Way.
Yes, you are correct, Sibby. I will not feel bad when religious zealots are prohibited from restricting their fellow American's rights and discriminating against them. I will call that justice.
I dedicate this newest Weird Al Video to you. While a little off what you believe, I am hoping you can find a laugh in it.
That link might not work -- will try again:
Bill, your attitude is typical of a diehard New Age Theocratic zealot. Your totalitarian and bigoted attitude will eliminate your own religious freedom as well as those you disagree with. I doubt that your ilk will be burning us at the stake like your types did during the 16th century. Probably instead they will be using some sort of biological weapon, so that it won't be so obvious. With complete control over healthcare, the so-called religious zealots will not get treatment. I know, it is a conspiracy theory, but it is based on history repeating itself.
Sibby, you're as full of sh*t as a Christmas goose.
Not only does Steve ignore the comments which have already responded to his inept arguments centered on bestiality, but now he suggests his free speech is threatened by Cory suggesting he stop pursuing that line of thinking.
Newsflash Steve - your "freedom of speech" is not - IN ANY WAY - protected on a privately owned website. Cory can choose to ban you from talking of specific subjects, he can prevent you from using any words beginning with "Neo" or he can ban you outright, and in none of those cases are your Constitutional rights at risk.
By the way, if you're going to complain about personal attacks, you might want to refrain from insulting Cory's wife, or calling others zealots or bigots.
This just gets funnier and funnier. Y'all ought to try skipping the psycho comments and just reading all the responses. Really. It's great!
Thank you Madizens!
"Newsflash Steve - your "freedom of speech" is not - IN ANY WAY - protected"
I never argued that this was a First Amendment issue. Free speech can be denied in the private sector. That is what I am saying in regard to Cory's actions. And he has the right to do that, but is a hypocrite if he complains about Pat Powers doing the same.
My argument regarding marrying dogs was not in reference to sex acts with dogs (Bestiality). It was in response to those who attacked me for centering on same-sex acts. Their argument was that that angle of the issue was wrong headed and the issue was simply about "love". So my response is that people also love dogs. Why not allow them to marry their dogs while still enforcing bestiality laws? Or are you guys now wanting to argue that marriage also gives us rights to sex?
And in regard to personal attacks, I have not questioned the sanity of anybody. I am simply characterizing their arguments, so that we can get to the bottom of this issue. And clearly this thread as shown that there is a double standard being implemented by the courts. While they use the 14th Amendment (which undermines the first 12 amendment and thereby the original intent of the Constitution) to grant rights to a special class, the 14th amendment is then violated with restrictions on marriage being "only between two consenting adults". It discriminates against polygamists, those parents who would give consent to allow their to be married to those adults who want to practice pedophilia, and those who love their pets so much that they want them to be part of the family in a legal sense. NOTE: I am not arguing that these are rights. I am arguing that the gay community and their indoctrinated supporters are not being consistent in granting immoral acts as Constitutionally protected rights.
And not only has Deb proved her status as an apostate, she is now fulfilling the Biblical definition of a mocker.
Steves Hickey and Sibson don't know how people have sex: what a shocker.
Steve: "So my response is that people also love dogs. Why not allow them to marry their dogs while still enforcing bestiality laws?"
How many times do we have to explain it to you? Dogs are property just as a television or automobile and you cannot marry property. Even if we ignore that fact, dogs are still incapable of entering into a legally binding agreement because they lack the intelligence to understand what is being asked of them.
Once again I remind you that marriage is between consenting adults - people that our society agrees have the mental capacity of making such decisions on their own free will without coercion. Yet when you are presented these facts, you don’t acknowledge that the “marrying dogs” argument is a logical fallacy or that it is in no way related to gay marriage. Instead you double-down on your stupidity and move on to polygamy or pedophilia.
This is why you aren’t taken seriously, because trying to have a debate with you is like a combination of playing jeopardy with 4 year olds while simultaneously trying to nail jello to a wall. i.e. the answers rarely match the questions, and your arguments are so fluid it is impossible to ever nail them down.
