You've been warned, America, gay marriage is just the beginning

[Mehek]

You've been warned, America, gay marriage is just the beginning

“Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

What Winston Churchill said in 1942 following a British military victory in North Africa might also be said about Friday’s narrow 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court legalizing marriage between people of the same sex.

That the majority threw a bone to religious people, their churches and institutions, saying they could continue to preach and teach that homosexual marriage is wrong, will almost certainly be challenged by gay activists and secularists whose goal is to drive religious people, and especially Christians, out of the public square.

What might be a preview of things to come occurred last week when the Fairfax County (Va.) School Board voted 10-2 to approve a “gender identity” curriculum for children starting in seventh grade. News reports said the crowd that showed up for the vote overwhelmingly opposed the decision, but majorities no longer matter. Minorities rule, except on the Supreme Court.

more - http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/06/30/same-sex-marriage-is-only-beginning.html?intcmp=ob_article_sidebar_video&intcmp=obinsite

What do you mean 'you've been warned' ? I think it is a revolutionary start for the people of America. In the end, nothing really matters but love and compassion. We are  all the same and we all want happiness and peace and harmony in life. I don't understand the idea behind why would people be so sadistic.

[BADecker]

You've been warned, America, gay marriage is just the beginning

“Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

What Winston Churchill said in 1942 following a British military victory in North Africa might also be said about Friday’s narrow 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court legalizing marriage between people of the same sex.

That the majority threw a bone to religious people, their churches and institutions, saying they could continue to preach and teach that homosexual marriage is wrong, will almost certainly be challenged by gay activists and secularists whose goal is to drive religious people, and especially Christians, out of the public square.

What might be a preview of things to come occurred last week when the Fairfax County (Va.) School Board voted 10-2 to approve a “gender identity” curriculum for children starting in seventh grade. News reports said the crowd that showed up for the vote overwhelmingly opposed the decision, but majorities no longer matter. Minorities rule, except on the Supreme Court.

more - http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/06/30/same-sex-marriage-is-only-beginning.html?intcmp=ob_article_sidebar_video&intcmp=obinsite

Except that the Supreme Court, itself, is a minority.

The greatest form of legal and lawful minority rule is the jury. The jury has the right and duty to not follow what the judge says, but to follow what they believe. They can judge the guilt or innocence of a person, prescribe his sentence if any, and judge the legality of a law right down to nullifying a whole law or any part of it.

[TECSHARE]

Ah self reporting survey studies. The height of scientific rigor.

*FACTS*

"None of this matters."

Sorry to burst your bubble, but surveys do not = facts.

[ridery99]

It's compassion that rules now, and there's nothing you theists can do to stop it. Perhaps search for your god in compassion and you will find him.

The 10,000 year era of violence is coming to a close now, and without violence religion has no chance to survive.

The age of violence is just getting started  

[bryant.coleman]

Except that the Supreme Court, itself, is a minority.

The greatest form of legal and lawful minority rule is the jury. The jury has the right and duty to not follow what the judge says, but to follow what they believe. They can judge the guilt or innocence of a person, prescribe his sentence if any, and judge the legality of a law right down to nullifying a whole law or any part of it.

At least on this argument, I will have to agree with you. The SCOTUS is a highly biased and politicized body which has lost its neutrality ages ago. The recent judgement on the gay marriage is a perfect example to this. The judges voted according to their political beliefs, and gay marriage became legalized as the liberals outnumbered the conservatives.

[bojan92]

all that i wanted to is no matter what or who created us, we were created as a man and as a women, two sexes. The reason for that is to make love and make kids, so we can create new generations. i am not against same sex marriages everybody has its own rights but it is just not natural

[Spendulus]

It's compassion that rules now, and there's nothing you theists can do to stop it. Perhaps search for your god in compassion and you will find him.

The 10,000 year era of violence is coming to a close now, and without violence religion has no chance to survive.

Why will none of the athiests on this forum (including myself) agree with you?

Worth pondering, really....

[Beliathon]

Are these bible-thumping assholes still pushing fear and shame down our throats? Unbelievable.

[TECSHARE]

It's compassion that rules now, and there's nothing you theists can do to stop it. Perhaps search for your god in compassion and you will find him.

The 10,000 year era of violence is coming to a close now, and without violence religion has no chance to survive.

Why will none of the athiests on this forum (including myself) agree with you?

Worth pondering, really....

You don't agree with Liathon ... therefore science says you must be a theist.

[BIT-Sharon]

The law of God and the law of government are separated by the US government, and they do so because they want to meet more people's affection, however, they caused more dissatisfaction of believers, so I really want to know the original intention of this change.

