FUCK YOU FAT FUCK CHRISTIE

[89Hen]

They were

So the Nazis were equal opportunity murderers. You should be happy about that.

[kalm]

They were

So the Nazis were equal opportunity murderers. You should be happy about that.

Your intolerance of Jon's intolerance of intolerance is disgusting.

[89Hen]

So the Nazis were equal opportunity murderers. You should be happy about that.

Your intolerance of Jon's intolerance of intolerance is disgusting.

Not nearly as your intolerance of my intolerance of Jon's intolerance of intolerance.

[kalm]

Your intolerance of Jon's intolerance of intolerance is disgusting.

Not nearly as your intolerance of my intolerance of Jon's intolerance of intolerance.

I hate that.

[mainejeff]

Jon and Jeff,
Time to move to Norway. You with me?

[mainejeff]

The frequency with which people call somebody else "bigoted" in the middle of their own expression of bigotry amazes me.

I was waiting for someone to post this tired-ass canard.

So someone that is being discriminated against is supposed to smile and say "Kind sir, even though you hate my guts, and have voted to reaffirm my second class status, I have the deepest respect for you??


**** that - any one that is a bigot deserves scorn.

I suppose you would have wanted the jews to say nice things about Hitler

[travelinman67]

The frequency with which people call somebody else "bigoted" in the middle of their own expression of bigotry amazes me.

I was waiting for someone to post this tired-ass canard.

So someone that is being discriminated against is supposed to smile and say "Kind sir, even though you hate my guts, and have voted to reaffirm my second class status, I have the deepest respect for you??


fuck that - any one that is a bigot deserves scorn.

I suppose you would have wanted the jews to say nice things about Hitler

Interestingly, Paul (within Corinthians) also taught about hospitality and charity in the same lessons in Corinthians. I've always found it hypocritical for Christians to focus on homosexuality, while glossing over the sin of spiritual inhospitality or greed.

I'm not a Bible-thumper, nor will I debate the Bible with anyone...just sayin.

Having said that...(get your helmet on Jon)...

...your response, within the context of spriritual selfishness, is a FAR WORSE transgression than any potential "sin being gay".

Your attacks are solely conditional on the recepient's opposition to same-sex love/relationships, a validation of which brings YOU benefit. As Christianity is principally focused on altruism, your hatred of Christianity, I'll assert, is as much your discomfort with a life of altruistic endeavors, as it is with your disapproval of Christian Fundamentalist's campaigns agains same-sex relationships.

You're gay. But that isn't what defines you. Your spiritual endeavors are your foundation. Hospitality, charity...a life-long pursuit of generosity and dedicating your actions to the benefit of others, defines your life and legacy.

The same is true for those who immerse themselves in this "battle" over same-sex relationships. Any person who attempts to "define" themselves by opposing or supporting same-sex relationships, marginalizes and eventually eliminates all spiritual virtue.

YOU define yourself.

You can take the high road, and be judged for your spiritual goodness...

...or waste your time pursuing gutter-dwellers like Christie...

...and become a gutter-dweller yourself.

[kalm]

I was waiting for someone to post this tired-ass canard.

So someone that is being discriminated against is supposed to smile and say "Kind sir, even though you hate my guts, and have voted to reaffirm my second class status, I have the deepest respect for you??


fuck that - any one that is a bigot deserves scorn.

I suppose you would have wanted the jews to say nice things about Hitler

Interestingly, Paul (within Corinthians) also taught about hospitality and charity in the same lessons in Corinthians. I've always found it hypocritical for Christians to focus on homosexuality, while glossing over the sin of spiritual inhospitality or greed.

I'm not a Bible-thumper, nor will I debate the Bible with anyone...just sayin.

Having said that...(get your helmet on Jon)...

...your response, within the context of spriritual selfishness, is a FAR WORSE transgression than any potential "sin being gay".

Your attacks are solely conditional on the recepient's opposition to same-sex love/relationships, a validation of which brings YOU benefit. As Christianity is principally focused on altruism, your hatred of Christianity, I'll assert, is as much your discomfort with a life of altruistic endeavors, as it is with your disapproval of Christian Fundamentalist's campaigns agains same-sex relationships.

You're gay. But that isn't what defines you. Your spiritual endeavors are your foundation. Hospitality, charity...a life-long pursuit of generosity and dedicating your actions to the benefit of others, defines your life and legacy.

The same is true for those who immerse themselves in this "battle" over same-sex relationships. Any person who attempts to "define" themselves by opposing or supporting same-sex relationships, marginalizes and eventually eliminates all spiritual virtue.

YOU define yourself.

You can take the high road, and be judged for your spiritual goodness...

...or waste your time pursuing gutter-dwellers like Christie...

...and become a gutter-dweller yourself.

Thank you Ghandiman67.

[catamount man]

tman,

I don't think jon hates Christianity. His dad is a Methodist minister.

[travelinman67]

tman,

I don't think jon hates Christianity. His dad is a Methodist minister.

Irrelevant.

My observations are both anecdotal:

...The selfish cannot embody Christian virtue. In his mind, Christian's threaten Jon's freedom and invalidate his life because of who he loves.

And literal:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=14811&p=277106&hil ... an#p277106

[JoltinJoe]

I've always found it hypocritical for Christians to focus on homosexuality, while glossing over the sin of spiritual inhospitality or greed.

I agree. All this talk about how homosexuality is a threat to conventional marriage? You know what's a threat to conventional marriage? Adultery. It destroys family relationships, trust, and causes children to grow up in a single-parent home. It is selfish: the ultimate act of selfishness. It is contrary to a vow taken in front of parents, friends, and family.