As to your argument that there is a double-standard, that simply isn’t true. You are operating under the premise that homosexual marriage and/or homosexuality is an immoral act, but that is your opinion based upon your interpretation of a book written by men and translated by other men for thousands of years before you bothered to pick it up and accept it as fact merely because you were raised to believe so. You may feel that is an unfair assumption, but since we know your bible is unverifiable and serves as its own source material it clearly would not pass muster to anyone who looks at it critically or anyone who tries to verify it via other source material. The fact you claim to be a Christian or you believe you have an understanding of what your bible states does not validate your viewpoint nor does it serve as evidence – unless you are arguing for the idea of accepting things at face value without any desire or need to verify them.
So when you call someone or something immoral, you need to explain how you came to that conclusion. Being “immoral” suggests someone does something which goes against conventionally accepted practices and principles. As numerous public polls have shown, and as public opinion now clearly displays – our society no longer feels homosexuality is immoral, and our courts are slowly (but assuredly) reaching the same conclusions. Thus, although your personal opinion is that gay marriage and/or homosexuality may be ‘immoral’, the majority of our society as well as our judicial system disagree with you.
So what are you left with Steve? You don’t have a legal argument, you don’t have a factual argument, you don’t have an argument which isn’t built upon personal faith (irrelevant to our legal system), and you don’t have an argument which doesn’t rely upon logical fallacies. Seems to me all you have is an opinion – and one which is clearly, and thankfully, part of a dwindling minority.
Nice rundown, Craig. Posts like yours and JeniW's are the canary test in the cavern of Sibson's mind. If there's insanity in there, the your argument will die immediately. If there is sanity, how could he fail to concede? Either way, thanks for your clarity and focus. It might not help Sibby but perhaps it will help others.
"Seems to me all you have is an opinion – and one which is clearly, and thankfully, part of a dwindling minority."
Craig, one breath earlier you said:
"as public opinion now clearly displays – our society no longer feels homosexuality is immoral"
So my opinion doesn't count because it is that of a minority. Discrimination is allowable if it is held by the majority view. The Constitutional Republic that states all men are created equal is now out the door. No more rights for the minorities in America. Yes, I know that happened when the 14th Amendment was passed. And now that piece of totalitarian crap is being used to establish the New Age Theocracy by giving special rights to class of people.
So when will burning Biblical Christians at the stake come back into vogue by the majority viewpoint?
And Craig, since dogs are property, why can't the adult who owns the dog give consent? All we have to do is change some laws, which should be take less effort versus destroying South Dakota's Constitution.
Yup. Dead canary. As I suspected.
Sibby: by the powers vested in me by Pagans R Us you may marry your dog but your wife should be told first.
Seriously Steve, you really should consider Matthew 10:14.
The owners of animals cannot legally consent to abusing animals. Every state now including SD, thankfully, has laws against animal cruelty/abuse.
"So when will burning Biblical Christians at the stake come back into vogue by the majority viewpoint?"
Tomorrow. Better pull out your asbestos britches. People will be swinging by with torches and pitchforks sometime mid-afternoon. The mob plans on being in your neighborhood sometime between their one o'clock cappuccino break and their three o'clock mani-pedi. All of this is subject to change, depending on how the spirit guides are feeling.
See you there!
Sibby, maybe you put up a post about SDGOP covering up decades of catholic clergy sexual abuse of Native children.
This is why you are mocked Steve - because even after you are shown the differences between gay marriage and marriage of dogs, you continue down the path while ignoring everything that has been said.
I'm not going to bother to explain it further because it would simply be repeating what has been said prior. You are fre to obsess over your inability to marry your dog - or an underage child... it speaks volumes about what you think of free will and conscious decision making.
"So my opinion doesn't count because it is that of a minority."
Nobody said it didn't count - just that your opinion is not a basis for judicial decision. Your opinion on immorality - even if that opinion was shared by the majority - still has no bearing on legality.
"Discrimination is allowable if it is held by the majority view."
Incorrect. Again even majority opinions do not have bearing on legality and the rule of law can and often does conflict with majority opinion. Granted our nation hasn't always done a good job recognizing that fact, but we are a young nation and have grown and evolved over time.
"The Constitutional Republic that states all men are created equal is now out the door. No more rights for the minorities in America."
