Faith

Pat Robertson: Dems Support for Gay Marriage May Be a Political ‘Death Wish’

The Christian Broadcast Network’s Pat Robertson thinks that the Democratic Party is endangering itself by wholly embracing gay marriage. On Tuesday, the religious broadcaster tackled the issue on his television show, “The 700 Club.”

“For the Democrats to go out on that limb, it just seems like to me that they are further alienating themselves from the mainstream of America,” Robertson proclaimed. “If that’s what they want to do, fine, but it will mean the death knell of their party, it seems like to me, and of course that’s what they’re doing but maybe they have a death wish.”

Pat Robertson: Gay Marriage Support May Be Death Wish for Democrats

In making this argument, he focused upon the small percentage — two percent, he claims — of Americans who are gay. While a minority of individuals in the country personally embrace same-sex marriage and homosexuality, Robertson‘s comment didn’t seem to take into consideration current polling numbers.

In May, Gallup released research on this very subject, writing:

Fifty percent of Americans believe same-sex marriages should be recognized by law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages — down slightly from 53% last year, but marking only the second time in Gallup’s history of tracking this question that at least half of Americans have supported legal same-sex marriage. Forty-eight percent say such marriages should not be legal.

So, while the nation is certainly divided, it seems that a good portion of Americans — half, in fact — endorse the notion that same-sex couples should be able to get married and enjoy the rights associated with the institution. Regardless of where one stands, these numbers certainly make it difficult to contend that the Democratic Party’s support for gay marriage is akin to “alienating” the party “from mainstream America.”

Watch Robertson’s commentary, below:

(H/T: Huffington Post)

Comments (159)

1 2
  • MAX0O1
    Posted on August 1, 2012 at 2:19pm

    PAT From your lips to GODS ears!!

    Report Post »  
    • tradexpertbuysell
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 6:27pm

      If the poll is 50/50 then how come same sex marriage gets soundly defeated every time people are allowed to vote on the issue.

      So much for polls. Just like the lib polls that claim that Obama is ahead in the swing states. Hu Huh! Dream on jerks! Dreeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaammmm on! See ya in November!

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 6:57pm

      37 states have amended their constitutions to confirm that marriage is between a man and a woman..nothing else.

      Report Post »  
    • Pigpen
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 8:55pm

      No, no, no, no, no. Do you really want to see the Harvardtards back off gay marriage? Push for polygamy. They say they want marriage to include, man + man and woman + woman? Fine, then you say only after the Short Creek, AZ victims get to marry THEIR wives in a legally recognized marriage! They say gays should be allowed to adopt? Fine, then you say only after the Short Creek, AZ victims are allowed to KEEP their kids without the Arizona National Guard or the Texas Marshals snatching the babes out of their mommas’ arms! They say legalize pot? Fine, then you say legalize my asthma inhaler and let me buy my prescription drugs without a parasite doctor having to sign a prescription for $180.00 a visit!

      The vicious elites will back off in a hurry! The only thing Harvard-style elites want more than their own freedom to act perverted out in the open is an underclass that is properly subdued.

      Report Post » Pigpen  
    • txdave22
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 9:15pm

      WHY NO CHIK/COWZ AGAINST ADULTERY, WHOREMONGERING, HATING THE NEIGHBOR that jesus commanded you LOVE? Why no doing good unto others, casting the mote?————We’ve heard no CARDINALS, ARCHBISHOPS, PASTORS AND LEADERS OF THE MORMON CHURCH CONDEMN————-WHOREMONGERING AND BREAKING OF THE LAW AND THE COMMANDMENTS???————————–Bill O’Reilly: ‘I Don’t Think Senator David Vitter Should Be There. Absolutely Not’—-VITTER IS REPUBLICAN FROM LOUISIANA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      ————-By Judd Legum on Jun 17, 2011 at 11:10 am
      Yesterday, Anthony Weiner resigned a few days after admitting he sent lewd messages to women he made over the internet. ———————————-Weiner’s announcement came after pressure from Leader Nancy Pelosi, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and President Obama. Nevertheless, top Republicans criticized Democrats for “protecting” Weiner.
      ————————–1,432 days ago, Sen. David Vitter admitted to being a regular customer of a prostitution service. ——————–(An activity that is, incidentally, illegal).—————– Days after his admission he was welcomed back with open arms by the Republican party.
      ——————Thus far, the Republican leadership has not been pressed to explain the blatant hypocrisy of their divergent reactions to the two scandals. ———————

      Report Post »  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 10:02pm

      @ TXDAVE…I think that those folks would not approve of any of the things you listed. However, there is not a national effort to make ADULTERY, WHOREMONGERING, HATING THE NEIGHBOR acceptable within our society. Nor are those things relative to the current politics of our nation at this time. The issue is homosexual marriage. To point to other sexual immorality and how people approve or disapprove is a fallacious argument to make because it is irrelevant to the issue of homosexual marriage. All the behavior you listed is immoral and equally described as wrong. No one is trying to redefine those things, therefore, it is not necessary to have a public discourse as everyone (that is reasonable) already sees those things as immoral, even most homosexuals.

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
  • cemerius
    Posted on August 1, 2012 at 2:18pm

    You know I am kinda leaning to letting the “gay community” marry. With my ultimate pleasure in watching them have a higher divorce rate then us straight people. Imagine the “fairness” of a two female or two male divorce setlement???? May just be fun to watch in open court??!?! ha ha ha Marriage is fine until you lose everything in a divorce!!!

    Report Post » cemerius  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 5:52pm

      They are adult humans, not Teletubbies. They understand that breaking up is hard to do.

      Report Post »  
  • pfarm
    Posted on August 1, 2012 at 1:30pm

    Hey Pat. Chavez is still out there. There’s still time for you to pull the trigger.

    Report Post »  
  • vox_populi
    Posted on August 1, 2012 at 1:30pm

    He knows that more Americans support same-sex marriage than oppose it, right?

    Report Post » vox_populi  
    • rickc34
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 1:51pm

      It does not matter what you or I think , What does GOD think about it.

      Report Post »  
    • JRook
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 2:04pm

      @rickc34 Ah yes and I’m sure individuals like yourself can provide us with an up to date quote as only the true evangelicals get to speak with God. Since marriage is primarily a civil function your reference is interesting but really not relevant to the purpose of attaining a marriage license nor the status associated with the civil and legal union. As for the polling numbers, they clearly do not reflect Pat’s assertion. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/after-president-obamas-announcement-opposition-to-gay-marriage-hits-record-low/2012/05/22/gIQAlAYRjU_story.html

      Report Post »  
    • vox_populi
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 2:06pm

      “What does GOD think about it.”

      Who cares? When was the last time he smited a city? Since long before we had cameras or science.

      Report Post » vox_populi  
    • svan71
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 2:54pm

      I think we should not redefine words to appease homosexuals. It was homosexual pedophiles that have destroyed the moral authority of the catholic church. It was a homosexual pedophile who destroyed the lives of those boys at Penn State. Homosexuality is a practice not a gene its a sin that for some reason we are being forced to accept as normal or healthy. I don’t accept it, anymore than I accept fornication or adultery. That being said I will not try to prevent people from practicing homosexuality I can only express my concerns and regret that people choose to engage in the act. But the line is drawn when homosexuals try to redefine the institution of marriage. They don‘t want our tolerance they want our acceptance and that’s something that will not happen.

      Report Post » svan71  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 2:55pm

      @ JROOK….”For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error,” — Romans

      “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” — 1 Corin.

      Whether you consider it a religious or civil issue is irrelevant as it is at the least a moral issue. Morality being defines as, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes and standards of conduct within a community and/or society.

      Given this understanding of morality we must all deal with the reality that these decisions will have an effect on society as a whole one way or another. All civil laws deal with some type of morality one way or another. So I would suggest your assertion is irrelevant to the point of whether homosexual marriage should or should not be recognized….Thank you….

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • nonliberal
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 4:40pm

      There is also a difference in what people tell a poll vs what they actually vote when behind the curtain. Many people would rather just say they don’t have a problem with it to avoid all the BS of being called a bigot. In a majority of states gay marriage gets shot down in real votes.

      Report Post »  
    • Turks
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 6:15pm

      @JROOK… Did you ever think they some people say they favor gay marriage out of fear of ridicule if they don’t? Don’t kid yourself many people hold one opinion publicly and another privately. You know why? The mean, nasty, vile, hate-filled personal attacks they get from the lefty-loons when they give their true opinion.

      Report Post »  
  • psadie
    Posted on August 1, 2012 at 1:25pm

    This whole gay marriage thing is a croc! The gays are roughly 3% of the population YET they have the biggest mouths when it comes to something they want i.e. gay marriage. BUT look at those who pushed for gay marriage and are now divorced i.e. Rosie O’Donnell, Melissa Etheridge, Martina Navrotilova etc. So what did that prove? The gay lifestyle does not include marriage. They have civil unions yet it is not enough for them. They scream so loud about their rights being violated you would think that they live in a Communist country. Oh, maybe they should go to China, Cuba etc. and see what denial of rights are really like. In the meantime, shut up! We the people don’t care.

    Report Post »  
    • vox_populi
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 1:43pm

      “BUT look at those who pushed for gay marriage and are now divorced i.e. Rosie O’Donnell, Melissa Etheridge, Martina Navrotilova etc. So what did that prove? The gay lifestyle does not include marriage.”

