Gay statists strike again...you will submit!!!!

[M.D. Rawlings]

Okay, so I'm going to be fined for refusing to participate in pagan rituals, right? I'm going to be fined for practicing my inalienable rights. And if I refuse to pay the fine, jail? I'll be jailed for refusing to pay a fine for practicing my inalienable rights, eh?

Yes? No? Where are we at?

You say, "Blow me." I say, "No."
You say, "Pay me." I say, "Blow."
You say, "Jail time." I say, "So?"

And when I'm back out and still refuse to comply, now what?

Do you see the problem yet, as this historically unprecedented and obviously unconstitutional assault on religious liberty, this disease, spreads across the country? First there's me and then them, then all those folks here and over there, folks spouting up everywhere, hundreds, thousands, millions. "We're not going to comply, not now, not ever!"

You are incredibly ignorant for thinking this is unprecedented. You are echoing the IDENTICAL rhetoric of the segregationists. Identical. It is so similar, it is getting comical.

"We're not going to comply, not now, not ever!" Holy shit, you could not have echoed Wallace's "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" more identically if you had deliberately tried.

Not only is your bigoted bullshit not unprecedented, it is quite stale. And just like the racist assholes, you, too, will one day be looked upon as the ignorant, backward, hateful wretches you are.


Now show me where a segregationist was executed for not complying with the public accommodation laws, dipshit.

Apples and oranges.

Until recently, it has never been lawful for one to demand that another practice/celebrate any aspect of one's religion . . . or else. What is wrong with you? What you're actually arguing here is that there is no such thing as inalienable rights. All is relative. Indeed, the nature of homosexuality is, among other things, relativism, and the nature of relativism is tyranny.

For all of those on this thread who support homo "marriage" while government administers the institution are you still sure that's a good idea?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

wytchey has an agenda. she is disengenuous. do not take her seriously. She is a frustrated bull dyke with the hots for Hillary Clinton.

Actually, the poster trying to claim that people didn't use the bible to justify slaver is the one being dishonest. Are you joining in his dishonesty?

LOL OMG you actually are illiterate I'm so sorry.

Well...That's Ironic.

ironic? Your compatriot posted two pieces of FICTION, I even quoted one passage for you. Now , it may have been fiction based on the realities of the time, but nevertheless I has asked shim for specific quotes from REAL people , not a fictional account.

Do you truly not grok the difference between fictional characters and actual people who lived Hell, I even went and found the answer to my own question and posted it for shim, Clearly what I posted was an actual quote from an actual living person of the era and what shim posted were fictional stories possibly based on actual events.

Why you would even lie about this is beyond comprehension.

oh PS shim proved that shim is illiterate when shim claimed that I posted that no one from that era used the Bible to justify slavery. Clearly I never said that.

 

[g5000]

Okay, so I'm going to be fined for refusing to participate in pagan rituals, right? I'm going to be fined for practicing my inalienable rights. And if I refuse to pay the fine, jail? I'll be jailed for refusing to pay a fine for practicing my inalienable rights, eh?

Yes? No? Where are we at?

You say, "Blow me." I say, "No."
You say, "Pay me." I say, "Blow."
You say, "Jail time." I say, "So?"

And when I'm back out and still refuse to comply, now what?

Do you see the problem yet, as this historically unprecedented and obviously unconstitutional assault on religious liberty, this disease, spreads across the country? First there's me and then them, then all those folks here and over there, folks spouting up everywhere, hundreds, thousands, millions. "We're not going to comply, not now, not ever!"

You are incredibly ignorant for thinking this is unprecedented. You are echoing the IDENTICAL rhetoric of the segregationists. Identical. It is so similar, it is getting comical.

"We're not going to comply, not now, not ever!" Holy shit, you could not have echoed Wallace's "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" more identically if you had deliberately tried.

Not only is your bigoted bullshit not unprecedented, it is quite stale. And just like the racist assholes, you, too, will one day be looked upon as the ignorant, backward, hateful wretches you are.