Well first I'm glad you finally acknowledge the Constitution refers to men... not dogs. Second, as stated before your logic is flawed and would only be relevant if you assumed we are a nation built upon majority opinion. Since you acknowledge we are a republic (a representative republic in fact) you appear to concede we are not a true democracy where majority opinion rules. Since we also have a Constitution that overrides pesronal opinion (even when such opinions are not popular) it only reinforces the concept that rights and laws are not based upon popular opinion.
I'd like to think you already know this and are just trolling.... but I'm not so sure.
Sibby, I think you may have overlooked history when you commented, "So when will burning Biblical Christians at the stake come back into vogue by the majority viewpoint?"
Actually, history indicates that after about the Fourth Century Christians did most of the burning at the stake, and in large part the crime was not being a Christian.
If Christians are to burned at the stake, this will not be a practice that comes back into vogue, it will be just the opposite - Christians being cooked alive rather than Christians cooking nonbelievers, which was the practice in vogue for many centuries.
Craig you offered two great summaries, unfortunately Sibson has not comprehended one word of your posts.
Sibson remains intent on marrying a puppy, a bitch, or a dog, hopefully the established laws will prevent him from doing so.
Sibson is also actively pursuing his right to right to marry minor children and regardless of having a non-sexual relationship with them, it would still be called pedophilia.
Both of these behaviors are delusional are dangerous.
On another Madville thread there was a spirited discussion on the involuntary commitment of Annette Bosworth for erratic and irrational behavior of the last few months.
Now that Sibson has come full circle with his erratic and irrational comments about bestiality and pedophilia, it is now time for Sibson to face voluntary or involuntary treatment for his obsession with sex involving animals and children.
Roger, I comprehended and responded. I appreciate my conversation with Craig.
I also appreciate conversations with BCB. And the history I referred to in regard to "Biblical Christians" being burned at the stake is those punished for translating the Bible to the common person's language so they can read it for themselves. In the case of England, those translating to English were burned at the stake. And yes, you can say that the Christians did that because it was the Church of Rome in partnership with the monarchy that was responsible. Likewise, many of other killings in the name of Christianity were done by Jesuits, a society set up to destroy the Reformation (those whose Christianity was based on the Bible, not the Pope). It is important to note that the attack on Biblical Christians were done by apostate Christians. I hope this finds us in agreement.
that comment was nearly lucid, sib: good eye.
Mr. Sibson, how do you drive a motor vehicle down the roadway. There are many signs and I am quite sure you spend a lot of ditch time as you would argue with them. Right turn only and there is Mr. Sibson crashed in the left hand ditch, but not burned.
Sibby, the only reference I found relating to being burned for translating the Bible was an incident involving John Wycliffe. This source states "In 1415, the Council of Constance condemned Wycliffe, ordering his body to be exhumed and burned." Thus, they didn't burn him alive, rather, they burned his remains after his death. Are you aware of other such incidents?
No I don't agree with you Steve, I have stayed focused on the subject of this thread.
History is informative and educational about society, the Bible has interesting fictional stories, and it is great that you think you know more about Jesus and God than Jesus and God do.
It has been a year since Minnesota voluntary legalized gay marriage and the sky has not fallen, gay marriage in other states have seen similar acceptance and societal approval.
States are losing their gay marriage bans on a near weekly basis, some choosing not to launch an appeal while others have no effective LEGAL argument left.
America, being the nation of laws that it is, is making gay marriage legal, in our society and government the majority rules. That does not dismiss your opinion, it only says your opinion is in the minority of what laws and society dictate.
I don't like any references to God in our Constitution, having to swear an oath to God for a constitutional office or having a devalued dollar that says "In God We Trust", but I have had to accept that because a majority of people believed in such nonsense dictated it, my opinion is in the minority, I think.
Your opposition to gay marriage and advocacy for marrying animals and children is in the minority and like Craig said is diminishing daily.
A retired Methodist pastor in TX just immolated himself. He was said his goal was to highlight the pain and suffering caused by racism and heterosexism. He wasn't depressed or suicidal.