      HAHAHAHAHAHA. What? Because some people get divorced it somehow ‘proves’ they can’t handle marriage? So you’re in favor of banning heterosexual marriage too, then, right? Because heterosexual divorce rights are terrible…

      “They have civil unions yet it is not enough for them.”

      Civil unions provide a fraction of the benefits and legal recognition marriage does. So no, I think they‘re right in protesting that it’s not enough.

      “They scream so loud about their rights being violated you would think that they live in a Communist country. Oh, maybe they should go to China, Cuba etc. and see what denial of rights are really like.”

      Like the Tea Party, right? You cry and moan about how America is becoming ‘Communist!’ just like the ex-Soviet states, about how slightly altering healthcare insurance regulations is akin to Nazi death camps and Bolshevism. So why don’t YOU go to China, Cuba, etc. and see what tyranny really looks like, whiner?

      “In the meantime, shut up!”

      Ah yes, ‘shut up!’ Stop trying to get equal rights, stop demanding human dignity, just ‘shut up’ and relegate yourself back to your state of oppression. Conservatives always amuse me. Oh sure, you want freedom – freedom for you, not anyone else.

      “We the people don’t care.

      Report Post » vox_populi  
    • psadie
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 2:13pm

      @VOX
      You act like you have no freedom. You have freedom more than anyone yet you people keep pushing the envelope in our faces. The only whining is coming from YOU as usual. Cry when you don’t get your way that is the gay way.

      Report Post »  
    • vox_populi
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 2:29pm

      “You act like you have no freedom. You have freedom more than anyone yet you people keep pushing the envelope in our faces.”

      By ‘you’ I‘m going to assume you mean ’the LGBT community,‘ in which case I’ll respond: really? They have more freedom than anyone? Yeah, anyone. Except people who can marry the ones they love. I guess there’s that little inequality right there. Or in states where they can still be discriminated against from getting a job. That’s probably pretty problematic, don’t you think?

      “The only whining is coming from YOU as usual.”

      Oh, you think I’m gay. Well that kind of ruins this whole line, doesn’t it? Plenty of straight people believe in providing gay rights to the LGBT community. Have you not heard of gay-straight alliances at schools and on campuses? I know gay people, straight people, Democrats and Republicans who believe in providing equal rights to all Americans regardless of sexual orientation. But feel free to be wrong some more.

      “Cry when you don’t get your way that is the gay way.”

      Do you even understand social protest? So what was the Tea Party then, a bunch of old people b‘awwwing because the President they didn’t want to win, won? Are they all just a bunch of crybabies because they went out on the streets?

      Report Post » vox_populi  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 3:55pm

      POXPOPULI…why is the acronym LGBT used?
      I’ll tell you why. It’s because they are all variations of the same aberration of the human sexual psyche. But by all means if you can produce a genetic pointer to homosexuality and rest of the “BT” bunch..please do. I won’t be holding my breath.
      So what you’re saying is you want society to ratify a psychological state with an “OK” stamp of normalcy? Yes?
      Can you tell me what’s “normal” about less then 2% of the population making up over 55% of new cases of HIV every year in this country? An over representation of 2750%.
      Please…do answer this for me.

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 3:57pm

      Those “crybabies” POXPOPULI…effected the biggest GOP victory in the house in 70 years and continue to play significant roles in local and state elections.
      This is why you lefties are scrambling to either undermine the tea parties or create one of your own.
      How’s OWS working out champ?

      Report Post »  
    • psadie
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 4:34pm

      @VOX
      The pictures of people SUPPORTING Chick-fil-a on Drudgereport are awesome!

      Report Post »  
    • IM4GOD
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 7:20pm

      @VOX .. If it was the “rights” that gays were fighting for, they would have already received them. Very few, if any, people are against ANY group of people that are not getting the same benefits that another group gets. If there was a vote right now that would allow gays to receive ALL the same benefits under a civil union that a married couple gets, I along with pretty much everyone else would vote for it. That is NOT what the gay community is after here. They are trying to REDFINE a biblical ceremony. A union created by God … not our government. Each time they try to jam their beliefs down our throats, we will always spit it right back up, as marriage is NOT a RIGHT. What two people do behind closed doors IS THEIR RIGHT, and two people that love each other and do a civil ceremony to confirm that love, SHOULD get every right that a married couple gets. THAT is a human right. Just quit trying to redifine what God created, and put your energy into changing the laws that are preventing you from getting the same benefits under a civil union.

      Report Post »  
    • txdave22
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 9:20pm

      WHY NO CHIK/COWZ AGAINST ADULTERY, WHOREMONGERING, HATING THE NEIGHBOR that jesus commanded you LOVE? Why no doing good unto others, casting the mote?————We’ve heard no CARDINALS, ARCHBISHOPS, PASTORS AND LEADERS OF THE MORMON CHURCH CONDEMN————-WHOREMONGERING AND BREAKING OF THE LAW AND THE COMMANDMENTS???————————–Bill O’Reilly: ‘I Don’t Think Senator David Vitter Should Be There. Absolutely Not’—-VITTER IS REPUBLICAN FROM LOUISIANA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      ————-By Judd Legum on Jun 17, 2011 at 11:10 am
      Yesterday, Anthony Weiner resigned a few days after admitting he sent lewd messages to women he made over the internet. ———————————-Weiner’s announcement came after pressure from Leader Nancy Pelosi, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and President Obama. Nevertheless, top Republicans criticized Democrats for “protecting” Weiner.
      ————————–1,432 days ago, Sen. David Vitter admitted to being a regular customer of a prostitution service. ——————–(An activity that is, incidentally, illegal).—————– Days after his admission he was welcomed back with open arms by the Republican party.
      ——————Thus far, the Republican leadership has not been pressed to explain the blatant hypocrisy of their divergent reactions to the two scandals. ————–

      Report Post »  
  • symphonic
    Posted on August 1, 2012 at 12:08pm

    The 50% number in favor in the polls is SKEWED… Its EXTREMELY skewed because it takes random people, in random states and mixes all that together like its relevant, but its not. We don’t vote that way. We vote by STATE.

    So while you can call Los Angeles and New York and Chicago and all those BIG BIG cities and get some demographics on this, its SKEWED to the general US population and has nothing to do with how people feel AND vote about it, STATE by STATE. California is always SKEWING things. Everybody in the state seems to feel differently than the majority of people in Los Angeles and San Francisco who keep messing it all up for the rest of us.

    Report Post » symphonic  
    • Obama Snake Oil Co
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 12:33pm

      A very good point as we recently in NC had a vote to change our constitution to define marriage. Something we had to do in light of other states running into judges appeals. We were told that 56% of people in out state favored same sex marriage then came poll day. 62% said it is a man and a woman, killing the marriage attempt. I read what Gallop said but they were dead off. When all this happened, I thought about California. It was stopped there by vote telling me that most there had wrong, it lost, no gay marriage. But we were told it would easily pass and no one had a problem with it there. So Obimbo stuck his neck out on this one. He lost Catholics, Jews and now judeo christians as well. I think we are about to witness a landslide victory by Romney regardless of the debates. Most people don’t stomach gay behaviour let alone marrige of perverts.

      Report Post » Obama Snake Oil Co  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 12:44pm

      correction: rather than applaud Robertson…

      Report Post »  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 12:52pm

      It doesn’t matter what the exact percentage is or how they are distributed. 15 years ago you couldn’t get 30% approval for gay marriage. Anybody can see which way the trend is going. It’s okay to hitch your wagon to the anti-equality star if you’re an old joke like Pat Robertson with no future in American politics. Anybody who is planning to be around twenty years from now, when people will be ashamed to admit that they once opposed same sex marriage, has only two choices – support fairness for same sex couples, or shut up and hide from the subject.

      Report Post »  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 2:14pm

      @ CHET…I noticed within your comment that you used buzz words such as “anti-equlaity“ and ”unfairness”. This is a subtle tactic to frame the debate by casting those opposed to the idea of homosexual marriage as being personally flawed. However, I would argue that marriage is not a fairness or anti-equality issue. Would you allow 3 or 4 men to marry each other, or one man and 10 women? If not, then I could make the same claims about you. There are many things that are exclusive by their very definition. Marriage has NEVER been defined in all of human society as being between the same sexes, even in cultures where homosexuality was prevalent. So it seems to me that your attempts to frame the debate using certain buzz words to impune the moral fiber of those who disagree is a fallacious, albeit effective tactic for those who are asleep at the wheel. It is essentially the fallacy of ad hominem of sorts. So with that, I would have you give your best logical argument (without fallacy please or opinion) for why we should change how marriage has been defined for all human history until very recently, keeping in mind that the burden of evidence is upon your shoulders because of the extrmely ancient and cosistent history of marriage to this day. Thank you….

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • Sgt_Rock
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 6:15pm

      @SLEAZYHIPPOS – Well said!

      Report Post » Sgt_Rock  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 6:28pm

      My use of the words such as “anti-equality“ and ”unfairness” is not intended as a subtle tactic to frame the debate by casting those opposed to the idea of homosexual marriage as being personally flawed. It is intended as a clear and forthright statement that those opposed to the idea of homosexual marriage are personally flawed. When I’m trying to be subtle, you won’t know that I’m trying to be subtle.

