Ultimate College Softball
Sign up Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 4 of 5      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next
bluedog

Registered:
Posts: 11,068
Reply with quote  #91 
Fresh, do you have a source for any moral-constant that forms the rules, or laws, you support..........Or, could you just wake-up one morning and your opinion could change from what it was when you went-to-bed?

Human nature intrigues me........You know where my moral-constant which forms my opinions comes from..........So I'm asking you - what is the constant that forms your moral-compass, or, do you have one?

I'm curious..........
TheNarrator

Registered:
Posts: 7,909
Reply with quote  #92 
One could ask you the same question.

You completely skip portions of the Bible when convenient.
uwApoligist

Registered:
Posts: 14,446
Reply with quote  #93 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedog
Re-defining marriage is the issue...........Doing so supports a lifestyle which is a willful sin against the Creator............


Here's the deal.........

What does a Government set their marriage standard by?...........Polygamy isn't legal and marrying an animal isn't legal.........So, where is the precedent for a same-sex marriage?..........

When America was founded, marriage was defined as a union between two members of the opposite sex...........Now, what warranted the change from that?..........If you wanna say equal-rights for queers, then, what separates their equal-rights from those who wanna marry more than one person, or, an animal?

Fresh or anyone?

America never really defined marriage.  So America never really said it was defined as between two members of the opposite sex.   Many states had that language in their definition of marriage.  Washington, Oregon, Missouri; I remember having that clause. 

1996 there was the defense of Marriage act, which upheld states rights to ban same-sex marriage, and prohibited the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage. 

This is a really great interactive graphic that shows the history of same-sex marriage state by state over the years. 
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/06/26/same-sex-marriage-state-by-state/

As you see in 1996, only a few states had statutory bans on same-sex marriage, most states language was not specific enough, so were consider a state where same-sex marriage was "Neither Legal Nor Banned".  From 1996 to 2007 most states clarified their language with many creating statutory bans, or constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. 

Then in 2009 it all stated to change.  Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont and District of Columbia all legalized same-sex marriage.  2010 Mass and California start to make moves to legalize same-sex marriage. 2011 HA, NY legalize same-sex.  2012, ME, MA, WA legalize, MN, NC ban same-sex marriage.  2013 SCOTUS strike down part of the defense of marriage act, allowing states to recognize same-sex marriage.  HA, IL, DE, MN, RI, NJ, NM legalize same sex marriage.  2014 a series of federal court rulings effectively legalize same-sex marriage in IN, OK, UT, VI, WI.  Other court rulings legalized in OR, PE, CO, NV, AK, ID, WV, NC, AZ, WY, KS, SC and MO.  2014 also saw the 9th circuit uphold states same-sex marriage bans for MI, OH, KY, TN.  

Then in 2015 the court ruled that same-sex marriage was a right.

Before that 2015 ruling though you had a situation where is seemed like most states were going to legalize.  Out of the states that banned gay marriage the population center states seemed like they were all on the verge of passing laws that allowed same-sex marriage. GA, TX, MO, MI, OH, LA, FL.   You were going to be really down to KY, TN, MS, AL, SD, ND, NE as the states not allowing.  

Where the courts struck down bans on same-sex marriage, prior to 2015, they told those states how to fix their language to make is legal again.  Most of those states did not take the opportunity to rectify their language, thereby resulting in same-sex marriage being legal in those states.   

Wall Street Journal polls at that time of the 2015 court ruling showed over 60% support support of gay marriage. 

I am going to agree with you, that in the 2015 ruling there was a lot of lib twisty language to conclude that same-sex marriage was a right.  I am merely making the point that it really seemed like the country had grown to support same-sex marriage.   

Just because we allow two men to marry does not mean we must allow polygamy or animal marriage, don't be silly.

From my personal perspective.  I could take it or leave it.  I do know that in 2008 or so, my kids started coming home from indoctrination camp (err school) and about every 4 weeks would sit down at dinner and state "Wow, Dad did you know that if you are gay you are not allowed to get married?  What a travesty."  It was then that I saw the handwriting on the wall.   Even my nieces and nephews that were going to very small town catholic education were advocating for same-sex marriage.   That, to me, was how the battle got lost.  The constant inundation through the media.  The constant indoctrination at the grade and high schools. 







__________________
Just say no to dullards.   
bluedog

Registered:
Posts: 11,068
Reply with quote  #94 
Quote:
Just because we allow two men to marry does not mean we must allow polygamy or animal marriage, don't be silly.


Perhaps your statement is what is silly..........

Abortion legal........Marijuana legal.........Queer-marriage legal..........And, we're stopping there - yeah OK...........
uwApoligist

Registered:
Posts: 14,446
Reply with quote  #95 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedog


Perhaps your statement is what is silly..........

Abortion legal........Marijuana legal.........Queer-marriage legal..........And, we're stopping there - yeah OK...........