BCB, William Tyndale:
Here is the Wiki on 300 that includes Bloody Mary:
And BCB, don't mistake Jesuits as being Biblical Christians. They were organized to go after the Biblical Christians who were part of the Reformation and were involved with the Inquisitions:
And BCB, don't mistake earth haters as being Biblical Christians. They were organized to go after the resistance who were part of the anti-war effort in Iraq.
Montana's earth hater AG has filed a motion to pay back his donors, too:
Sibby, thanks for the interesting links of people claiming to be Christians burning other people claiming to be Christians. These links seem to support both of our points, namely that most human burning were done by folks who called themselves Christians, and this included burning other people who called themselves Christians but disagreed with the dogma of the first group.
Larry, I am not quite sure what the phrase "earth haters" means, but in the context of your comments it seems to refer to the anti-gay marriage crowd - am I reading this correctly?
BCB, yes I believe we are in agreement on a main point. One finer point is that the victims were those who stood by the Bible as God's Word, and not the Pope as God's Word.
Here is where I will go on, and we then may have disagreement. I will go on and then equate such man-made dogma with the premise that the worldview of many is that they can become gods themselves. That was the argument made by the serpent in Genesis, to be like god. My analysis shows apostate Christians, New Agers, and also atheist have the common element of making themselves into gods and/or to be like god. This thread is an example. The moral standard of the Bible regarding marriage is rejected and replaced by the man-made standard that marriage is to be restricted to two consenting adults. Further, the 14th amendment is being used to discriminate against polygamists, pedophiles, and those who love their dogs and want them to be a part of their family legally.
A while back you pointed me to a link that attacked the Jews for being behind the Protocols of Zion. Here is an excerpt to one who argues the Jesuits are behind the protocols. Please understand that the content at this link needs to be taken with a grain of salt, a high level of discernment applied, and vetted against other research. But I found this excerpt regarding the 14th Amendment interesting:
The Fourteenth Amendment so altered the Constitution to the point that it created “the new republican constitution” spoken of in The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. The Jesuit Order, behind the new constitution, created the American Empire. In 1868, on the ruins of George Washington’s Calvinistic Republic, the Jesuits’ new “Holy Roman Empire of the West” was set up with its massive central government in Washington. Its national purpose would be to restore the Temporal Power of the Jesuits’ “infallible” Pope over every nation.
To do this the Empire was made the financial and military colossus of the world using J. P. Morgan, their Federal Reserve Bank and the Great Depression. In subduing the nations, credit created out of nothing would be used to build tremendous war machines for the “extirpation of heretics and liberals.” This same Jesuit credit, called “foreign aid,” would be used to establish and finance the reign of dictators loyal to Rome over every nation, including the Zionist and Talmudic government of Israel.
The economic policy of the Empire would be the destruction of small, independent, free enterprise businessmen and the consolidation of capital into the hands of Rome’s corporate monopolies (corporate fascism), while the people would be submitted to the ten pillars of The Communist Manifesto in exchange for The Ten Commandments. A central bank, from which comes all credit, along with a fiat, bogus currency, would replace state banks having distributed federally minted gold and silver coins. A heavy and progressive income tax would invade the privacy of the people while replacing the apportioned tax.
The wicked Social Security numbering system would keep track of all “taxpayers.” In fact, it would be the Vatican’s world government number by which the Society of Jesus, through its FBI and CIA, would track every citizen of the Empire. These two pillars alone would be enough to destroy the prosperous White Celtic-Anglo-Saxon Protestant Middle Class, while creating the feudal system of the Dark Ages composed only of the noble super-rich Catholic Whites and the common super-poor of all races and religions.
Genesis 3:22 — "And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
It wasn't an argument the Serpent made, Sibby. It was the LORD God who said it. But what do you think he meant by the words "become like one of US?" Who is "US?"
Typical Fleming, using the Bible out of context to destroy God's Truth> I don't expect Fleming to learn anything, but for the rest of you, take a look at the beginning of Genesis 3:
1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" 2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' " 4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
The lesson here is that God determines morality, not man. That is why apostate Christians think they can support the political positions of atheists and New Agers.
Sibby, it has been said that "If you can’t tell right from wrong without appealing to an authority or a sacred text, what you lack is not religion but compassion."