      The history of marriage of marriage has not been consistent to this day. For much of history and in many cultures it was primarily a contractual arrangement by which parents sought to secure the continuation of their line and the future material well-being of their children and did not necessarily involve any already established emotional bond between those being wed. For a long time performing weddings was entirely under the purview of religious authorities, but civil authorities have been licensing and performing weddings since at least a hundred years before any of us were born and nobody ever seemed to have a problem with it until they started talking about extending the same right to same-sex couples. So my argument is that when two people are ready to commit to mutual love and support for the rest of their lives, that’s a marriage as it is or should be defined at this point in history, and it’s crazy to tell them that they can’t call it one while two drunks who just met each other in Vegas can get married as long as they’re straight.

      Report Post »  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 9:44pm

      @ CHET…rarely are people honest enough to admit that they are both illogical in their argument and arrogant in the same statement. I must commend you at that point. Secondly, marriage has NEVER been defined as being between two men or two women EVER in the history of mankind. Seems you missed that “little” detail in your reply. So the burden still remains upon you to demonstrate why, logically, it should be changed now, given the FACT that it has always been defined as one man and one woman. Thank you ahead.

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 11:43pm

      @ CHET….you never answered my question if you were for legalizing 3 men getting married or one man and 10 women getting married? I will await your answer, unless of course you avoid answering it. Thanks ahead…

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on August 2, 2012 at 4:00am

      We should change the definition of marriage because the ability of people to live their lives in a way that could bring them happiness depends on it. That’s the only reason I need. Since I view the belief that all new ideas are bad ideas as a logical fallacy, I don’t regard your mere repetition that it’s never been done before as a real reason to not do it, therefore, I don’t agree that you have demonstrated any logical reason for not doing it that places some greater burden of proof on my side.

      Report Post »  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on August 2, 2012 at 9:55am

      @ CHET…I too do not believe in chronological snobbery as it is a logical fallacy. owever, you don’t seem to understand how it works. I do not have to provide a logical argument to support what has always been, that is illogical. You bear the burden of providing a logical reason why it must be changed. I repeat it because you don’t understand that concept. Your opinion that happiness should be increased is not an argument. So you have not done a very good job to actually provide a logical argument for your position yet. You said, ” the ability of people to live their lives in a way that could bring them happiness depends on it. That’s the only reason I need” So given your logic we should let 3 men marry? One man and 10 women? How about a man and an animal, since it would make him happy and your all about happy? You have the burden of logical argumentation but you try to throw off that burden because you cannot make a logical argument to support your position from my perspective. You have made a positive assertion and to do that it must be supported by a logical argument backed up with reasonable conclusion and evidence in some instances. I am sure you hold the same standard when you claim it is my burden of proof to claim there is a God because it is a positive existential assertion. Thank you ahead….

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on August 2, 2012 at 12:47pm

      Okay, if you don’t care about happiness, how about equality. It’s simply not fair that you or I can marry a person of the opposite sex and thereby enrich both of our lives, but a person who is only attracted to members of the same sex can only marry somebody that he cannot be attracted to and cannot love in the way they deserve, thereby ruining both their lives. As for marrying more than one person, I personally don’t have a problem with it, but I know that most people are against it. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong, people are only finally starting to come around on this issue. But, because nobody is talking about it seriously, we have not yet had a debate in which we get to hear and weigh all of the arguments against it as we have on the issue of same sex marriage, so I cannot conclusively state that all of the arguments against it as flimsy and spurious as those against same sex marriage. As for marrying animals, I do not believe that an animal can give informed consent, and I believe that any human who convinces himself that his animal partner is as happy as he is to be engaging in such a relationship is delusional. So, I’m sorry, you and Fido are just going to have to keep it on the down low for now.

      Report Post »  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on August 2, 2012 at 3:55pm

      @ CHET…OK let’s lQQk at fairness. Will you for the sake of fairness let 30 men marry each other? Or one man and 500 women? If they desire to do so and your standard is fairness or hapiness you would only be contradicting your own argument to deny them their desire. You said…. “I personally don’t have a problem with it, but I know that most people are against it.” ? so you would not stand and defend their “right” to get married against those who would oppose it? You still haven’t made a logical argument for why we should change what has defined marriage for thousands of years. Both happiness and fairness are logically flawed as they essentially originate in a morally relativistic foundation that essentially eliminates all standards and therefore renders the designation of marriage essentially meaningless within society as it holds no inherent meaning of anything. I still await an argument based upon a logically sound foundation. So animals must now give informed consent? If we take them to the vet to get fixed is the animal required to give informed consent? If we decide to put them down, must the animal consent to that action? Must it consent to become our pet? That was an illogical response to avoid a logical problem within your assertion. You cannot allow your argument to be carried to its natural extreme because it demonstartes the absurdity of the foundation you have based you argument upon. Thank you….

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on August 2, 2012 at 8:10pm

      I said the issue was equality. If I were allowed to marry twenty women, I would support the right of a gay man to marry twenty men. Since I am allowed to marry one person to whom I am attracted and who I can love in every way that she deserves, I think that everybody should have the same right.

      Because I subscribe to the modern view that marriage should be a mutually agreed upon partnership between equals rather than an arrangement that makes own person the property of another, I find your arguments about our relationships with animals that we own to be irrelevant.

      Report Post »  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on August 2, 2012 at 8:45pm

      @ CHET….You just argued a fallacious point. It is equality based on changing the definition of marriage as it has always been defined. So as it is now homosexual marriage is not universally recognized as legal. You wish to see that changed. In the same way it might be then those who wish to marry an animal or 30 people could use your exact same logic. Therefore the qualification of your argument actually argues against your current assertion.

      ….”Because I subscribe to the modern view that marriage should be a mutually agreed upon partnership between equals rather than an arrangement that makes own person the property of another,”…. You mean you want a certain definition of marriage??????

      Hmmmm…. you must be horrified by many of the marriages that occur around the world that are arranged without the man or woman having much say. I could say you are bigoted toward those culturees that do not subscribe to your modern view using your own statements against you. Thank you…

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on August 3, 2012 at 12:10am

      “It is equality based on changing the definition of marriage as it has always been defined”
      Yes, establishing equality is my reason for wanting change, and your only argument against it is that it is change. If people who want to marry more than one person think that they are not being treated equally, they can make the argument and we can have the debate. On the issue of same sex marriage, we have already had the debate, and your side has no good reasons fro opposing it.

      As for animals, like I said before, I believe that mutual consent should be part of any definition of marriage.

      I’m not horrified that arranged marriages still occur, but, yes, I consider our culture to be superior in how it views the practice of marriage. Once we have granted full equality to same sex couples who wish to marry, our country will be superior in how it views the practice of marriage to those countries that have not yet embraced this change. If you want to call that bigotry, I certainly can’t stop you.

      Report Post »  
  • ltemp
    Posted on August 1, 2012 at 11:31am

    The marketing campaign for this 3% has been amazing.
    This small percentage of a minority convincing 47% of the population that redefining marriage is between two of the same gender is unbelievable.
    Has a minority of this percentage ever possessed that much power in the history of this country?
    Hmmm? we accused, demonized, threatened and politically chastised for being???? Oh, the rich that’s right the one percent.
    Now I get it ,you CAN NOT be rich and straight, but you can be rich and gay.
    Let’s redefine honesty (gabbing power through dishonest victimization, convict them by there own christian guilt)( you cant judge me is the battle cry to convince the christian ignorant)
    Divide and conquer.
    This isn’t about rights it about POWER!
    Lets be honest.

    Report Post » ltemp  
  • Brother Winston Smith
    Posted on August 1, 2012 at 11:28am

    Democrats? Wow. It’s like the FAKE-conservative Christian Coalition of the 90′s, that gave us FAKE-conservative Gingrich/Boehner/Santorum… all over again. Seems the FAKE-conservative gop is really running out of tricks. No, Pat… REPUBLICANS support it also. The 2012 Presidential candidate THEY ARE CURRENTLY ATTEMPTING to CHEAT-nominate, INSTITUTED SODOMITE/LESBIAN “marriage” in his own state (and tried to blame it on courts). No doubt if beastiality or necrophilia became fashionable (this is inevitable, if God does not destroy us before)… the FAKE-conservative republican party will happily follow. And call it… a “better evil.”

    Report Post » Brother Winston Smith  
    • OneTermPresident
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 12:16pm

      Yo Winston… Nobody will know you’ve had a lobotomy if you wear a wig to hide the scars and learn to control your gay slobbering.

      Report Post » OneTermPresident  
    • OneTermPresident
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 12:21pm

      @BROTHER WINSTON SMITH

      A mind is a terrible thing to waste… Romney fought it all the way and when it landed on his desk HE VETOED IT… and then the Dem controlled congress over rode his veto and passed it. Whens the last time you were able to think for yourself?

      Report Post » OneTermPresident  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 12:57pm

      They don’t have to “CHEAT-nominate” the candidate you hate so much. He won over forty primaries and caucuses. Your boy won in the Virgin Islands. It’s over.

      Report Post »  
    • Brother Winston Smith
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 2:48pm

      Veto, OneTermPresident?

      No, that’s an outright, bold-faced lie. Can you provide a linky-dinky?

      Report Post » Brother Winston Smith  
    • Brother Winston Smith
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 2:50pm

      Ooooops, Chet Hempstead. No, those are POPULARITY CONTESTS that can be, AND WERE, HEAVILY altered. It’s DELEGATES, ma’boy. And the LEFTIST GOP is CHEATING THEIR BALLS OFF to bury each and every Paul delegate.