Unfortunately we are not stopping there.  It is on to boys peeing in girls bathrooms and then .....

I don't think we are going to polygamy and animal marriage.  You sound silly when you go that hyperbolic.

In fact being that hyperbolic is likely a part the reason that America seems to be on this continuous slide.  Instead of working on simple concepts like 2 genders, 2 scoops, 2 terms, you go for polygamy and animal marriage.   People think that is ludicrous and the slide continues. 

__________________
Just say no to dullards.   
bluedog

Registered:
Posts: 11,068
Reply with quote  #96 
What you think is a non-factor............Your thinking will change with the wind...........I thought we've already discussed human-nature's way-of-thinking enough for you to learn something...........

Maybe not!
woody

Registered:
Posts: 10,839
Reply with quote  #97 
I’m sure there is “Church’s somewhere that will have their transgendered holy priest/priestess wed you to your mother or your pet.
__________________
Ignorance is forgivable, and correctable with proper study. Stupidity is a way of life.


uwApoligist

Registered:
Posts: 14,446
Reply with quote  #98 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedog
What you think is a non-factor............Your thinking will change with the wind...........I thought we've already discussed human-nature's way-of-thinking enough for you to learn something...........

Maybe not!

Yeah, we will just go with not. Thanks.

__________________
Just say no to dullards.   
Emptynester

Registered:
Posts: 310
Reply with quote  #99 
Phil Robertson Duck Dynasty - You can take the redneck out of the trailer park But you can't take the trailer park out of the redneck.
Emptynester

Registered:
Posts: 310
Reply with quote  #100 
Image result for funny quotes about bible thumpers
 
 

 
Fresh

Registered:
Posts: 5,659
Reply with quote  #101 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedog
Fresh, do you have a source for any moral-constant that forms the rules, or laws, you support..........Or, could you just wake-up one morning and your opinion could change from what it was when you went-to-bed? 

Human nature intrigues me........You know where my moral-constant which forms my opinions comes from..........So I'm asking you - what is the constant that forms your moral-compass, or, do you have one?

I'm curious..........


I have a very keen sense of moral direction and propriety. Probably The Golden Rule would be the deciding factor in how I interact with other people. Pretty simple really. I can also live by some of the 10 commandments as I was raised in a judeo-christian society. 
George Carlin put it well:


I particularly wish everybody would adhere to Carlin's final amendment. It would be a better world.



__________________
bluedog

Registered:
Posts: 11,068
Reply with quote  #102 
Fresh said..........
Quote:
I have a very keen sense of moral direction and propriety.


Fresh, you post a useless comedian act as your answer?

How 'bout abortion?............To approve is your idea of keen moral direction?........If a woman doesn't want a baby and is pregnant it's OK with you that she can decide to kill the baby?




Fresh

Registered:
Posts: 5,659
Reply with quote  #103 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedog
Fresh said..........


Fresh, you post a useless comedian act as your answer?

How 'bout abortion?............To approve is your idea of keen moral direction?........If a woman doesn't want a baby and is pregnant it's OK with you that she can decide to kill the baby?






No, but she may abort the fetus if prior to 20 weeks from conception. Babies would be living outside her body and would fall under normal legal jurisprudence.

__________________
bluedog

Registered:
Posts: 11,068
Reply with quote  #104 
If that fetus isn't living - why abort it?
Fresh

Registered:
Posts: 5,659
Reply with quote  #105 
I didn't say it wasn't living. 
Abort it because the woman that is supporting it has decided it would be in her better interests to have it terminated. The law and a large segment of our society agree with her. There is no way to further this argument because it has no absolute answer. It is a matter of perspective. I can say you just want to control women and you can say I support killing babies, but neither argument will decide the issue or draw us closer to agreement. Let it go.

__________________
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 30,728
Reply with quote  #106 
Quote:
Originally Posted by woody
I’m sure there is “Church’s somewhere that will have their transgendered holy priest/priestess wed you to your mother or your pet.


Don't laugh folks.  Dudes are marrying their moms in libtard land.  Chicks are marrying their German Shepherds







I hate woman football announcers, looks like freshyturd is stuck with me for 3 hours

__________________

Shut up doofus. Not talking to you. 
 
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 9,313
Reply with quote  #107 
Did you read the SCOTUS ruling?  It said it is a Constitutional right to marry who you want.  Didn't rule out multiples, family members, or anything else.

It'll happen, and it will start where you live, or in the states to your South.

The professional agitators will have to find new clients.  Polygamists and incesters will be easy, because it's now legal.


Quote:
Originally Posted by uwApoligist


I don't think we are going to polygamy and animal marriage.  You sound silly when you go that hyperbolic.