Whether you think that a human who develops a moral code without the necessity of a book written during the Iron Age thinks of himself or herself as a god seems less important than evaluating whether that personally developed moral code harms or helps others. Indeed, that is the main objection I have to relying on the Bible for moral instruction - there are so many passages that can be, and have been, used to harm others - such as burning people alive, that the entire Biblical code becomes suspect.
This thread is a perfect example. The use of the Bible to condemn strangers who love each other and want to marry is a harmful aspect of any moral code, whether Biblical or not. My personal moral code says do not harm or hurt others, and this includes people of the same sex who want to marry.
Therein is the problem with your pedophile and dog arguments. Assuming marriage involves sexual activity, my moral code would object to imposing sexual activity on a child or an animal because, as others have noted, they cannot consent. I would consider this harmful to the child and to the animal. My moral code condemns actions that hurt others. Gay marriage hurts no one.
As for the financial matters you describe, my moral code tells me that all of that stuff you describe is of relevance only if people are harmed by the behavior. The financial inequality that necessarily flows from unregulated capitalism harms many people by making it difficult or impossible for unsuccessful capitalists and laborers to obtain necessary food, shelter and medical care, and in my view is immoral for that reason alone.
Social security provides a safety net for our elderly, which I consider a moral plus. The only moral objection I would have to "tracking" all SSA recipients would be if this caused them some harm. But I am not aware of how social security tracking has harmed anyone, hence I don't see that as immoral.
By the way, which set of the ten commandments are you referring to, the first ten on the tables that were smashed by Moses in Exodus 32:19, or the second ten that God described for Moses to replace the smashed tables as described in Exodus ch. 34?
And according to the next verses, he was right. You seem to be implying that he was lying. And you didn't answer the question about what "US" means.
I don't think you got the lesson at all, Sibby.
Knowing the difference between good and evil is a good thing, not a bad thing. Sibby seems to be wishing we could go back to being like the other animals. Probably why he wants to marry his dog.
"Typical Fleming, using the Bible out of context to destroy God's Truth"
Not at all. You are the one who is trying to hide it, Sibby.
As per this most recent study, did the LORD God of scripture admit that eating from the tree made Adam and Eve "like one of us" or not?
Be careful how you answer, Sibby. God is watching.
"The use of the Bible to condemn strangers who love each other and want to marry is a harmful aspect of any moral code, whether Biblical or not."
It is not I or God who condemns. It is ones own free will. A moral code that ignores the possibility of eternal life may indeed cause harm to others.
"Gay marriage hurts no one."
It hurts the parents who would love to have grandchildren. It hurts children because it brings confusion. I agree that children cannot give consent, that is why pushing sex onto kids in government schools is morally wrong. Having sex with another kid is just as harmful for a kid as having sex with an 18 year old.
"Knowing the difference between good and evil is a good thing, not a bad thing. "
Yes Bill, I already know you are promoting New Age Gnosticism which promotes the reverse of Genesis.
Paging Mr. Sibson...Paging Mr. Steve Sibson, please go to the courtesy booth for your happy pills and your other regime as it is time for your nap.
Steve, who are you trying to convince?
So by admitting pedophilia is harmful to children, we can now address the specific topic of Cory's post. Can we really assess the impact of gay marriage in Minnesota after just one year? The answer is no. The negative impact on children will take years to manifest itself into something that is measurable.
So by admitting glyphosate is harmful to children, we can now address the specific topic of Cory's post. Can we really assess the impact of herbicide application in Minnesota after just forty years? The answer is no. The negative impact on children will take years to manifest itself into something that is measurable.
"In fact, when the American Academy of Pediatrics came out in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage last year, it rooted its argument in an analysis of three decades’ worth of data."
Read more: http://www.stjamesnews.com/article/20140718/News/140719589#ixzz37qe2Q5yO
Sibby, recall the link to the study I posted earlier that compared the quality of lives of children with gay parents and with hetro parents. It reported kids with gay parents were actually doing fine and in many respects even better than kids in hetero marriages. I know that you provided a link to an anti-gay marriage group that criticized the study, but I haven't seen any studies that actually support your contention such marriages harm children.