Now show me where a segregationist was executed for not complying with the public accommodation laws, dipshit.

Apples and oranges.

Nope. Your arguments are IDENTICAL to the racists over interracial marriages and Whites Only lunch counters.

Identical.

Christ, you dumbshits even argue for "separate but equal" civil marriages!

Take a good look in the mirror. You and your kind are the new segregationists.

 

[g5000]

First there's me and then them, then all those folks here and over there, folks spouting up everywhere, hundreds, thousands, millions. "We're not going to comply, not now, not ever!"

"In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny and I say: segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

 

[Silhouette]

Nope. Your arguments are IDENTICAL to the racists over interracial marriages and Whites Only lunch counters.

Identical.

Christ, you dumbshits even argue for "separate but equal" civil marriages!

Take a good look in the mirror. You and your kind are the new segregationists.

So what this is, in case any of you pro-traditional marriage people missed it, is the LGBT cult realizes now that Windsor will be Upheld and the matter Affirmed as a state's matter. So the new slant of attack is "well, we've ramrodded [illegally] a bunch of gay marriages in different states so now when it's up to the states we're going to sue state by state to make gay marriage legal because of the 'separate but equal' argument of "civil rights".

So, SCOTUS needs to be very very careful in how they word their new Decision in order to anticipate this little loophole that gays have illegally ramrodded through, using sedition and contempt for Windsor no less in order to accomplish it.

This little loophole needs to get nipped in the bud during the next Hearing on these appeals at SCOTUS or we'll be right back to lawsuits appealing on the same Decision [Windsor] asking if the Court really really meant what it said about gay marriage being up to the states since the founding of the country.

I say, make that very clear in plain language or we'll be right back at this nonsense the moment the ink is dry on the reaffirmation of Windsor in 2015...

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Okay, so I'm going to be fined for refusing to participate in pagan rituals, right? I'm going to be fined for practicing my inalienable rights. And if I refuse to pay the fine, jail? I'll be jailed for refusing to pay a fine for practicing my inalienable rights, eh?

Yes? No? Where are we at?

You say, "Blow me." I say, "No."
You say, "Pay me." I say, "Blow."
You say, "Jail time." I say, "So?"

And when I'm back out and still refuse to comply, now what?

Do you see the problem yet, as this historically unprecedented and obviously unconstitutional assault on religious liberty, this disease, spreads across the country? First there's me and then them, then all those folks here and over there, folks spouting up everywhere, hundreds, thousands, millions. "We're not going to comply, not now, not ever!"

You are incredibly ignorant for thinking this is unprecedented. You are echoing the IDENTICAL rhetoric of the segregationists. Identical. It is so similar, it is getting comical.

"We're not going to comply, not now, not ever!" Holy shit, you could not have echoed Wallace's "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" more identically if you had deliberately tried.

Not only is your bigoted bullshit not unprecedented, it is quite stale. And just like the racist assholes, you, too, will one day be looked upon as the ignorant, backward, hateful wretches you are.


Now show me where a segregationist was executed for not complying with the public accommodation laws, dipshit.

Apples and oranges.

Nope. Your arguments are IDENTICAL to the racists over interracial marriages and Whites Only lunch counters.

Identical.

Christ, you dumbshits even argue for "separate but equal" civil marriages!

Take a good look in the mirror. You and your kind are the new segregationists.

No. YOU take a good look at yourself in the mirror. I support no such thing. You are a liar. And throughout our exchange you have done nothing but lie about who and what I'm all about, along with a number of others.