      Report Post » Brother Winston Smith  
    • Brother Winston Smith
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 2:58pm

      OneTermPresident

      LIE:
      “Veto”
      TRUTH:
      http://www.massresistance.org/romney/Amy_Contrada_articles/cpac_speech.html

      Report Post » Brother Winston Smith  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 5:49pm

      Yes, “It’s DELEGATES.” There are enough of them bound to support Mitt Romney that he has already secured the nomination. Even if there were the slightest possibility of convincing hundreds of delegates to renounce their pledged word and spurn the will of the voters, what makes you believe that Dr. Paul is the kind of guy who would accept a nomination gained by means other than winning the elections or “popularity contests” as you call them? How do you convinced yourself that such a display of contempt for the democratic process and the voice of the people would not constitute evidence that he was not the man you think he is, and not fit for the office you wish him to seek?

      Report Post »  
  • OneTermPresident
    Posted on August 1, 2012 at 11:28am

    Seeing that gays can’t claim a single victory anywhere the people have voted on it including California, I’d have to agree that…. DEMS SUPPORT FOR GAY MARRIAGE MAY BE A POLITICAL ‘DEATH WISH’

    Report Post » OneTermPresident  
  • sawbuck
    Posted on August 1, 2012 at 11:26am

    I believe you’re another false prophet Pat Robertson and Your not Helping ..

    You like to pretend you care but… just like so many other so called pastors
    You stood down during the 08’ election…

    I have seen you ask for offerings on your show and then say
    $100 dollars is ’chump change’ for most people here in America
    All in the same breath..

    You say this during one of the roughest economies since the depression..
    When so many people Here in America have to decide between Groceries
    or gas or medicine or utilities ect….

    Then you go and do a segment on investments in the stock market …
    That to me is a form of gambling…

    This says your wealthy and can afford to play the stock market

    It also says…You gamble with money from people that send you donations.

    And just like so many other people that play the ‘stock market’ …

    I cant help but think ..That this is your main motivation for backing Mitt Romney
    over Obama …

    Your focus is more on your treasures here on earth… than the ones that stored in heaven…

    And has nothing to do with ‘scripture’…Or you would have screamed your head off in 08’

    Report Post » sawbuck  
    • jsmpsn
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 12:00pm

      Gambling? So if one invests in the stock market that is gambling. What if I invest in my own business? Is that gambling? When you purchase stock you are buying a share of that company. You then get voting rights for board members, etc. Being narrow minded doesn’t help you at all.

      Report Post »  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 12:13pm

      With how much zeal Christians look forward to the apocalypse I’d say that they are the ones with a death wish.

      You are right though, Pat Robertson is a textbook definition of what a “false prophet” would be.

      He has continually tried to make prophecy on his God’s behalf and constantly been wrong.

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 12:31pm

      and there you go Orwellianly named MODERATIONISBEST. On another board you bleated about supporting christians but you couldn’t resist having a shot at them here. Rather than applaud Cathy for sticking to his principles..you attempt to demean christians again.
      It’s like RIGHTSOFBILLY said..you’re not a sincere poster. You’re a stealth lefty. When you disagree with people like Harry Reid over his “Romney didn’t pay taxes for 10 years” lie..it’s not because of the vulgarity of the lie..it’s because you disagree with the tactic Reid used to smoke out some tax returns from Romney. There’s nothing “moderate” about you. The lion’s share of your posts are anti-conservative and anti-christian. You’re not “moderate” by any stretch. You’ll offer the occasional criticism of a lefty here or there to attempt to appear “moderate” but it’s simply to attempt to temper your partisan appearance..nothing more. The majority of your posts are anti-conservative and you can’t run from that.
      Your tactic of “good lefty/bad lefty is a common one on blog boards. Most are the enthusiastic bombhurlers like JZS or ENCIDIOT some take a more insidious route like you to attempt to insinuate themselves and sow doubt and discord among conservatives. You both are aiming for the same goals..just different tactics.
      On and please post more reviews of your posts…they’re hysterical.

      Report Post »  
    • sawbuck
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 1:05pm

      When MOD starts to agree with something I say..
      It time to re-evaluate some of my stances…

      God forgive me if I said something out of line.

      jsmpsn
      Narrow minded..?
      Why do they call people…. that ‘play’ the stock market..
      ‘Winners and Loosers‘….?

      Report Post » sawbuck  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 2:09pm

      @AVENGERK

      This article is about Pat Robertson talking about the Democratic Party putting their support of gay marriage on their platform.

      The post made by Sawbuck is about Pat Robertson and him(Sawbuck) calling Pat Robertson a false prophet(which I would have to agree with if you’re going by the biblical description of what a false prophet is).

      The post below Sawbuck and above mine made by JSMPSN also talks about Pat Robertson and doesn’t mention Chick-fil-a or Mr. Cathy

      My response then strictly talks about Pat Robertson’s comments about the Democrats having a “death wish” and how I think he isn’t one to talk with how much he looks forward to the end times.

      Where does Chick-Fil-A come in here?
      Where does Mr. Cathy come in here?
      What are you babbling about here?

      @Sawbuck
      See, I told you we could agree on some things. This is one of them.

      If you read throughout the Bible what false prophets are, Pat Robertson and people like him obviously fit the mold.

      The thing where you and I might disagree is that I think people like Pat Robertson(and his followers) show how deluded religion can make a person.

      This guy has made numerous accounts to speak on behalf of his God and create prophecy in his God’s name. That alone should cause people to leave his church but what’s even funnier is how wrong he usually is. Yet people still follow this crackpot.

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 3:07pm

      Orwellianly named MODERATIONISBEST..scroll up. My correction that I meant Robertson ended up on the thread above this one. You can check the time if you doubt me.
      Regardless….your act hasn’t fooled anyone. You’re a stealth lefty. You’re as partisan as they come.
      There’s nothing “moderate” about you. Wher your cohorts like JZS and ENCIDIOT choose to openly and unrepentently hurl their bombs..you feel a more stealthy approach is needed to sow discord and doubt and to insinuate your lefty agenda. For every ten of your posts excoriating conservatives and christians..you’ll post one “moderate” one with some flaccid platitude to them hoping to appear “moderate”. You use the all too familiar “good lefty/bad lefty” routine.
      But again..please post more reviews about yourself…they’re hysterical.

      Report Post »  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 3:41pm

      @AVENGERK

      Your conspiracy theories are hilarious and shows how deluded you are.

      It also shows how illogical you are and how common sense escapes you.

      If I was some “lefty” trying to “stealth” my way in, would it make ANY sense for me to as you say, “For every ten of your posts excoriating conservatives and christians..you’ll post one “moderate” one with some flaccid platitude to them hoping to appear “moderate”. You use the all too familiar “good lefty/bad lefty” routine.”

      Your problem is, that anything that isn’t as radical as you are, is viewed as “progressive” “communist” “marxist” “socialist”

      You religious love to feel persecuted, after all, it says you will be in your holy book right? You are as paranoid and deluded as they come and you prove how psychotic you are when you type out a sentence like, “Lot was trying to save thousands of people in those cities with the selfless act of offering his own daughters.”

      You have sacrificed your humanity by blindly following a book that allows you to make such comments and call them moral.

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 4:21pm

      good boy Orwellianly names MODERATIONISBEST..you’re pushing the “these conservatives are just too radical” talking point really hard like a good lefty robot. D@mn..it‘s like watching MSNBC you’re so rigid and focused in your talking points.

      Of course once you’ve insinuated that “conservatives and christians are radicals” meme then you start purging true conservatives from the discussion and supplanting them with wobbly RINO’s and politically correct automatons all in the service of “moderation”..n’est pas? But of course “moderation” to lefty curs like you means abandon your principles and embrace progressivism.

      You’re right though..there is a conspiracy..but it’s not from conservatives..it’s from the left.

      Conservatives arent‘ the ones who need a lexicon like George Lakoff’s “Little Blue Book”. Lakoff focuses on “cognitive frames” and “conceptual metaphors,”. And lo and behold…here you are “MODERATIONISBEST”..with your pleas for “moderation” while you post your bile against conservatives and christians until you feel the need to offer some platitude somewhere to appear “moderate”. Which brings me back to my point..you’re not fooling anyone with your “moderation” act. Cretin.

      Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 10:44pm

      Hey Mod,

      In a previous story, you asked why I accuse certain posters of being someone else.

      Your insinuation was that I was making it up, and that I might be trying to deflect from the fact that I may be doing the same thing.

      No Mod, I have used only my own name for the better part of two years now, and proud of it.

      Now, on to your accusation. Click on the link to the Blaze story below, then scroll down about 20 posts until you see the one from “Monicne”

      Now click on the name “Monicne” to see the last 10 posts.

      When you get to that page, move your eyeballs up to the address bar in your browser and tell me what name you see?

      I’ll bet you see “Sleazyhippo”………don’t you?

      Is it supernatural magic?

      Or is there some skullduggery going on here?

      http://www.theblaze.com/stories/he-killed-kids-the-same-age-that-he-once-cared-for-reports-indicate-dark-knight-suspect-was-once-a-camp-counselor/

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
  • john vincent
    Posted on August 1, 2012 at 11:24am

    Agreed that Mr Robertson comes up short- theology, and politics wise-
    but he is correct on this-

    The gay thing in your face is becoming ‘over the top,‘ and is not ’normal’ societal behaviour, contrary to opinions, wishes, laws or whatever else. The decadence of the Dems will pay big time, if its not lost aleaady.