[TECSHARE]

The law of God and the law of government are separated by the US government, and they do so because they want to meet more people's affection, however, they caused more dissatisfaction of believers, so I really want to know the original intention of this change.

The separation of church and state in the US was never intended to remove the idea of God from law. This was meant as a way to declare independence not only from other nations, but from religious institutions (such as the Roman Catholic church) as well. In addition to this, it was meant as a way to preserve people's freedom to worship any God they choose, or no God at all, because the state is intended to be neutral to all religious dogmas. In fact the very basis of law, especially the US Constitution and Bill of Rights are based on the concept that there is something bigger than you, me, or any government, and that those ideals should be protected above all else. To remove God from law is to remove your own rights as a human being. The very concept of spirituality is the basis of all of our rights under the law, other wise human beings would be nothing more than property to be owned, used, and disposed of by more powerful humans.

[Beliathon]

The law of God and the law of government are separated by the US government, and they do so because they want to meet more people's affection, however, they caused more dissatisfaction of believers, so I really want to know the original intention of this change.

Back in the colonial days, before separation of Church and State, men would leverage the power of the state to enforce the will of their chosen deity, in this case the Christian god. Masturbation, homosexuality, and heresy were all punishable by death.

Each such case was of course a terrible abortion of injustice, and many people recognized this, felt empathy for those being murdered senselessly. Early Americans decided they didn't want to live in a society that engaged in Human Sacrifice to satisfy an angry God. We didn't want to be like Ancient Aztecs.

Churchmen used the State to murder their fellow citizens when they felt offended, so that's why we have separation of church and state.

[TECSHARE]

Actual history

__________


Liathon's version of "history"

[Beliathon]

Every state execution in Connecticut from 1640 - 1700 was for either sodomy or witchcraft. There were 13 such documented executions, and almost certainly many more undocumented murders for these "crimes".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Haven_Colony
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_masturbation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Connecticut
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_executed_in_Connecticut
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_George_Spencer

If we allowed them, these Christians would bring us right back to such "justice" tomorrow. Fortunately for us, dear readers, we weren't born in the 17th century.

[TECSHARE]

Fortunately today religions don't execute many people, except for maybe Islamist extremists, and a small handful of other sporadic non institutionalized cases. Unfortunately socialist states however, still are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes

"[A] shift in intellectual mood has come from the critique of the perceived failures and blinders of the secular project. To be sure, this critique is not universally shared, but a vast scholarship, along with a proliferating array of opinion journals and think tank symposia, catalog the fallout from the abandonment of transcendent societal anchors. Epitomizing this thought is Paul Johnson's magisterial book Modern Times, which attacks the common Enlightenment assumption that less religious faith necessarily equals more human freedom or democracy. The collapse of the religious impulse among the educated classes in Europe at the beginning of the twentieth century, he argues, left a vacuum that was filled by politicians wielding power under the banner of totalitarian ideologies – whether 'blood and soil' Fascism or atheistic Communism. Thus the attempt to live without God made idols of politics and produced the century's 'gangster statesmen' – Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot – whose 'unappeasable appetite for controlling mankind' unleashed unimaginable horrors. Or as T.S. Eliot puts it, 'If you will not have God (and he is a jealous God) you should pay your respects to Hitler or Stalin."

https://books.google.com/books?id=EkIvbxefBNsC&pg=PA24&dq=Stalin+Mao+Pol+Pot&q=unappeasable+appetite+for+controlling+mankind&hl=en


Mankind has a hard wired drive to idolize and worship. The question is, is it more reasonable to focus that energy reverence towards imaginary sky Gods, or on real, fallible human beings in positions of great power, and whom are most certainly completely corrupt.

[Beliathon]

[mariding]

http://41.media.tumblr.com/fb169056abe8c46e34e18e0401b5fb78/tumblr_mp2goaE21p1s71q1zo1_1280.png

Shouldnt that be a DVD, instead of a book? 

[blablahblah]

So much idiocy in this thread, so little time to debunk and myth-bust...

Accepting gay marriage is simply a way to make more money in taxes somehow.

Some people always did it already... lived together as though they were married even though they weren't. Others never would. It all has to do with making money somehow.

Whatever happened to "live and let live" that is one of the Libertarian mantras popular round here? Only applies to the Libertarian stereotype? (White, male, middle-America neck-beard?)

On one hand, I feel bad for the people of the United States. Their kids will be brainwashed with gay propaganda, and at least some of them will become homosexuals when they grow up and will ultimately die from HIV and syphilis. On the other hand, I feel happy. If the American society is weakened, then they will not be able to launch attacks on sovereign nations, such as Serbia and Iran. So a gayer US (Gaymerica) is good for the world peace. 