I'm utterly opposed to government having its nose in our marital, familial or bedroom affairs, and that's why I stood shoulder-to-shoulder with homosexuals to end sodomy laws. For while Clayton Jones is utterly full of it when he claims, as is his wont when it suits his agenda, that the Court declared homosexuals to be a discrete class of Americans akin to racial minorities, these laws were unequally leveled against homosexuals in practice. While I knew that my support would never be reciprocated by most homosexuals, given the political inclinations of the vast majority of them, I stood with them just the same because my religion obligates me to respect the choices of others and equal justice, but I'm not obligated beyond that point to in effect commit sociopolitical acts of suicide.

But then you don't comprehend the difference between negative rights and positive rights, or their respective effects on liberty, do you?

Let's get this straight: you don't fly anywhere near the altitude of my intellect and leaning. It's not even close. Indeed, on this thread I think I have tolerated the arrogance of the presumptuousness of the heard mentality, including that of relatively new members of this forum who don't fly anywhere near the same, with aplomb.

I'm also utterly opposed to your STATE CHURCH of cultural Marxism, i.e., the public education system sans universal school choice; you know, where the parents of the people decide what's best for their children, not self-anointed social engineers who cheat and steal their way to cultural hegemony via the imposition of their depraved sociopolitical agenda in the state schools in violation of inalienable First Amendment liberties.

That's you all say long.

Unlike you, I don't stick my nose in the private affairs of others or demand that others conform to my worldview as they hypocritically and falsely accuse me.

At this juncture I do oppose homo "marriage" and rightly so, for it has never been about equality or justice, but about the destruction of liberty and domination.

And the dummies who don't get that are the dummies who don't get that.

We need to get the government out of the business of marriage altogether if we are to
preserve liberty.

And as long as Jim Crow thugs like you assert your utterly unnecessary and monstrous designs on the institution of marriage, the unprovoked initial force of tyranny, I will exert every ounce of defensive force against Jim Crow thugs like you whose aim is to oppress me and my family.

Check?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Nope. Your arguments are IDENTICAL to the racists over interracial marriages and Whites Only lunch counters.

Identical.

Christ, you dumbshits even argue for "separate but equal" civil marriages!

Take a good look in the mirror. You and your kind are the new segregationists.

So what this is, in case any of you pro-traditional marriage people missed it, is the LGBT cult realizes now that Windsor will be Upheld and the matter Affirmed as a state's matter. So the new slant of attack is "well, we've ramrodded [illegally] a bunch of gay marriages in different states so now when it's up to the states we're going to sue state by state to make gay marriage legal because of the 'separate but equal' argument of "civil rights".

So, SCOTUS needs to be very very careful in how they word their new Decision in order to anticipate this little loophole that gays have illegally ramrodded through, using sedition and contempt for Windsor no less in order to accomplish it.

This little loophole needs to get nipped in the bud during the next Hearing on these appeals at SCOTUS or we'll be right back to lawsuits appealing on the same Decision [Windsor] asking if the Court really really meant what it said about gay marriage being up to the states since the founding of the country.

I say, make that very clear in plain language or we'll be right back at this nonsense the moment the ink is dry on the reaffirmation of Windsor in 2015...

Ding! Ding! Ding!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the crux of the Court's subversive assault on liberty. It never was up to the several states under constitutional law, in spite of what some of my libertarian friends imagine, those you lack the understanding about what constitutional law is ultimately bottomed on, the only thing it can be bottomed on as a document meant to preserve a republican form of government, rather than devolve into a tyrannical, relativistic majoritarianism: wherein judicial oligarchy and mobocracy, alternately, systematically oppress individualism out of existence. So much for the unfettered expression of inalienable rights.

And why is that true?

Because the federal government is the only power that can universally enforce the indispensable imperative of the Constitution's sociopolitical foundation: natural law. And it is emphatically ordained in the federal Constitution that the constitutions of the several states must be sociopolitically aligned with that of the central government and that the governments of the several states are subordinate to the federal government!

The several states do not have a Filth Amendment right to divorce themselves from the original terms of the social contract on the question of marriage in the absence of an amendment to the federal Constitution specially granting them the right to do so.