That said, maybe you didn't carefully read my link. There was information in it that did describe some harm to children living in a gay household. That harm did not come from inside the household, rather it came from outside bullies that opposed gay marriage and who treated some of these children badly because their parents were gay. So I will concede that some harm can come to these kids, yet that harm is inflicted by anti-gay marriage outsiders, not from inside the family unit. And I hope you understand that the various arguments attempting to stigmatize these families tend to encourage such bullying of their children.
Sibby: talk more about the reverse of Genesis.
Per Sibson" "A moral code that ignores the possibility of eternal life may indeed cause harm to others."
Actually, moral codes that dictate hateful and destructive behavior in order to obtain eternal life, or moral codes based on fear of the supernatural as opposed to compassion toward ones fellow human beings has been proven to cause more harm to humanity than good.
Steve, don't you exhaust yourself by preaching to the choir?
By the way Steve, very red state Oklahoma lost its legal ban on gay marriage today.
Gee, how many states is now?
Roger, yes that is the consequence of decades of immoral sex education in our government schools. The children grow up to be the judges that destroy constitutional republics. To the point of this post, the damage is in and of itself the court rulings. The harm occurred in Minnesota last year. Today it is Oklahoma. Now the sights are on South Dakota's Constitution.
Did you see my previous comment on the 14th Amendment and how it is destroying America?
larry, thanks for the link.
sibby, I hope you review the article that larry linked, as it mentions more studies than the Australian one I linked for you. Endorsement by the American Academy of Pediatrics, an organization dedicated to the health of children, is pretty persuasive.
BCB, my argument is that sex of any kind is harmful to children. Pushing the homosexual agenda in our schools in order to win over the court of public opinion is doing harm to children, our country, and to those citizens whose dreams of being a grandparent are eliminated by their children buying into the indoctrination. The study you cite only gives the positive side of the issue. The negative side is not represented in the study. That does not mean the negative side is not present in society.
And you are discussing this issue with one who knows a guy who got different women pregnant in 14 months, then busted for statutory rape, and comes out of prison with a boyfriend. So much for the idea that homosexuality is not a learned behavior.
Here again, we find Sibby projecting his own angst. Having chosen to abstain from reproduction himself he has denied both his parents and himself and his wife the opportunity to become grandparents, and he now projects that regret onto others. There is nothing prohibiting homosexuals from reproducing, raising children, and thus allowing their parents and they themselves the opportunity to be grandparents. Nothing. Sibbys points, again and again, turn out to be no point at all other than perhaps expressions of his own personal internal emotional turmoil.
BCB, Larry's link points to the same unreliable Australian study. Common sense is all we need to understand that the gay lifestyle is harmful to children, to society, and to those who have decided to participate in it.
I see this stuff over and over again. Those who created the problems in the first place, use the crisis to continue their agenda. The feminist movement's agenda to destroy America is now going to the next level with the gay agenda. What's next? The pedophilia movement?
Except more immoral men, and women, playing god.
BCB, some of my favorite comedy is watching CBS news when they bring representatives from organization like the American Academy of Pediatrics who must think we are all stupid, lack discernment and actually believe their propaganda.
said the guy who believes the universe is 6000 years old.
Anybody want to explain to a kid who has two mommies just finding out it takes a man and a woman to have babies where his real father is? You want to tell those children to go to a sperm bank and ask for a list? Like I said earlier, the harm from these court rulings will not be manifested for years. But it will, just like the harm that came out of the feminist movement.
Sibby, I think that you have a solid right to your views, regardless of the evidence available that contradicts those views. This seems quite consistent with the notion that any scientific evidence that contradicts statements from the Bible must be rejected.
Unfortunately, I lack your sense of correctness. Instead, I feel compelled to look at the evidence before taking a position on a particular subject. Hence, where the factual evidence indicates the Bible is incorrect in a statement, then I will rely on that factual evidence. Where the factual evidence available says children in gay marriages are not harmed, but are doing fine, I will accept that.
But the good news for you is that if the factual evidence changes to support your opinions, I can change my views to conform to this new information. Here, however, you are not presenting any factual evidence to support your views. And since you hold your views so strongly, you are unwilling to consider whatever factual evidence others present to you that conflicts with your views.