    Report Post » john vincent  
    • Eadweard Merten
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 11:37am

      Thats right! They are just pushing to hard on this issue that it creates a back-lash of annoyance. As a Conservative Libertarian I have no issue with the creation of Civil Unions, but I am sick and tired of the ‘normalization’ of a fringe behavior performed by 2-3% of the population.

      ‘The love that dare not speak its name, is now the love that won’t shut up!’ (paraphrasing Pat Buchanan)

      Report Post » Eadweard Merten  
    • symphonic
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 12:10pm

      a backlash of annoyance, absolutely.

      Report Post » symphonic  
  • snixy
    Posted on August 1, 2012 at 11:22am

    based upon the tv and films in use you would think every other person is gay – the majority of the homes being redocorated or bought on HGTV are married gay couples – there is always a gay friend in situation comedies – all the cop shows have a hero gay cop – Political Animals show slams the message over and over – even the SYFY shows are starting to have gay characters in every show (“Lost Girl”, the Warehouse, etc.) – the media is slamming the message that gay is everywhere – they are winning the culture war – they already have your children convinced that if you aren‘t gay you aren’t cool.

    Report Post »  
    • Popp40
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 11:54am

      NBC has a new show that they have been pushing really hard called The New Normal where the only 2 guys in it are gay. Here is the shows description:

      These days, families come in all forms – single dads, double moms, sperm donors, egg donors, one-night-stand donors… It’s 2012 and anything goes. Bryan (Andrew Rannells, “Girls,“ ”The Book of Mormon”) and David (Justin Bartha, “The Hangover”) are a Los Angeles couple, and they have it all. Well, almost. With successful careers and a committed, loving partnership, there is one thing that this couple is missing: a baby. And just when they think the stars will never align, enter Goldie (Georgia King, “One Day”), an extraordinary young woman with a checkered past. A Midwestern waitress and single mother looking to escape her dead-end life and small-minded grandmother (Emmy and Tony Award-winner Ellen Barkin), Goldie decides to change everything and move to L.A. with her precocious eight-year-old daughter. Desperate and broke – but also fertile – Goldie quickly becomes the guys’ surrogate and quite possibly the girl of their dreams. Surrogate mother, surrogate family.

      They are pushing the abnormal as the new normal….so I guess all of us that are normal are now abnormal.

      Report Post »  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 1:01pm

      Snixy. You’re right about HGTV. My wife watches a lot of those shows and there is always at least one flamboyantly gay desigenr or whatever on every show. You would think a house couldn’t get remodeled or sold without some gay dude swishing around.

      Report Post » Gonzo  
  • kaydeebeau
    Posted on August 1, 2012 at 11:16am

    As a Christian, I will stay out of the political arena with the secular humanists, atheists, homosexuals and all other anti-God crowd does. I refuse to allow those voices to be the loudest and the only ones determining the course of society.

    The church is the moral compass for society, to expect that we should not offer an alternative message to those who want to legalize all immorality, is unrealistic and dangerous to the continuation of any civilization

    Report Post » kaydeebeau  
  • Individualism
    Posted on August 1, 2012 at 11:08am

    gay marriage is becoming less and less of an issue as society is becoming more tolerant of new comers and to different. eventually it will get legalized and people won’t really care anymore.

    Report Post » Individualism  
    • OneTermPresident
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 11:33am

      Name ONE state that voters said yes to the gay way…Good Luck. Young people grow up, mature, get married, have children of their own and then they get it…. get it?

      Report Post » OneTermPresident  
    • Popp40
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 11:46am

      @Individualism….so what will happen if Islam really takes off here in America. You do realize that those true to Islam do not believe in homosexuality. They will actually kill you for it.

      What I find funny is that in Obama, liberals and the Democrats attempt to gain complete control they are trying to get the support of groups that will eventually turn on one another. These groups won’t just argue with one another….they will kill one another. If you don’t believe me, just wait, you will see for yourself.

      Report Post »  
    • vox_populi
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 1:33pm

      “Good Luck. Young people grow up, mature, get married, have children of their own and then they get it…”

      Um, no. Young people getting married isn‘t going to make them suddenly realize that they don’t support same-sex marriage, because the marriages of others in no way impacts their happiness.

      Where homosexuality was generally behind closed doors in the past, young people today grew up knowing gay friends, relatives, peers, etc. That experience makes them far more accepting of the gay community than previous generations, because they actually look at these people as people. Getting married themselves won’t change that.

      Beat your war drums all you want about stopping same-sex marriage, but I give it 20 years tops before it’s legal nationwide.

      Report Post » vox_populi  
  • BooneCtyBeek
    Posted on August 1, 2012 at 10:56am

    This battle was lost a long time ago by Christians. The alphabet soup community has won. Get used to every increasing persecution and delighting in depravity.

    Report Post »  
    • Sgt_Rock
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 6:23pm

      One should tread lightly if they plan to persecute a majority of society, many of whom are well organized (churches) and armed…

      Report Post » Sgt_Rock  
  • capitalismrocks
    Posted on August 1, 2012 at 10:56am

    I don’t care about the gay lifestyle, if people want to live that way, so be it, but don’t push it as normal, its an alternative lifestyle, its not traditional and I don’t have to agree with it, I’m tolerant of gays, I’d hire them if they were qualified for a job, I’d never bar a gay from coming into a place of business or such…

    However, I am not in favor of gay “marriage” – that is a traditional lifestyle ceremony, if gays wish to have a legal union, then go to a city courthouse and get a civil union, so long as the state recognizes the same benefits and priviledges that a marriage and a civil union would both have, that is fair and just, I standby gays wanting the same rights in a union, however I wont standby gays commandeering marriage and trying to make it the norm for both traditional and for alternative lifestyles, that is not acceptable, doesn’t make me a hater, phobic or intolerant, it makes me an independent thinking individual with my own opinion and personal belief… if gays can’t handle that and are too bigotted and heterophobic to understand this, too bad.

    Report Post » capitalismrocks  
  • Tankertony
    Posted on August 1, 2012 at 10:50am

    This gentleman is absolutely right. Remember, in every single state (36) where this issue was brought before the people to vote on, they overwhelming voted to keep the traditional definition of marriage. Even in Kalifornia!!!

    The polls that say 50% of Americans are for redefining marriage is pure Barbara Streisand.

    This issue is the primary tool of the godless left to deligitimize God and religion. THIS FACT MUST BE SHOUTED FROM THE ROOFTOPS. All the great religions view homosexuality, like any perverted desire, as a sin.

    As for the so-called ‘rights’ issue, remember, a gay person has every damn right to marry than anyone else does. What they want are special rights, and even worse, to redefine the sacred institution of marriage, based on their sexual perversity. Most reasonable people accept civil unions, which gives them the ‘rights’ they claim to seek.

    This has nothing to do with hate or bigotry, but ultimately God and natures law. When two men can create a baby, we, the mass of humanity, will listen.

    Report Post » Tankertony  
    • almont
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 11:09am

      Yes, he is right. In this era of phone tapping and internet info gathering and sharing, I believe the polls are no longer accurate out of fear. I know that if I receive an unsolicited call askiing me if I’m for gay marriage or Obama, I would answer in the affirmative. I don’t want the IR$ on my back. But when it comes to voting….you guessed it.

      Report Post » almont  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 6:03pm

      Voting results lag behind the general consensus because old people are more likely to vote than young people. Fortunately, they are also more likely to die, and as they do and as the young people grow up and realize the importance of participating in the political process, your side will start to lose, and will continue to lose.

      Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 11:46pm

      See Chet,

      I knew you were in favor of seeing more than just babies die by the millions.

      The main flaw in your plan Chet, is that it is you liberals that are aborting your replacements in numbers too large to ignore.

      You are going to abort yourselves in to irrelevance.

      You can no longer rely on the indoctrination of all the youth in the public schools.

      The cats out of the bag Chet. The majority has awoken. People are leaving the public schools in droves.

      Change is a comin Chet……..it’s just not the kind you were “HOPING” for.

      Your side was a bit too quick on the draw…….you got greedy and wanted it all, and you wanted it now, but the time wasn’t quite yet right.

      The backlash to your progressive crap is going to be huge……..hell it already has been huge……..you are just too stubborn to admit it.

      But we”ll just wait until November too have the rest of this conversation Chet.

      I going to get me some Chicken.

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 11:53pm

      Chet,

      Sorry for my grammatical errors……….been up about 39 hours now.

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on August 2, 2012 at 7:21am

      Are you against old people dying? Good luck with that. The drove of people taking their kids out of the public schools is a mere trickle compared to the 95% percent of American school children who still depend on them. It is unrealistic to imagine that private institutions will ever be able to absorb all of them. People who decide to educate their kids themselves accomplishing nothing except to insure that their kids will never be smarter than they are, which is what all good parents should want. We don’t have to worry about those kids growing up to become the future leaders of our great nation.

      Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on August 2, 2012 at 11:11am

      Chet,

      Come on now,

      I know that old people are eventually going to die.

      I was pointing out your hate and contempt for us.

      You did use the word “fortunately” in your statement about old people dying…….and that fits you perfectly Chet………right along with your gleeful cheer-leading for abortion.