But many Christian ministers who are themselves adulterers will rail against the homosexuals. Whatever your opinion of homosexuals and what they are doing behind closed doors, they are not destroying a home.

[Ibanez]

I've always found it hypocritical for Christians to focus on homosexuality, while glossing over the sin of spiritual inhospitality or greed.

I agree. All this talk about homosexuality is getting me hotter than a two dick dog. Can't wait for Sunday "services" tomorrow with Father Murphy.

[kalm]

Nice retort. But gays have never been recognized by SCOTUS as a protected class.

What if a New Jersey church wanted to perform and recognize gay marriages? Where would their rights fall?

Self quote bump.

I'd seriously like to see a gay marriage opponent or one of the cs.com on-staff lawyers answer this.

[JohnStOnge]

What if a New Jersey church wanted to perform and recognize gay marriages? Where would their rights fall?

My guess is that they could perform a ceremony if they wanted to but the marriage wouldn't be recognized by the State. Gets back to the idea that this controversy suggests the State should get out of the marriage business anyway.

[JohnStOnge]

Nice retort. But gays have never been recognized by SCOTUS as a protected class.

Give it time. The Supreme Court can do anything it wants to do. It is entirely unaccounatable. It is not bound by the Constitution and, even though people talk about precedent a lot, it is not bound by precedent. It is an aspect of oligarchy in our government. If it decides the Constitution "says" cockroaches have human rights then cockroaches have human rights. And the fact that the Constitution doesn't say that has no bearing at all.

Amazes me that people tolerate the situation with the Supreme Court. But they do.

[JohnStOnge]

So someone that is being discriminated against is supposed to smile and say "Kind sir, even though you hate my guts, and have voted to reaffirm my second class status, I have the deepest respect for you??


**** that - any one that is a bigot deserves scorn.

I suppose you would have wanted the jews to say nice things about Hitler

I don't think we're quite to the point where the Jews were with Hitler.

What you can do to avoid being a bigot is focus on the substance of the issue and avoid making personal attacks on the person holding the other position. Say a person is one who takes the Bible literally. They think it is the inerrant, literal word of God. There is no way they're going to be able to honestly interpret it as not condeming homosexual behavior. I know some homosexual activists have tried to argue otherwise but that's nonsense.

When you go off and start calling them names and such you're expressing bigotry. And I don't consider that calling you a name. I'm just looking at the behavior and looking at the definition of bigotry.

[JohnStOnge]

Just thought I'd add that I think we're all bigoted at times. Like, for instance, there is absolutely no doubt that I am bigoted with respect to Islam. I have absolutely no tolerance for it and would be happy to see it eliminated.

It's just a matter of realizing that we're all bigoted and remembering that when we start throwing the word around as though it's just reserved for people we disagree with.

[Ivytalk]

What if a New Jersey church wanted to perform and recognize gay marriages? Where would their rights fall?

My guess is that they could perform a ceremony if they wanted to but the marriage wouldn't be recognized by the State. Gets back to the idea that this controversy suggests the State should get out of the marriage business anyway.

I think that's correct. Churches can bless whatever relationships they want if they have the required ecclesiastical approval, but that doesn't make it legally binding.

[CID1990]

And Godwin's law in only a dozen posts. Now gays are being killed in concentration camps.

They were - the first victims of the holocaust.

Yes, that was an extreme example, but an example none-the-less

(and, I knew you'd respond with Godwin's law - predictable

Well, they were asking for it. That gay pride march in Berlin 1932 was the final straw, especially because of the guy that was dressed like Hitler in drag. Really insulting.

Look on the bright side though, all they had to do to escape was join the Brownshirts. That whole organization was hardly different from NAMBLA.

In all seriousness, mental patients were the actual first victims of the Holocaust.

[AZGrizFan]

Jon and Jeff,
Time to move to Norway. You with me?

If we all chip in for the tickets do you promise to not come back?

[Ivytalk]

Jon and Jeff,
Time to move to Norway. You with me?

If we all chip in for the tickets do you promise to not come back?

For Cap'n's " coming out" party in Oslo!

[kalm]

My guess is that they could perform a ceremony if they wanted to but the marriage wouldn't be recognized by the State. Gets back to the idea that this controversy suggests the State should get out of the marriage business anyway.

I think that's correct. Churches can bless whatever relationships they want if they have the required ecclesiastical approval, but that doesn't make it legally binding.

That's what I'm getting at. As it works right now, both the state and churches can endorse marriages, but only the state can determine whether it's legally binding. If a church decides to endorse a gay marriage in a state where it is forbidden, wouldn't that be a violation of the 1st amendment?

[Ivytalk]

I think that's correct. Churches can bless whatever relationships they want if they have the required ecclesiastical approval, but that doesn't make it legally binding.

That's what I'm getting at. As it works right now, both the state and churches can endorse marriages, but only the state can determine whether it's legally binding. If a church decides to endorse a gay marriage in a state where it is forbidden, wouldn't that be a violation of the 1st amendment?

No, because there would be no infringement of the church's right to perform a religious ceremony, even though as a legal matter it would be meaningless.

[polsongrizz]

Gov. Chris Christie has followed through on his promise to reject a bill allowing same-sex marriage in New Jersey by quickly vetoing the measure Friday.

The veto came a day after the state Assembly passed the bill. The state Senate had passed it on Monday. Christie, a Republican who opposes same-sex marriage, had vowed "very swift action" once the bill reached his desk.

posting.php?mode=post&f=10" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Burn in hell you self-righteus fucking waste of humanity. You are lowest fucking form of scum. FUCK YOU and your fucking bigoted religion.

[BDKJMU]

Way to go Christie.