Homosexuality is not rational or normal. It's biologically, physiologically and psychologically deviant. It is not legally natural. And because its essence is sexual relativism, it's nature is tyrannical. Hello! Though the government should not be all up in the private affairs of the family and sexuality beyond preserving life, liberty and private property, it has no constructional authority to grant its official approbation to homosexuality in any way, shape or form.

The Supreme Court has no authority to unilaterally revise the social contract. It is not granted that power, and quite obviously judicial review is not the constitutionally proscribed process to amend the Constitution. But it's ultimately up to the people, more at the character thereof, to defend their liberty against legal and political renegades. If they don't . . . see my signature below.

For more than two-hundred years it has been constitutional for the respective governments to discriminate against the ridiculous notion of homo marriage. How did it suddenly become unconstitutional? Of course it's all bullshit. But as I pointed out earlier, once the foundational imperative of republican government and of the Republic's social contract is erased from the American consciousness, the former can be made into anything you please.

 

[Seawytch]

Prohibitions on same sex marriage became unconstitutional when the 14th was written and the SCOTUS ruled in Loving.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Prohibitions on same sex marriage became unconstitutional when the 14th was written and the SCOTUS ruled in Loving.

Yeah. Right. In the fantasy world of the Living Constitution, where original intent, divorced from natural law, can be bent to serve whatever agenda you please.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Btw, in the above I spelled herd as heard. LOL! Belated edit. Didn't compute that before. LOL!

 

[Seawytch]

Yeah. Right. In the fantasy world of the Living Constitution, where original intent, divorced from natural law, can be bent to serve whatever agenda you please.

So Jefferson was a fantasy?

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Yeah. Right. In the fantasy world of the Living Constitution, where original intent, divorced from natural law, can be bent to serve whatever agenda you please.

So Jefferson was a fantasy?

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

So you're suggesting that the government's official approbation of homosexuality is of the same stuff as that of the changing "manners and opinions" he had in mind, the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence regarding the foundational principle of the Republic's social contract?

Think again, especially given the fact that he would have been outraged by the Court's disregard for the proscribed method of amending the Constitution.

 

[Seawytch]

So you're suggesting that the government's official approbation of homosexuality is of the same stuff as that of the changing "manners and opinions" he had in mind, the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence regarding the foundational principle of the Republic's social contract?

Think again, especially given the fact that he would have been outraged by the Court's disregard for the proscribed method of amending the Constitution.

You were, I believe, deriding the fact that the Constitution is a changeable document, as it was intended to be. I simply pointed out that one of the primary guys responsible for the whole shebang thought of it as a changeable document.

Also, like it or not, prohibitions on marriage equality for gays will be found unconstitutional....and you an blame the 14th.

But hey...southern Democrats tried to warn ya'll.

Because, as the Davenport case makes clear, even ardent supporters of black equality were uneasy about the prospect of black men marrying white women, Democrats realized that they could divide the Republican Party by associating black citizenship with interracial marriage. They could turn public opinion or scare moderate Republicans into voting with Democrats. One historian remarked that from 1866 forward, “the Democrats injected the cry of amalgamation into every conceivable debate, no matter how irrelevant it actually was.” In typical straw man fashion, Democrats misconstrued the main post war issue from “what makes a U.S. citizen” to “would you marry your daughter to a ******?”

Democrats brought this line of argument to the 1866 congressional debate over the 14th amendment—which would grant blacks equal citizenship and guarantee protection of their civil rights. Democrats argued that because marriage was a civil right, a national amendment protecting civil rights would supersede state laws against interracial marriage. Any congressmen approving the amendment would, in effect, be removing one of the few barricades preventing black men from taking white brides.

The argument proved effective, as many voters made the connection between miscegenation and black citizenship. Unable to obtain enough support for the amendment with votes from southern states, northern Republicans passed the Reconstruction Acts, which removed southerner representatives from Congress and placed the South under military rule. Only after these states were removed from vote tallies were Republicans able to ratify the 14th Amendment.