      As vouchers become the norm Chet, you will begin to see more private schools and charter schools.

      Some public schools will be fundamentally transformed into private schools.

      Like I said Chet, change is a comin. Just not the kind you will appreciate.

      Buck up dood.

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on August 2, 2012 at 12:59pm

      I said that fortunately, the old are more likely to die than young people. Why do you hate the young people and wish to see them die at a rate equal to people several times their age?

      Vouchers are never going to become the norm. If the government could afford to pay for every kid to go to a private school, it could afford to run better schools so that they wouldn’t need to. If they had to give a voucher to every kid in the state it would be for such a measly amount that it wouldn’t do any good for anybody who couldn’t afford a better school without a voucher.

      Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on August 2, 2012 at 2:20pm

      Chet,

      Your use of the word “fortunately” was what I took issue with.

      Many young people die earlier than old people due to their poor & ignorant choices Chet, you know that.

      If you make it until 65 in good health, you have a good chance of living far longer than that Chet……..look it up.

      Chet, your voucher statements make no sense, or cents, whichever way you want to look at it.

      Private schools give kids a far better education than public schools, at a MUCH LOWER COST.

      The gov could give every child in the nation a voucher for half what they spend now to educate each child, and then have all that extra cash left over to pay down the debt.

      Or they could do the decent thing and reduce the amount of taxes we pay to subsidize the corrupt and useless teachers unions.

      Your flailing Chet. :o)

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on August 2, 2012 at 2:45pm

      Chet,

      It is quite apparent that you think it important to retain the ability to indoctrinate the young.

      Why is that, Chet?

      Is it because you know that if the majority of kids were to be correctly educated, your ideology would wither and die?

      Be honest now.

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on August 2, 2012 at 3:00pm

      Chet,

      The problem with government run schools is not what they can “afford” to do.

      They have more than enough money.

      The problem is that the schools are “government run” in the first place.

      You and I both know that to be true.

      Something tells me that you, or someone close to you is employed by that system.

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on August 2, 2012 at 3:23pm

      Tell me Chet,

      Why do public school teachers need unions anyway?

      What do they need protection from?

      Angry parents?

      If they are good teachers, they have no reason to fear for their job.

      Can you answer that for me Chet?

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on August 2, 2012 at 3:45pm

      Hey Chet,

      Why aren’t you at work?

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on August 2, 2012 at 8:30pm

      Like I said before, private schools educate 5% of our kids. Your belief that they would still do a good job if there were twenty times as many of them, requiring twenty times as many teachers, all running on money from the government instead of the parents, and with no one but the government that you don’t trust to do anything right to make sure they are still doing a good job, is childish and daft.

      I don’t answer any personal questions when I’m suing a fake name to talk to kooks. Maybe I’m not at work for the same reason you aren’t.

      Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on August 3, 2012 at 12:24am

      Was not a personal question Chet.

      You know why I am not at work………I’m old.

      You are young, so why are you never at work?

      Or is this your work?

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on August 3, 2012 at 12:26am

      Oh and Chet,

      Another basic flaw in your logic, or lack thereof.

      The governments money…………..IS THE PARENTS MONEY.

      What grade are you in again?

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on August 3, 2012 at 2:18am

      What makes you think I’m young?
      The government’s money WAS the parents’ money.

      Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on August 3, 2012 at 10:46am

      Some things in life are just obvious Chet.

      Chet, it was also the money of that large group of people who are not parents.

      We are talkin about one really large pile of cash Chet.

      And the lions share is supporting unions. Not students or their supposed education.

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on August 3, 2012 at 4:26pm

      As I said before, I don’t give any personal information on sites like this, so I’m not going to tell you how old I am or why I don’t have to go to work every day any more, but I will say that you are making assumptions based on false premises.

      Yeah, it’s a big pile of money, but just dumping into private schools instead of public schools isn’t going to magically enable them to find twenty times as many teachers who are all better than public school teachers but willing to work for less money. The immediate effect of such a money dump would be to remove any element of competition making them no longer “private” in any real sense of the word, and allowing the existence of a lot of schools that do a worse job than our public schools. If unions are the problem, the right solution is to say no to them once in a while. I realize that the right solution to problems can sometimes seem so impossible and unattainable that it’s tempting to embrace fake solutions that might sound plausible until you really think about them, but that’s all they turn out to be in the end.

      Report Post »  
  • Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
    Posted on August 1, 2012 at 10:50am

    In other news, any moral highground thought to be claimed by those on the right regarding the gay marriage issue has been lost and then some with the entry to the political debate by Pat Robertson.

    Report Post » Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve  
  • encinom
    Posted on August 1, 2012 at 10:44am

    Pat Robertson forgot his white robes and hood again. Its the GOP that is standing against the tide of history, its the GOP that is clinging to myths and ancient superstitions that are being left behind in the modern age. Pat Robertson is reminding the moderates and independent voters just how reactionary and fringe today’s GOP has become.

    Report Post »  
    • Stoic one
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 11:19am

      You are truly an interesting study of the aberration called liberalism; also known as progressivism

      Report Post » Stoic one  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 11:35am

      ENCINOM/MONICNE/SLEAZY HIPPO…you’re confused with Sen. Byrd (D)..former KKK granddragon.

      Report Post »  
  • RANGER1965
    Posted on August 1, 2012 at 10:43am

    It’s the nature of the beast, that tough times force people to take sides. Even Obama is starting too.

    When the Democrats whole heartily embrace homosexual marriage then they stand in opposition to Christians. It stands to reason that they will lose that vote, and anyone else that believes marriage is between one man and one woman.

    So it becomes a numbers game. The Democrats have run out of time to quibble and play games. Their own base is demanding that they take a stand, and they are starting too.

    The only question is, was it a good bet for them to stand on the liberal side. We will all know the answer to that in November. I think the “real” America is beginning to wake up.

    Report Post » RANGER1965  
    • encinom
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 10:54am

      Its only the small minded Christians that feel that some how same sex marriage threatens them. Its just the bigoted bible thumpers that are standing against progress.

      Report Post »  
    • Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 10:57am

      I think you’re right and wrong. I think that there are parts of America waking up. However, I can see a scenario where Obama wins the election but loses the popular vote. This is the problem of the electoral college. 100% of Texans can vote Romney and 49% of Californians and Obama ends up with the victory.

      Report Post » Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 11:39am

      By all means ENCIDIOT..tell me what’s “progressive” about condoning the compulsions of less than 2% of the population that makes up over 55% of new cases of HIV in this country each year.
      I know you‘re not the brightest so I’ll dumb that down for you..homosexuals make up 55% of new cases of HIV in the US each year.
      Tell me what’s to be embraced, coddled and ratified about that?

      Report Post »  
    • RANGER1965
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 1:51pm

      Well Ecino my statements, and your cute responses are meaningless before the power of truth. It doesn’t respect persons, or positions. It simply is. The results of November’s election will tell the tale.

      Report Post » RANGER1965  
    • vox_populi
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 2:16pm

      “I think the “real” America is beginning to wake up.”

      I agree, and based on aggregate state polls Obama is up in the electoral college ~330-200 over Romney.

      http://electoral-vote.com/

      Four more years! Four more years!

      Report Post » vox_populi  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 6:43pm

      That’s right POXPOPLI..keep whistling past the graveyard.

      Report Post »  
  • bsnrn98
    Posted on August 1, 2012 at 10:41am

    While conservatives agree that people who are gay should be able to have a legal union, most don’t believe that marriage should be redefined to include gay marriage. All have the free will to sin and make that choice to sin, but the Biblical definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. The Bible calls homosexuality an abomination against God himself. If this country seeks to ignore God’s definition of marriage, He will judge those people. Your political views won’t matter to the Almighty. Liberals are gambling with where they will live in eternity.

    Report Post »  
    • encinom
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 10:48am

      The bible considers rape akin to an engagement ring. The bible allows a Father to stone an impure daughter. The bible demands that a widow marry her brother in-law. We have long ago redefined the archaic rules of marriage that are in the bible. Secondly, the bible is not a law book, we are not a theocracy, our government is not bound by Bronze Age myths.

      Report Post »  
    • Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 10:59am

      Encinom,

      You might want to read the whole thing before you spew lies. Either your uninformed and stupid (possible) or politically motivated and twisting and misconstruing the book (likely). If it is the latter, enjoy you’re days while you can. Eternity is a booger.

      Report Post » Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve  
    • ltemp
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 12:14pm

      ecino
      The society that you are Judging is similar to the same that is still in the middle east today.
      “We have long ago redefined the archaic rules of marriage that are in the bible.”
      Do you think that you could explain their archaic rules to them?
      Explain to them, why they are not evolving fast enough.
      Those who wish to have some moral ground here in the states are always judged, but can never judge.
      But everywhere else in the world you can hear a pin drop.
      Hypocrites!

      Report Post » ltemp  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 12:21pm

      @ROTHBARDIAN_IN_THE_CLEVE

      Does the Bible teach you that should honor Abraham who said that would kill his kid to show his love for God?

      Does the Bible say that Lot offered up his virgin daughters for rape to the mob, instead of the angels that were visiting him? And Lot’s the moral one?

      Does your version of the Bible teach that humanity is so wicked, so depraved that you’re born a sinner worthy of an eternal of torture on pain? If so, are you willing to accept what you truly believe?