Uh-oh! The deranged RuSSian troll is back!
You have obviously been exposed to a lot of gay propaganda yourself, so here are few hints to assist you in your recovery:
-People don't "become" homosexual, unless you're talking about things like prenatal hormones or early brain development.
-HIV or Syphilis can get anyone, even in Russia, and even YOU 

Language that implies violence should not be used when no violence is present. For example, it would be fair to say that medieval Christians were attacking atheists when they burned them alive at the stake.

My language is perfectly appropriate, you are just looking for any excuse not to address my point. Furthermore I can choose my words without you imposing your dictates upon my language thank you.

"attack
Tweet
verb at·tack \ə-ˈtak\

: to act violently against (someone or something) : to try to hurt, injure, or destroy (something or someone)

: to criticize (someone or something) in a very harsh and severe way

: to begin to work on or deal with (something, such as a problem) in a determined and eager way"

I concede this point,  you are correct about the word attack. Still wrong about your lack of faith in Jibbers Crabst though, dirty heathen.

Followers of our Lord and Savior Crabst have never burned anyone alive, sadly we cannot say the same for Christians.

Actually, I'd call it crying wolf, or hysteria. If you don't want to emphasise the violent style or nature of the criticism, then don't use the word attack, because it's exaggeration and paranoia. So you were right to call him out on it.

When US America is being a gay country, which you said it is good for peace, then how about the other countries? They can attack US, and will never miss the chance to do that.

How many countries have tried to invade the United States, during the last 70 years? I can't remember anyone doing that. On the other hand, the Americans have invaded at least five dozen countries during the same time. So the real problem is the United States invading other sovereign nations without any provocation, and not the other way around.

How about Russia? The most famous example that I can think of was the Cuban missile crisis. The various outbreaks of Communism in South America can certainly also be traced back to USSR=Russian attempts to either set up military bases, or for USSR=Russia to foist their failed Communist ideology on innocent civilians.

Many other examples also clearly show that the US was reacting to Russian aggression.
Communist North Korea.
Parts of north Japan annexed by Russia.

...
Just stop being paranoid. No one is going to invade a country, which possess close to 10,000 nuclear weapons. Russia is definitely not interested in invading the United States,...

Ahahahahaha!
Tell that to yourself, you idiot, the next time you wet your pants because you think NATO wants to invade Russia.

[ridery99]

Actually USA is doing everything to displace putin with a us puppet and start wars all over the world to bring nwo gay agenda everywhere. Only way to prevent this and save the planet from sodomy-slavery is to make a preventative nuclear strike against usa and nato vassals. After that world would be very peaceful place 

[TECSHARE]

It's compassion that rules now, and there's nothing you theists can do to stop it. Perhaps search for your god in compassion and you will find him.

The 10,000 year era of violence is coming to a close now, and without violence religion has no chance to survive.

Compassion = Attacking individuals who practice religion, not for what they themselves have done, but because you have decided for them that their religion and culture have no value. Religion is not synonymous with violence any more than homosexuality is with pedophilia.

Language that implies violence should not be used when no violence is present. For example, it would be fair to say that medieval Christians were attacking atheists when they burned them alive at the stake.

My language is perfectly appropriate, you are just looking for any excuse not to address my point. Furthermore I can choose my words without you imposing your dictates upon my language thank you.

"attack
Tweet
verb at·tack \ə-ˈtak\

: to act violently against (someone or something) : to try to hurt, injure, or destroy (something or someone)

: to criticize (someone or something) in a very harsh and severe way

: to begin to work on or deal with (something, such as a problem) in a determined and eager way"

I concede this point,  you are correct about the word attack. Still wrong about your lack of faith in Jibbers Crabst though, dirty heathen.

Followers of our Lord and Savior Crabst have never burned anyone alive, sadly we cannot say the same for Christians.

Actually, I'd call it crying wolf, or hysteria. If you don't want to emphasise the violent style or nature of the criticism, then don't use the word attack, because it's exaggeration and paranoia. So you were right to call him out on it.

What I said was quite reasonable. Liathon as usual likes to try to cast everyone who disagrees with him in the most extremist light possible.

Speaking of hysteria... here is some real hysteria for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSmCDtAFrCE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuzzC-JHvu8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUcQxDvxdXE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f3T7SsTrMk


You were saying the word "attack" was inappropriate? The violence goes both ways. You are just mad I destroyed your argument on gun control and are looking for revenge.