The ratification of the 14th amendment didn’t stop Democrats from using miscegenation as a scare tactic. When Republicans introduced the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which would require businesses that served the public to provide blacks with equal treatment, again, Democrats asked, if private businesses couldn’t take race into consideration, wouldn’t this eventually lead to private individuals being forced to ignore race in their personal lives? If so, would white women be committing a crime for rejecting a black suitor based on race?​

The Interracial Marriage Straw Man

 

[bodecea]

wytchey has an agenda. she is disengenuous. do not take her seriously. She is a frustrated bull dyke with the hots for Hillary Clinton.

Actually, the poster trying to claim that people didn't use the bible to justify slaver is the one being dishonest. Are you joining in his dishonesty?

LOL OMG you actually are illiterate I'm so sorry.

Well...That's Ironic.

ironic? Your compatriot posted two pieces of FICTION, I even quoted one passage for you. Now , it may have been fiction based on the realities of the time, but nevertheless I has asked shim for specific quotes from REAL people , not a fictional account.

Do you truly not grok the difference between fictional characters and actual people who lived Hell, I even went and found the answer to my own question and posted it for shim, Clearly what I posted was an actual quote from an actual living person of the era and what shim posted were fictional stories possibly based on actual events.

Why you would even lie about this is beyond comprehension.

oh PS shim proved that shim is illiterate when shim claimed that I posted that no one from that era used the Bible to justify slavery. Clearly I never said that.

You're gonna keep up with that falsehood, aren't you? Oh wait....you're walking it back a bit....

 

[bodecea]

wytchey has an agenda. she is disengenuous. do not take her seriously. She is a frustrated bull dyke with the hots for Hillary Clinton.

Actually, the poster trying to claim that people didn't use the bible to justify slaver is the one being dishonest. Are you joining in his dishonesty?

LOL OMG you actually are illiterate I'm so sorry.

Well...That's Ironic.

ironic? Your compatriot posted two pieces of FICTION, I even quoted one passage for you. Now , it may have been fiction based on the realities of the time, but nevertheless I has asked shim for specific quotes from REAL people , not a fictional account.

Do you truly not grok the difference between fictional characters and actual people who lived Hell, I even went and found the answer to my own question and posted it for shim, Clearly what I posted was an actual quote from an actual living person of the era and what shim posted were fictional stories possibly based on actual events.

Why you would even lie about this is beyond comprehension.

oh PS shim proved that shim is illiterate when shim claimed that I posted that no one from that era used the Bible to justify slavery. Clearly I never said that.

Wait....what banned poster here used to use the term "grok" all the time? Hmmmmmmmm.....

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

wytchey has an agenda. she is disengenuous. do not take her seriously. She is a frustrated bull dyke with the hots for Hillary Clinton.

Actually, the poster trying to claim that people didn't use the bible to justify slaver is the one being dishonest. Are you joining in his dishonesty?

LOL OMG you actually are illiterate I'm so sorry.

Well...That's Ironic.

ironic? Your compatriot posted two pieces of FICTION, I even quoted one passage for you. Now , it may have been fiction based on the realities of the time, but nevertheless I has asked shim for specific quotes from REAL people , not a fictional account.

Do you truly not grok the difference between fictional characters and actual people who lived Hell, I even went and found the answer to my own question and posted it for shim, Clearly what I posted was an actual quote from an actual living person of the era and what shim posted were fictional stories possibly based on actual events.

Why you would even lie about this is beyond comprehension.

oh PS shim proved that shim is illiterate when shim claimed that I posted that no one from that era used the Bible to justify slavery. Clearly I never said that.

You're gonna keep up with that falsehood, aren't you? Oh wait....you're walking it back a bit....

I'm not walking anything back. From the start I asked shim to produce a single quote from any actual person of that era using the Bible to justify slavery.