      When/if you have a kid and you to look at the little bundle of joy, wrapped in a blanket and sleeping in your arms…..your belief will force you to think that it’s a sinner, that it was born evil, and needs to accept Jesus to be forgiven for being born.

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 12:36pm

      There you go again Orwellianly named MODERATIONISBEST. You really can’t help yourself. Having a shot at Christians again..only being the idiot you are..you invoke Rabbinic law as being normative to Christians. It is not.
      But that’s not important to a “moderate” like you..it’s the veiled smear on christians which is more important to you.
      Let me dumb that down for you champ..you’re not “moderate” at all. You’re simply playing “good cop/bad cop for the lefty team. You allow bomb hurlers like ENCIDIOT to do their thing while you attempt a more reptillian approach by attempting to appear moderate while most of your posts are anti-conservative, anti-christian (even when you’re mistakedly using Rabbinic law) rhetoric.
      You’re not fooling anyone clownshoes.

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 1:04pm

      By the way Orwellianly named MODERATIONISBEST when Lot offered his daughters to the mob of Sodom and Gomorrah it was to change God’s judgement about destroying the cities and to entice the all male mob away from homosexual sex. Lot was trying to save thousands of people in those cities with the selfless act of offering his own daughters.
      Would you do that to save thousands of lives Orwellianly named MODERATIONISBEST? Of course not…you see nothing wrong with homosexuality in the first place.

      Report Post »  
    • vox_populi
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 2:11pm

      “Lot was trying to save thousands of people in those cities with the selfless act of offering his own daughters.”

      His daughters‘ bodies weren’t his to give away. But props for doubling down on the misogyny.

      Report Post » vox_populi  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 2:41pm

      @AVENGERK

      I didn‘t hear you deny that you aren’t taught as a Christian to honor Abraham’s willingness to kill his kid.

      I hope you’re saying you agree that it was wrong for Abraham to try to kill his kid to show his loyalty to God. It might show some actual morality out of you.

      Report Post »  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 2:46pm

      Wait scratch that.

      You just said, “Lot was trying to save thousands of people in those cities with the selfless act of offering his own daughters.”

      Yeah, no moral person could actually make that statement.

      “selfless act of offering his own daughters.”

      Yup, because after all, his daughter and their bodies are his possession right?

      How stupid of you to say that.
      How deluded of you to say that.
      How evil of you to say that.
      If you can say that you have morality at all.

      Report Post »  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 3:06pm

      @VOX_POPULI

      People like AVENG just don’t see how immoral their beliefs truly are.

      Look at what he said.

      He didn’t even try to make the argument that Lot was being “selfless by offering up his daughters(a hilariously wicked statement in itself)”, to stop the rape of the angels.

      Instead AVENG focused on the evil act of homosexuality(in his eyes) and not the evil act of rape.

      His comments

      “when Lot offered his daughters to the mob of Sodom and Gomorrah it was to change God’s judgement about destroying the cities and to entice the all male mob away from homosexual sex. Lot was trying to save thousands of people in those cities with the selfless act of offering his own daughters.
      Would you do that to save thousands of lives Orwellianly named MODERATIONISBEST? Of course not…you see nothing wrong with homosexuality in the first place”

      So judging by his comments we can assume that his stance is that homosexuality is worse then rape.

      These wicked people have the most backwards understanding of morality. The biggest travesty is that they can actually read and follow this stuff and then make the statement that THEY are the more moral ones and that without this God of theirs, we wouldn’t be able to know what is right or wrong.

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 3:20pm

      LOL…Orwellianly named MODERATIONISBEST you slipped up.. you offerred Rabbinic law as being normative to christians and you double down again on your stupidity?
      Seriously..you‘re going to assert Abraham to christians where it’s not normative to them?
      RIGHTSOFBILLY is right about you. You’re not a sincere poster. You’re a bomb hurler. You claim you’re a “moderate” when in fact you’re nothing but a slimier lefty (if that’s possible). You’re an idiot to boot.
      Do you understand that the old testament is only normative to christians where it’s reiterated in the new testament? This is why christians are not jews. Is this just too difficult for you to process? Idiot.
      As for your puerile “I hope you’re saying you agree” non-sense please take my ignoring it as a confirmation of how awful your bait is.
      You make this too easy you cretin.

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 3:43pm

      see Orwellianly named MODERATIONISBEST? You really can’t help yourself can you? You continue to prove my point about you.
      After pleading with me to believe you support christians on another board (to the extent of offering links to reviews about your posts no less…LOL)..you just went and labelled them as immoral and evil now. You proved my point. You’re a partisan hack using the “lets be moderate” tactic to insinuate your beliefs and agenda. It’s not unlike the democrats saying..“we need to get rid of the partisan tea party caucus” while embracing the hyper racial black caucus and the partisan “progressive” caucus. That’s “moderation” to liberal clowns like you.

      Your twisted hermeneutics with the bible only betray how much of an imbecile you really are.

      Lot does not condone rape over homosexuality you idiot, stop persisting in insulting my intelligence. Lot’s anguished to offer his daughters..it was an act of desperation to save many lives after being told both cities will be destroyed unless he can find 10 good people in the city to show to God. Would good people really rape his daughters? He wanted to find just 10 good people..instead the mob tried to force their way into his home to sexually assault the men/angels he had visiting him. The story demonstrates the utter depravity of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah but in your myopic formulations you try to portray Lot as anything other than a pious man desperate to save human lives? You cre

      Report Post »  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 3:50pm

      @AVENG

      You refuse to answer the question once again. It isn’t about law, it is about following God’s orders.

      When I went to an Evangelical church I was taught to look at Abraham willing to sacrifice his kid to show his love of God as an honorable thing. There are still MILLIONS of Christians who view it the same way.

      They usually just hem and haw about what it “truly” means and will give some kind of half hearted answer of, “Yes but God stopped it!” You are frankly the first Christian I have run into who says that they don‘t view Abraham’s trial as a test of faith….a test that he passed, and should be honored for.

      Notice, I’m not saying, “would you kill your kid?” I‘m not saying or asking if you’re subject to that law. I’m saying, “do you view that test of faith of willing to sacrifice his child to show his love of God, a honorable one?” The answer is simply yes or no. If you say yes, I say you have no morality, if you say no, I say there is hope for you after all.

      Also since to you, Jesus IS God, anything that happens in the Old Testament is connected to him.

      Now let’s get back to you saying that Lot made the “selfless” act of “offering his daughters to get raped.”

      I noticed that you haven’t yet responded to my comments about that. I look forward to your response.

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 4:05pm

      I’m not going to go in circles with you Orwellianly named MODERATIONISBEST. You’ve proven that you cannot seperate Rabbinic law from Christian doctrine. If you cannot grasp that then pushing the issue with you is pointless endeavour. You’re an idiot and you persist in wallowing in the depths of your ignorance.

      I’m partically enjoying watching just how “unmoderate” you really are though. It doesnt’ take much to draw you out of the “Moderationisbest” persona does it?

      The old testament is only normative to christians where it is reiterated in the new testament. The lesson of Abraham is the lesson that if you place God above all he will show you his grace. That doesn‘t mean every Jew needs to kill their child in order to gain favor with God as you’re trying to insinuate. But then again..there’s nothing actually “moderate” about you is there champ?

      Report Post »  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 4:19pm

      @AVENGERK

      “The lesson of Abraham is the lesson that if you place God above all he will show you his grace. That doesn‘t mean every Jew needs to kill their child in order to gain favor with God as you’re trying to insinuate”

      Oh….my….goodness. I never said that or insinuated that! Seriously, you‘re a freaking lunatic if you can read what I’m saying and come to those conclusions.

      You’ve already proven to be a lunatic when you can say that a man who gives his daughters up to be raped is acting “selfless”

      I’m done with you and your stupidity.

      Please become one of the people that Billy said, “will no longer respond to me.”

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 4:56pm

      Orwellianly named MODERATIONISBEST..you’ve really let your “moderate” mask fall off haven’t you?
      Did I say that Lot favoured rape over homosexuality or was I using your own assertion earlier on the thread that somehow I was placing some degree of “sinfullness” on these? That I was forgiving one over the other. All one has to do is scroll up and see who’s lying now. No one is condoning rape..not even Lot. But you being the “unmoderate” lefty cur you are, you‘ll ignore what’s offered to you and continue to recite your rote about “radical conservatives” and “we need moderation” to dilute conservative thought and insinuate your agenda. You‘re not doing anything one doesnt’ see on Current or MSNBC each night.
      By the way..didn‘t you just tell me that I’m supposed to honor Abraham’s attempted killing of his child? I’ll give you your exact words: “I didn‘t hear you deny that you aren’t taught as a Christian to honor Abraham’s willingness to kill his kid.”Again..you betray your partisanship and your stupidity. It‘s not the killing that’s being honored but God’s grace. Abraham passed his test. No Jew or Christian exalts infanticide in the name of God. How can you even attempt to imply that in light of the passionate defense of unborn babies by christians? Sorry..we have to use the “moderate” lexicon don’t we..“fetuses” or “blastocysts”.

      But that’s you being “unmoderate” again isn’t it champ?

      I’ve told you to stop insult

      Report Post »  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 5:57pm

      @AVENGERK

      The reason why they can honor Abraham‘s sacrifice and yet stand against abortion is because they don’t really evaluate what they truly believe. As I’ve said before, rose colored glasses.

      Here is what you said,

      ” Lot was trying to save thousands of people in those cities with the selfless act of offering his own daughters.”

      You then said,

      “Would you do that to save thousands of lives Orwellianly named MODERATIONISBEST? Of course not…you see nothing wrong with homosexuality in the first place.”

      Why aren’t you focusing on the fact that they were going to RAPE the angels, regardless of whether or not it homosexuality or not?

      Instead you ask me if I would let someone get raped to save thousands of lives because, “I see nothing wrong with homosexuality.”

      In fact, if you read the story that takes place, Lot didn’t find out until AFTER the mob incident, that the Angels have come to tell him, “….we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the Lord against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it.””

      So he wasn’t offering up his daughters to “save” the mob from their acts. He had no idea why the angels were there. It wasn’t until after the angels blinded the mob that they then told him they were going to destroy the place.

      Ah, the easiest thing to refute biblical claims is the Bible. Your rationalization will be hilarious.

      Report Post »  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 5:58pm

      First you refer to “the Biblical definition of marriage,” then two sentences later you call it “God’s definition of marriage.” The rest of us don’t have to believe that those are the same thing. In a country that’s supposed to have freedom of religion, people shouldn’t be forced to live their lives according to your belief that they are.

      Report Post »  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 6:08pm

      @AVENGERK

      I am a moderate, you are the radical.

      I have tons of very devout religious friends who I care for deeply. We have great times together and have many great discussions.

      The difference between them and people like you, is they actually try to live in the real world, despite their crazy beliefs.

      They don’t sit around and babble absolute nonsense and expect me to accept it.

      When they do say things that I think are stupid and decide that I want to comment on it(which is few and far between), they don’t call me a Christian hating, marxist, socialists, communist or any other name you can think up for me.

      It‘s people like you who lead Texas Republicans to adopt into their platform that they’re against critical thinking skills and replace teaching Thomas Jefferson in favor of John Calvin(which would be an insult considering how much Jefferson hated Calvin’s teachings).

      You religious nutbags who go out of your way to eat Chick-Fil-A because of how much you hate gay people(and no, despite being for gay marriage, I’m not protesting Chick-Fil-A).

      You zealots who can make the claim that we’re a Christian nation, and look how many Christians there are, and then say, “Christianity is under persecution!“ and ”look at our society, look at how crappy it is….that’s the lack of Christian teachings!”

      News Flash, if you want credit for this country being mainly Christian, you have to then take blame for how depraved and uneducated it is.

      Report Post »  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 6:19pm

      You have no problem ignoring your hypocritical statements, stances and beliefs because you‘re well learned at ignoring contradictions or you wouldn’t be able to read through the Bible and think it’s inerrant.

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 6:41pm

      There’s nothing moderate about you Orwellianly named MODERATIONISBEST.
      You immediately launched into your veiled insults to christians. I called you on it. You imply that chrsitians should “honor” the attempted killing of Abraham’s “kid”(your words). Not only is that showing contempt for Jews and Christians..it’s false. The faith honors God’s grace to Abraham, not attempted infanticide. You lefties are the ones who enjoy killing babies…sorry..have to use the “moderate” term so as to meekly allow your agenda to unfurl..“blastocysts and fetuses”..yes?

      And what do we have now from an idiot like you? You lefties love to lambast conservatives when someone mentions they have a black friend (when you use the race card agaisnt them) and here you are with “oh I’m not against christians..I have lots of christians friends…(cue: gushes and praises)”. Like I said..you throw your partisan bombs then throw in a platitude somewhere to appear “moderate”. You’re not fooling anyone idiot.
      I gave you a lot of rope Orwellianly named MODERATIONISBEST and you’ve hung yourself with aplomb. Let‘s look as some of the bile you’re spitting..”zealots, religious nutbags, Calvin..ad nauseum”. I have already told you on another board that I don’t base my beliefs on homosexual marriage on religion, I base them on the aberrant nature of homosexuality. But you can’t accept that because you have to spit “zealots” and “nutbags” repeatedly to appear “moderat

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 6:56pm

      Hypocrisy Orwellianly named MODERATIONISBEST?
      You bleat about “moderation” and civility while in the same breath you just offered that you believe Christians and Jews should “honor” attempted infanticide in your twisting of the story of Abraham? All this while today Christians are fighting to save unborn babies from the left’s abortion agenda? Seriously idiot? You really want to try the “hypocrisy” thing with me?
      I’ll post your words one more time so you can choke on your hypocrisy….”I didn‘t hear you deny that you aren’t taught as a Christian to honor Abraham’s willingness to kill his kid.”…No clownshoes..as a Christian rabbinic law is not normative to me, but in the context of the faith, I‘m taught to exalt and honor God’s grace..which is what is taught in the story of Abraham. I’m not taught to honor attempted infanticide as you just tried to assert. But of course..that’s your “moderate” position again right? Idiot…you’ve hung yourself already but you keep coming back to do it again. Quit and retain what little dignity you afford yourself, cretin.

      Report Post »  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 9:09pm

      @AVENGERK

      Well there’s another straw man.

      I have never mocked someone on here who say they have a black friend or a gay friend.

      What exactly graceful about God here?

      He tells Abraham to kill his son
      Abraham gets ready to do it
      He stops Abraham

      ….PRAISE GOD!?????

      Is that the argument you’re making here?

      You are missing the entire point of the example.

      Abraham thought it was morally correct to kill his kid because God told him to. He thought it was in his God’s character to demand a child sacrifice(ironic because later on sends his own son/as himself(I know how laughable) to be condemned to a human sacrifice.

      You may make random claims about “honoring God’s grace” but you are in the minority of people who say that.

      This is what’s hilarious about “Christians” of these days

      Before you would have people say
      I’m a Catholic
      I’m a Protestant
      I’m a Methodist
      etc

      Therefore it was easy for me to know what type of Christianity you followed.
      Now you get, “I’m a Christian” Well that does me no good. The majority of Christians say they honor Abraham because he loved God so much that he was willing to sacrifice his son. Nothing about “honoring God’s grace” or whatever you claim, because you can honor God’s grace without having him order Abraham to kill his son.

      It is perfectly in character for God to demand a child sacrifice…….look at Jesus.

      Now I just get, “oh, that’s not the type of Christianity I believe.”

      Report Post »  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 9:43pm

      @AVENGERK

      Also, please don‘t try to say that I’m the one hanging myself when you’re the one who says that Lot was being “selfless” when he offered up his daughters to get raped by a mob.

      Report Post »  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 9:52pm

      @AVENG

      Here’s how almost every Christians describes the events of Abraham and Isacc. As I said, you‘re the first person I’ve ever talked to about this who has your interpretation. Again, that just might be your version of Christianity, but not the one I see a lot.

      Here is the one I see a lot.

      “This shows the importance God placed not only on Abraham’s faith, especially demonstrated by his willingness to offer up Isaac in sacrifice, but also on Abraham’s commitment to command his children to keep the ways of the Lord.”

      Another way it’s written

      “The love that Abraham displayed towards God is clearly seen in Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his only beloved son. All three religions do not dispute this fact. ”

      None of that has to do with God’s grace, but Abraham’s willingness to kill his child to show his love of God.

      Therefore, I”m not saying that you, or any other Jew is supposed to sacrifice their child, but HONOR the man who said he would. It’s supposed to be the ultimate test of faith in God, one that Abraham passed.

      I will say again, you are the first person I’ve come across who is using this line of interpretation.

      It’s not any less hideous, but it’s different, that’s for sure.

      Report Post »  
  • HKS
    Posted on August 1, 2012 at 10:39am

    I think he could be right, This is upside down and some book somewhere mentioned that.

    Report Post » HKS  
  • traitorbill
    Posted on August 1, 2012 at 10:39am

    Live by homosexual campaign cash, die by homosexual campaign cash.

    Report Post »  
    • LOJ
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 7:54pm

      Good Slogan….The truth is that God says Homosexuality is an abomination. Romans 1:24: Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness in the lusts of their hearts to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshipped and served the Creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind to do those things which are not fitting.

      Report Post »  
  • RightUnite
    Posted on August 1, 2012 at 10:37am

    Good! They deserve nothing less!

    Report Post »  
    • Salamander
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 11:01am

      Good, and, by the way, can we have OUR rainbow back, without all the political connotations and cute little ‘rainbow welcomes’ flying in front of your stores! Why not just advertise “Gay‘s Welcome’! Maybe we need to label everything else with the o+ and o/ symbols, so us ‘hetero’s‘ that are relegated to the ’silent majority’ can know which establishments embrace hetero-life! If you want a rally flag with rainbow, include it as you like, within your flag, but don’t take over the whole thing–such a move simply underscores that the gay movement wants it all, and won’t settle for anything less !!! The gay pride movement is largely an illusion, an illusion to suggest that the gay lifestyle is much larger than it really is.

      Report Post »  
    • kaydeebeau
      Posted on August 1, 2012 at 11:12am

      One way is to stop using the term “gay” and return to usin the real word homosexual

      Report Post » kaydeebeau  
  • MittensKittens
    Posted on August 1, 2012 at 10:37am

    DEMS SUPPORT FOR GAY MARRIAGE MAY BE A POLITICAL ‘DEATH WISH’

    We can only “hope” it “changes” the mindset of people.

    Report Post » MittensKittens  
1 2

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love