I think we are at a stalemate, with you having the only chance to move the discussion forward by presenting some new factual information that demonstrates actual harm to children. But I appreciate your civility in our discussions.
Sibby: i have lived among Lesbians for twenty years and their kids are the ones excelling in school, in athletics and in the humanities. Yours?
Sibby, did it ever occur to you that one of the reasons you get to post here is so that people can clearly see just how much of a nut job people who believe as you do can be? If you really care about having your side's concerns represented with proper intellectual rigor, perhaps you should give some consideration to the possibility that you may not be the best ambassador for your side of the argument.
BCB, thanks for the discussion. There is scientific data that says children who don't live with their biological fathers are harmed. There are also scientific studies that show children who participate in sex are harmed. It seems we do have agreement on pedophilia and the idea that children cannot give consent on activity that harms them. I would hope that means banning sex education in government schools would be a worthy cause.
Sad that we have to wait years before we know the real harm these court rulings will cause.
Have a good weekend!
I did find a study that gives the opposite result, but I agree that it still does not contain enough data points. My argument stands, the damage from these court rulings are not known at this time. One year is not enough time.
Isn't it funny how "Biblical Christians" like Sibby poo-poo science and scientific method until they find a little shredp of info that they think might bolster their otherwise indefensible positions? Then they turn into neo-Einsteins and jump all over hard data like ugly on an ape. LOL.
Bill Fleming said back on Monday: "I hope this doesn't become another thread about watching Sibby pound sand down a rathole." A vain hope, Bill. But at least it seems to be keeping him so busy here that he has mostly left the other political threads alone.
I thank all those who sacrifice their time and possible sanity by jousting with him. Deb even seems to find it amusing. Me, I find it tedious. So again, many thanks to those who are keeping the nutcase busy so I can enjoy the other threads.
Now that I think about it, Cory, how about instituting an ongoing set of stories irresistible to wingnuts? They could happily troll their little hearts out and those who enjoy baiting them could have sport. Just a thought.
Sibby, here is a short article on sex education for children ages 10-14 that you might find interesting.
More bad news for you today, on Monday President Obama will sign an Executive Order banning sexual discrimination against gays within the government and its contractors.
In scholarly and lay circles, the word "grace" is often preceded by the word "scandalous." It's a very fitting modifier.
Our expectation is that we must earn things and that we get what we deserve. Tit for tat. Chickens coming home to roost. Etc.
Grace does not work like that at all. Jesus saw 10 guys who had leprosy walking along at a distance. He cured their disease. What did those guys do to deserve to have their physical lives saved? They didn't even ask. Jesus didn't talk to them. Scandalous Grace.
Only one of those 10 came to Jesus to thank him. Even though 9 didn't, Jesus didn't give leprosy back to them. Scandalous Grace.
Divine Retribution, Original Sin. Now there are some myths for you.
Scandalous Grace. ThankGod.
Update - Yesterday, Sept 4, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decided that Indiana and Wisconsin had no rational reason for prohibiting same sex marriage. The opinion was written by one of the most respected appellate judges in the USA, the very conservative Richard Posner, a Ronald Reagan appointee. Judge Posner's opinion makes mincemeat out of the various arguments that Jackley will have to make. It is well worth a read. Here is a short summary of the 7th Circuit's ruling, followed by a link to the opinion:
Judge Posner effectively addresses the "protect the child" rationale, which was the state's key contention. Sibby and SD lawmakers need to read this, as perhaps it will help them and like-minded folks understand why prohibiting same-sex marriage actually hurts children rather than protects them.
look forward to comparing the recent decisions, as dems had been on a roll. not sure sib would get too far in the read given the phenomenal hurdles he has created for himself.
sib-learned behavior-or the absolute inhumanity of our prison culture we place people into, ignoring their underlying humanity and illness? then we execute some with drugs that are ineffective and we look the other way. my complete sympathy to the families of recent murdered reporters by isil, but at least guillotines are sharp. i submit that your attitude toward those you crucify is the problem in each of the above examples.
Comments are closed.