 

[JoeB131]

The Bible objects to sodomy and more particularly it's culture spreading because it destroys the construct. It firebombs the classroom by gender blending. We are born into specific genders to meet certain spiritual challenges. And each gender is a fire of a specific temperature in order to attain the perfect tempering of that spirit. You destroy the reality of "male" and "female" and make them all one temperature and the lessons are lost.

Surely you can see how The Big Kahuna would be pissed off about that?

Well, I'm glad he's pissed off about that and not the many cases of genocide and famine and plague in the world. Imaginary Sky Pixies need their priorities.

But since 38% of straights have tried anal sex and 99% of straight engage in oral sex, you'd think God would have taken us all out by now.

 

[Seawytch]

I'm not walking anything back. From the start I asked shim to produce a single quote from any actual person of that era using the Bible to justify slavery.

And instead you got two entire testimonies which should have been more sufficient to prove that the bible was, indeed, used to justify slavery, segregation and anti miscegenation. And apparently, you weren't even denying that it was (and is).

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I'm not walking anything back. From the start I asked shim to produce a single quote from any actual person of that era using the Bible to justify slavery.

And instead you got two entire testimonies which should have been more sufficient to prove that the bible was, indeed, used to justify slavery, segregation and anti miscegenation. And apparently, you weren't even denying that it was (and is).

no you provided two piece of fiction.

But you're right I wasn't denying that the Bible was used to justify anything, I just wanted you to provide proof,which you never did.

 

[Seawytch]

no you provided two piece of fiction.

But you're right I wasn't denying that the Bible was used to justify anything, I just wanted you to provide proof,which you never did.

Claiming they are fiction does not make them so. You gave no proof that the two testimonies linked to were works of fiction. In fact, that they cannot be purchased off the Barnes and Nobel shelf should be enough to debunk your "fiction" claim.

Circumstances exist among the inhabitants of these United States, which make it proper that the Scriptures should be carefully examined by Christians in reference to the institution of Slavery, which exists in several of the States, with the approbation of those who profess unlimited subjection to God's revealed will.

It is branded by one portion of people, who take their rules of moral rectitude from the Scriptures, as a great sin; nay, the greatest of sins that exist in the nation. And they hold the obligation to exterminate it, to be paramount to all others.

If slavery be thus sinful, it behooves all Christians who are involved in the sin, to repent in dust and ashes, and wash their hands of it, without consulting with flesh and blood. Sin in the sight of God is something which God in his Word makes known to be wrong, either by preceptive prohibition, by principles of moral fitness, or examples of inspired men, contained in the sacred volume. When these furnish no law to condemn human conduct, there is no transgression. Christians should produce a "thus saith the Lord," both for what they condemn as sinful, and for what they approve as lawful, in the sight of Heaven.

It is to be hoped, that on a question of such vital importance as this to the peace and safety of our common country, as well as to the welfare of the church, we shall be seen cleaving to the Bible, and taking all our decisions about this matter, from its inspired pages. With men from the North, I have observed for many years a palpable ignorance of the divine will, in reference to the institution of slavery. I have seen but a few, who made the Bible their study, that had obtained a knowledge of what it did reveal on this subject. Of late, their denunciation of slavery as a sin, is loud and long.

I propose, therefore, to examine the sacred volume briefly, and if I am not greatly mistaken, I shall be able to make it appear that the institution of slavery has received, in the first place,

1st. The sanction of the Almighty in the Patriarchal age.

2d. That it was incorporated into the only National Constitution which ever emanated from God.

3d. That its legality was recognized, and its relative duties regulated, by Jesus Christ in his kingdom; and

4th. That it is full of mercy.
​

That is a direct quote from the time in support of slavery. It goes on if you read...

A BRIEF EXAMINATION OF SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY ON THE INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY

In an Essay, first published in the Religious Herald, and republished by request: with Remarks on a Letter of Elder GALUSHA, of New York, to Dr. R. FULLER, of South Carolina: