The Homosexual Agenda, The aclu, And Your Children...

[Larkinn]

Glad you see that. You have nothing left to say here.

Is that the criteria to say that a group has an agenda PR?...that some of them have an agenda?

So you won't mind me saying that there is a Republican agenda to rape children then?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Is that the criteria to say that a group has an agenda PR?...that some of them have an agenda?

So you won't mind me saying that there is a Republican agenda to rape children then?

And you won't mind if I say there is a Democratic agenda to strip us all of our rights right?

 

[007]

Lmao...I offered you a bet on that score which you refused. Put up or shut up.

I'm not the one lying about mensa... you are. You're the one that needs to put up or shut up.

That its a logical flaw. Hence, you are wrong.

I see no flaw, and I'm not wrong.

I'm doing quite well without that antiquated book. I get my morals from more consistent and reasoned books which were written when we had the wisdom of the enlightenment.

Here is where you show your ignorance. There hasn't been a person, culture, or civilization, ever in the history of the world, that has been able to rely on "enlightenment" to govern their own morality. It doesn't work, and that's why you are as screwed up as you are for thinking you can.

 

[007]

Is that the criteria to say that a group has an agenda PR?...that some of them have an agenda?

So you won't mind me saying that there is a Republican agenda to rape children then?

Quite an assumption. Start another thread with that claim and prove it.

 

[Larkinn]

I'm not the one lying about mensa... you are. You're the one that needs to put up or shut up.

If you are so certain that I am lying then why won't you make a wager on that?

I see no flaw, and I'm not wrong.

Umm its called Ad Hominem. Its a flaw.

Here is where you show your ignorance. There hasn't been a person, culture, or civilization, ever in the history of the world, that has been able to rely on "enlightenment" to govern their own morality. It doesn't work, and that's why you are as screwed up as you are for thinking you can.

Actually lots of people have and survive just fine. But you condemn them because they are different then you. Disgusting.

 

[mattskramer]

No... I don't define anything. I get my morals from the Bible. You should look into it. You need it.

I've read it. I bet that you follow all of the advice in the New Testament including those things mentioned here:

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter10.html

New Testament Atrocities

The outlook doesn’t substantially improve for women in the New Testament either. The author of Ephesians insists that wives should submit to their husbands in everything (5:22-24). While it’s true that the author later instructs men to love their wives and treat them well, what does a devout Christian woman do when her husband decides to break the bounds of his instructions by asking her to embrace something she knows is evil? Remember, the woman has no right to divorce the man. In addition, the author fails to mention the existence of any out clause for her in such a situation. It would appear as though she has no choice but to comply with his orders if she is to obey the words in the scripture.

The authors of Colossians, Titus, and 1 Peter all agree that women should submit to their husbands (3:18, 2:5, and 3:1, respectively). The books of Peter also forbid women to wear any type of decorative jewelry to adorn their bodies (1 Peter 3:2-6), refer to women as the weaker vessel of the couple (1 Peter 3:7), and deem Lot to be a righteous man even though he once offered his daughters as a suitable alternative for homosexual rapists surrounding his house (2 Peter 2:8 referring to Genesis 19:4-8). A man with the immoral qualities of Lot cannot be regarded as righteous unless you discount the inherent rights of all people, more specifically, the inherent rights of women.

The author of Timothy also follows suit with his bigoted opinions of women. Like Peter, he says that females shouldn’t wear decoration or try to usurp authority over their husbands. Instead, women should remain silent and fully submissive to them. As he also declares that Adam was not the one who was deceived in the Garden of Eden, Eve is clearly the party implicated as being responsible for the downfall of man (1 Timothy 2:9-15). This author isn’t particularly kind to widows either. He says we should leave these women in need because their rewards will arrive as an answer to prayer. A widow experiencing pleasure while she’s still alive, on the other hand, is already dead in the afterlife. In the author’s eyes, the only respectable widows are at least sixty years old, have had only one husband, and have been well known for their positive accomplishments in life. In contrast, younger widows aren’t worth assisting because they eventually remarry, become idle, or venture from house to house with their gossip (1 Timothy 5:5-15).

As we discussed near the beginning of this book, Paul is no doubt the single most important figure in getting Christianity to where it is today. Unfortunately, he is also one of the most sexist people you’ll find in the New Testament. Paul is very adamant in his belief that women aren’t useful for much more than sexually satisfying their husbands. He even remarks that it’s good for a man to refrain from touching a woman, but he realizes the need for a man to have sexual contact and permits each to have a wife (1 Corinthians 7:1-2).

Paul also tells a story in his letter to the Romans about men “leaving the ‘natural use’ of the woman” to have sexual relations with other men (Romans 1:27). The passage is more or less saying that the natural use of a woman is to function as a derogatory sexual outlet for a man. He continues to spread his bigoted beliefs in a letter to the Corinthians by unambiguously declaring the man to be the head of the woman, similar to the way that Jesus is the authority figure for men. Paul also says women, who are the glory of men, were made for men, who are the glory of God (1 Corinthians 11:3-9). The clearly implied chain of importance goes Christ first, man second, and woman last.

Paul also establishes a few ground rules before the men can bring their women to church. The women are to choose between concealing their heads and having their hair completely shaven. Later, Paul takes away the latter choice by declaring a shaved head to be a disgrace in need of covering (1 Corinthians 11:5-7). He also doesn’t permit women to speak in church because that also is a shame. If they have a question concerning the material, they must ask their husbands at home. Paul also reminds us once again, “they are commanded to be under obedience” according to the law (1 Corinthians 14:34-35). If you ever attend a Southern Baptist church, you will notice that its members tend to remain clung to these values in some fashion. Unfortunately, some ultra-conservative members continue to take these biblical guidelines into their homes.

 

[Larkinn]

Quite an assumption. Start another thread with that claim and prove it.

Way to dodge the question, genius.

 

[Larkinn]

And you won't mind if I say there is a Democratic agenda to strip us all of our rights right?

Of course I'll mind. Because it is exactly that I don't subscribe to that theory of thinking. Which is why I was pointing out how absurd it is. Notice that I didn't make the claim about Republicans (oh, but with your fabulous reading comprehension skills, I'm sure you already noticed it, right?). Rather I asked if he would mind me making that claim...obviously he would...because the standard (HIS standard) is idiotic. He just can't realize that until its used against a group he favors.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Larkinn can not prove anything, that would require he A) do some actual web search besides wiki and B) not play word games with what things mean.

 

[Larkinn]

Larkinn can not prove anything, that would require he A) do some actual web search besides wiki and B) not play word games with what things mean.

Are you claiming the wiki article is false then?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Of course I'll mind. Because it is exactly that I don't subscribe to that theory of thinking. Which is why I was pointing out how absurd it is. Notice that I didn't make the claim about Republicans (oh, but with your fabulous reading comprehension skills, I'm sure you already noticed it, right?). Rather I asked if he would mind me making that claim...obviously he would...because the standard (HIS standard) is idiotic. He just can't realize that until its used against a group he favors.

Well Mr. Mensa the only problem being that HIS claim IS backed up with numerous court cases and non court cases. You have yet to provide a single link to prove even ONE of the events listed in the article are in fact lies. All we have is YOUR opinion on the matter. You can't even provide any evidence your opinion is valid.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Are you claiming the wiki article is false then?

I notice when you do not LIKE what WIKI says your quick to point out the obvious flaws in its credibility. I have an Idea, find a source ( since your whole schtick is that some sources are bad) that is not WIKI and is not some left wing loon site.

 

[Larkinn]

Well Mr. Mensa the only problem being that HIS claim IS backed up with numerous court cases and non court cases. You have yet to provide a single link to prove even ONE of the events listed in the article are in fact lies. All we have is YOUR opinion on the matter. You can't even provide any evidence your opinion is valid.

Try and be more clear, this makes no sense. You are responding to a comment that had nothing directly to do with the article, and you are referencing the article.

 

[Larkinn]

I notice when you do not LIKE what WIKI says your quick to point out the obvious flaws in its credibility. I have an Idea, find a source ( since your whole schtick is that some sources are bad) that is not WIKI and is not some left wing loon site.

Please quote me where I've countered a point by saying that Wikipedia is unreliable.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Try and be more clear, this makes no sense. You are responding to a comment that had nothing directly to do with the article, and you are referencing the article.

Are you claiming your to stupid to understand it? Do I, the ignorant neanderthal need to explain it to you in smaller words?

 

[Larkinn]

Are you claiming your to stupid to understand it? Do I, the ignorant neanderthal need to explain it to you in smaller words?

I don't understand it because its incomprehensible. As I pointed out you are responding to a point that has nothing directly to do with the article by referencing the article. Hence it is impossible to get any coherent meaning out of it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I don't understand it because its incomprehensible. As I pointed out you are responding to a point that has nothing directly to do with the article by referencing the article. Hence it is impossible to get any coherent meaning out of it.

No, your just playing games again. Here let me break it down for you Brainiac.... Now do follow along Mensa boy...

Pale Rider made a blanket statement about Homosexuals that while not really applying to all ( no generalization ever does) is backed up by his posted article. You made a generalization about Republicans that has ZERO basis in fact, all you have is two incidents in the past that were not even rape, which by the way I can counter with a similar number of democrats in the past. Of course playing word games you didn't REALLY claim it just said "would it be ok if.."

Now use that high IQ of yours and start twisting this too. I have faith you will.

 

[mattskramer]

And I answered you. Here let me spoon feed it to you.... The Federal Government should not be in Education at all. However at the State level I support the concept of allowing parents the choice of what school to send their child to. The concept of equal but seperate would apply. If it is against the law to segregate ( and I agree it is) then it should be illegal to force parents to send their children to public schools that are failing and are NOT equal in any way.

I don’t recall your giving me a straight answer to this question until now – and you still made a drawn out paragraph out of it. I didn’t ask for what the Constitution says or what the law is or any thing else. I simply asked if you support vouchers and/or privatization. Why is it so hard to get yes-or-no or fill-in-the-blank answers from people. Anyway, thanks for your answer.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I don’t recall your giving me a straight answer to this question until now – and you still made a drawn out paragraph out of it. I didn’t ask for what the Constitution says or what the law is or any thing else. I simply asked if you support vouchers and/or privatization. Why is it so hard to get yes-or-no or fill-in-the-blank answers from people. Anyway, thanks for your answer.

Most questions do not have a simple yes or no answer. If you think life is that simply I suggest your headed for some major disappointments later.

 

[mattskramer]

No, your just playing games again. Here let me break it down for you Brainiac.... Now do follow along Mensa boy...

Pale Rider made a blanket statement about Homosexuals that while not really applying to all ( no generalization ever does) is backed up by his posted article. You made a generalization about Republicans that has ZERO basis in fact, all you have is two incidents in the past that were not even rape, which by the way I can counter with a similar number of democrats in the past. Of course playing word games you didn't REALLY claim it just said "would it be ok if.."

Now use that high IQ of yours and start twisting this too. I have faith you will.

I do think that Republicans and rape is a poor example. Christians and violence against abortion clinics / providers is a more parallel appropriate example. I can make a blanket statement about Christians that while not really applying to all (no generalization ever does) is backed up by several examples that I can post.