In fact being that hyperbolic is likely a part the reason that America seems to be on this continuous slide.  Instead of working on simple concepts like 2 genders, 2 scoops, 2 terms, you go for polygamy and animal marriage.   People think that is ludicrous and the slide continues. 
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 9,313
Reply with quote  #108 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fresh
I didn't say it wasn't living. 
Abort it because the woman that is supporting it has decided it would be in her better interests to have it terminated. The law and a large segment of our society agree with her. There is no way to further this argument because it has no absolute answer. It is a matter of perspective. I can say you just want to control women and you can say I support killing babies, but neither argument will decide the issue or draw us closer to agreement. Let it go.


Do you support assisted suicide?

Why does someone get charged with 2 murders if they kill a pregnant woman?  Is it only not murder when the mom decides?

Puhlease.
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 9,313
Reply with quote  #109 
Ask our new Conservatarian, emptynester.

His reply will somehow disparage religion, because that's easier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedog
If that fetus isn't living - why abort it?
EarlyGrayce

Registered:
Posts: 6,592
Reply with quote  #110 
mike relax. Your BP is spiking.
__________________

"What questions are not getting answered.  The only ones I see being avoided is "Why you switch from Dewey to Will I Wynn?"  and  "Why you switch from Bama_CF to Fresh?" and of course the best one that will never get answered, never in a million years... "When you bringing back KPI?"

bluedog

Registered:
Posts: 11,068
Reply with quote  #111 
Fresh said.........
Quote:
I didn't say it wasn't living. 
Abort it because the woman that is supporting it has decided it would be in her better interests to have it terminated...............................There is no way to further this argument because it has no absolute answer. It is a matter of perspective. 


It's not an argument - you have given us an absolute answer..........You said abort it because the would-be mom decided she wanted to...........

You get your moral-direction from a combination of a dead comedian and the golden-rule.........That was an absolute answer from you, also...........

Your request to "let it go" I don't understand...........I'm just pointing out some differences between your moral-direction and mine............It's in answer to you attacking the source of my moral-direction............I'm not attacking your source, though, just pointing it out........... 


Fresh

Registered:
Posts: 5,659
Reply with quote  #112 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedog
Fresh said.........


It's not an argument - you have given us an absolute answer..........You said abort it because the would-be mom decided she wanted to...........

You get your moral-direction from a combination of a dead comedian and the golden-rule.........That was an absolute answer from you, also...........

Your request to "let it go" I don't understand...........I'm just pointing out some differences between your moral-direction and mine............It's in answer to you attacking the source of my moral-direction............I'm not attacking your source, though, just pointing it out........... 




I didn't attack the source, I asked you how you knew what your source actually said? You don't speak Greek or Hebrew, how can you substantiate the translation of your version of the bible. There are more than one. 
My moral direction is just fine and legal. 
Make reasonable, honest questions or this is over. Don't put words in my mouth or thoughts in my mind. You are too inflexible.

__________________
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 30,728
Reply with quote  #113 
Translation, ate way too much chum since Christmas, need to sterilize my gullet, enema time. Letting blue get the best of me, gotta go
__________________

Shut up doofus. Not talking to you. 
 
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 9,313
Reply with quote  #114 
Quote:
Originally Posted by EarlyGrayce
mike relax. Your BP is spiking.


Naw, it's fine, thanks so.

Just trying to see where the latest liberal who thinks a vote for trump makes them conservative stands on some things.

You guys are stacking up like cord wood around here now.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 30,728
Reply with quote  #115 
Full cord or face cord?
__________________

Shut up doofus. Not talking to you. 
 
bluedog

Registered:
Posts: 11,068
Reply with quote  #116 
Fresh said.........
Quote:
There are more than one. 


The message of the Holy Bible is the same - no matter which version...........

I have The Living Bible - The New English Bible - King James Bible...........That's three with, all, the same message throughout............I've read from others and know they're the same, also............

I even know of a verse in which the meaning of the verse was changed because of a comma put-in during the translation..............It's a verse spoken by Jesus..........By knowing the message throughout the Bible, it's simple to see that the misplaced comma changed the meaning of the verse..........Move the comma over and the verse matches the message as it plays out in the rest of the Bible perfectly.........

The Bible explains itself..........You don't read a book in the Bible and that content is over...........That content will connect time-and-time-again throughout your reading...........The message will become very clear to you if you want it to........... 


Fresh

Registered:
Posts: 5,659
Reply with quote  #117 
No more religious discussions with you. Duck and dive the questions you don't like. Won't hurt you, just don't judge everyone else by your rules. 
__________________
bluedog

Registered:
Posts: 11,068
Reply with quote  #118 
I judge myself, and others, by the Laws of the Bible only - as the Bible tells me to............
spazsdad

Registered:
Posts: 7,483
Reply with quote  #119 
Oh shut it🙄
__________________
#SCOTUS x two
Fresh has rings. Ask him to tell you about them


uwApoligist

Registered:
Posts: 14,446
Reply with quote  #120 
Tell us how to think Mike.  Constitution allows for that, right?
__________________
Just say no to dullards.   
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.