Waldo Pepper: sorry to hear about your mom, sure you can get married in some states now. I've always been on the side of civil unions, i do have an issue with the marriage part but i'm sure that is more from a traditional stand point than a religious one.

this one might surprise you but i sort of want to see "in God we trust" removed from our money. I'm sure God is thrilled with having his name on bills begin used to buy porn, drugs, crooked deals. seems wrong

prayer being led by the schools, no. students being able to pray or even lead a prayer at graduation sure it is there right, if a muslim kid wants to lead a muslim prayer his/her right.

abortion i hate, I feel it is murder (extreme case issues aside). in this day and age with th e easy access to birth control no excuse for the number of abortions being done. should they be outlawed, nah back alley abortions are worse. I would rather see the need for abortions going down. i do hate hearing "woman's right to choose", if that is my baby I feel I should have a say (hard one to work out).

You need to sterilize yoursell, now, mans...

Waldo Pepper: in this day and age with th e easy access to birth control

Another way that many people's lives are made worse by Christians, is that many Christians seek to limit access to birth control.

fredzilla: Waldo Pepper: the ha ha guy: Waldo Pepper: where did I say I was
i don't put animals in the same category as humans, no souls.

I'm not advocating one way or another, but how do you KNOW that?

The Bible tells me so (couldn't resist)

eddiesocket: Waldo Pepper: in this day and age with th e easy access to birth control

Another way that many people's lives are made worse by Christians, is that many Christians seek to limit access to birth control.

and many don't

Indubitably: Waldo Pepper: sorry to hear about your mom, sure you can get married in some states now. I've always been on the side of civil unions, i do have an issue with the marriage part but i'm sure that is more from a traditional stand point than a religious one.

this one might surprise you but i sort of want to see "in God we trust" removed from our money. I'm sure God is thrilled with having his name on bills begin used to buy porn, drugs, crooked deals. seems wrong

prayer being led by the schools, no. students being able to pray or even lead a prayer at graduation sure it is there right, if a muslim kid wants to lead a muslim prayer his/her right.

abortion i hate, I feel it is murder (extreme case issues aside). in this day and age with th e easy access to birth control no excuse for the number of abortions being done. should they be outlawed, nah back alley abortions are worse. I would rather see the need for abortions going down. i do hate hearing "woman's right to choose", if that is my baby I feel I should have a say (hard one to work out).

You need to sterilize yoursell, now, mans...

why? You don't agree with me so I should be sterilized. what did i say in this section that is so horrible?

Waldo Pepper: fredzilla: Waldo Pepper: the ha ha guy: Waldo Pepper: where did I say I was
i don't put animals in the same category as humans, no souls.

I'm not advocating one way or another, but how do you KNOW that?

The Bible tells me so (couldn't resist)

Citation needed (not that the bible is any authority)

Waldo Pepper: eddiesocket: Waldo Pepper: in this day and age with th e easy access to birth control

Another way that many people's lives are made worse by Christians, is that many Christians seek to limit access to birth control.

and many don't

You didn't say "I doubt your life has been made worse by every single Christian"

fredzilla: Waldo Pepper: fredzilla: Waldo Pepper: the ha ha guy: Waldo Pepper: where did I say I was
i don't put animals in the same category as humans, no souls.

I'm not advocating one way or another, but how do you KNOW that?

The Bible tells me so (couldn't resist)

Citation needed (not that the bible is any authority)

First, man and animals do not share kinship-all the claims of evolutionists (and those sympathetic to them) notwithstanding. The apostle Paul addressed this very point in 1 Corinthians 15 when he wrote: "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes" (v. 15, emp. added). As Stuart Walker correctly commented: "Genesis 1:26-30 and 2:7,21-25 clearly states that man was a special creation with no phylogenetic relationship to any other creature. Thus, there is a phylogenetic discontinuity between man and animals-we are not physically interrelated" (1991, 5[2]:21, emp. added). As Adam previewed the animals in the Garden of Eden for a mate and went about naming them (Genesis 2:18-20), this "discontinuity" became clear. Among all the animals that God had created, there was none that corresponded to him. Not one sufficed to remove him from his personal isolation of being "alone" (Genesis 2:18). As Walker went on to note:

Thus, we share in the life principle, but it is not the life principle itself that is precious.... Ontological continuity cannot be established upon the experiences of life, the intrinsic value of life itself, or physical parallels between animals and humans; rather, we are separated from the animal world by an impassable gulf-a chasm of essential difference in who we are (1991, 5[2]:22, emp. added).

Link

Waldo Pepper: Indubitably: Waldo Pepper: sorry to hear about your mom, sure you can get married in some states now. I've always been on the side of civil unions, i do have an issue with the marriage part but i'm sure that is more from a traditional stand point than a religious one.

this one might surprise you but i sort of want to see "in God we trust" removed from our money. I'm sure God is thrilled with having his name on bills begin used to buy porn, drugs, crooked deals. seems wrong

prayer being led by the schools, no. students being able to pray or even lead a prayer at graduation sure it is there right, if a muslim kid wants to lead a muslim prayer his/her right.

abortion i hate, I feel it is murder (extreme case issues aside). in this day and age with th e easy access to birth control no excuse for the number of abortions being done. should they be outlawed, nah back alley abortions are worse. I would rather see the need for abortions going down. i do hate hearing "woman's right to choose", if that is my baby I feel I should have a say (hard one to work out).

You need to sterilize yoursell, now, mans...

why? You don't agree with me so I should be sterilized. what did i say in this section that is so horrible?

You said a man should have a right to force a woman to carry a baby to term, which is pretty insane.

eddiesocket: Waldo Pepper: eddiesocket: Waldo Pepper: in this day and age with th e easy access to birth control

Another way that many people's lives are made worse by Christians, is that many Christians seek to limit access to birth control.

and many don't

You didn't say "I doubt your life has been made worse by every single Christian"

I guess I could ask for proof that begin denied birth control by Christians made someone's life worse. but for every example you find I sure I could find an unwanted child turned into a blessing story. so let's not go in that circle

Waldo Pepper: fredzilla: Waldo Pepper: fredzilla: Waldo Pepper: the ha ha guy: Waldo Pepper: where did I say I was
i don't put animals in the same category as humans, no souls.

I'm not advocating one way or another, but how do you KNOW that?

The Bible tells me so (couldn't resist)

Citation needed (not that the bible is any authority)

First, man and animals do not share kinship-all the claims of evolutionists (and those sympathetic to them) notwithstanding. The apostle Paul addressed this very point in 1 Corinthians 15 when he wrote: "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes" (v. 15, emp. added). As Stuart Walker correctly commented: "Genesis 1:26-30 and 2:7,21-25 clearly states that man was a special creation with no phylogenetic relationship to any other creature. Thus, there is a phylogenetic discontinuity between man and animals-we are not physically interrelated" (1991, 5[2]:21, emp. added). As Adam previewed the animals in the Garden of Eden for a mate and went about naming them (Genesis 2:18-20), this "discontinuity" became clear. Among all the animals that God had created, there was none that corresponded to him. Not one sufficed to remove him from his personal isolation of being "alone" (Genesis 2:18). As Walker went on to note:

Thus, we share in the life principle, but it is not the life principle itself that is precious.... Ontological continuity cannot be established upon the experiences of life, the intrinsic value of life itself, or physical parallels between animals and humans; rather, we are separated from the animal world by an impassable gulf-a chasm of essential difference in who we are (1991, 5[2]:22, emp. added).

Link

Neither the bible, nor Adam and Eve, nor souls are part of "natural law". You asserted that Natural Law says being gay is wrong. When pointed out to you that animals are part of nature and some of them are gay, you said they don't count as part of a discussion of natural law because they don't have souls.

eddiesocket: Waldo Pepper: Indubitably: Waldo Pepper: sorry to hear about your mom, sure you can get married in some states now. I've always been on the side of civil unions, i do have an issue with the marriage part but i'm sure that is more from a traditional stand point than a religious one.

this one might surprise you but i sort of want to see "in God we trust" removed from our money. I'm sure God is thrilled with having his name on bills begin used to buy porn, drugs, crooked deals. seems wrong

prayer being led by the schools, no. students being able to pray or even lead a prayer at graduation sure it is there right, if a muslim kid wants to lead a muslim prayer his/her right.

abortion i hate, I feel it is murder (extreme case issues aside). in this day and age with th e easy access to birth control no excuse for the number of abortions being done. should they be outlawed, nah back alley abortions are worse. I would rather see the need for abortions going down. i do hate hearing "woman's right to choose", if that is my baby I feel I should have a say (hard one to work out).

You need to sterilize yoursell, now, mans...

why? You don't agree with me so I should be sterilized. what did i say in this section that is so horrible?

You said a man should have a right to force a woman to carry a baby to term, which is pretty insane.

i also said hard one to work out. but it is unfair, if a man is married and his wife is pregnant and she decides to have an abortion he has no legal say, seems his rights to his child are denied. just seems unfair that is all i meant. no different that the one night stand the chick gets knocked up and she decides to have the baby and the man has to pay child support for a kid he doesn't want.

eddiesocket: Waldo Pepper: fredzilla: Waldo Pepper: fredzilla: Waldo Pepper: the ha ha guy: Waldo Pepper: where did I say I was
i don't put animals in the same category as humans, no souls.

I'm not advocating one way or another, but how do you KNOW that?

The Bible tells me so (couldn't resist)

Citation needed (not that the bible is any authority)

First, man and animals do not share kinship-all the claims of evolutionists (and those sympathetic to them) notwithstanding. The apostle Paul addressed this very point in 1 Corinthians 15 when he wrote: "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes" (v. 15, emp. added). As Stuart Walker correctly commented: "Genesis 1:26-30 and 2:7,21-25 clearly states that man was a special creation with no phylogenetic relationship to any other creature. Thus, there is a phylogenetic discontinuity between man and animals-we are not physically interrelated" (1991, 5[2]:21, emp. added). As Adam previewed the animals in the Garden of Eden for a mate and went about naming them (Genesis 2:18-20), this "discontinuity" became clear. Among all the animals that God had created, there was none that corresponded to him. Not one sufficed to remove him from his personal isolation of being "alone" (Genesis 2:18). As Walker went on to note:

Thus, we share in the life principle, but it is not the life principle itself that is precious.... Ontological continuity cannot be established upon the experiences of life, the intrinsic value of life itself, or physical parallels between animals and humans; rather, we are separated from the animal world by an impassable gulf-a chasm of essential difference in who we are (1991, 5[2]:22, emp. added).

Link

Neither the bible, nor Adam and Eve, nor souls are part of "natural law". You asserted that Natural Law says being gay is wrong. When pointed out to you that animals are part of nature and some of them are gay, you said they ...

I simply said "some might say" I did not say I agreed it was natural law.

Waldo Pepper: no different that the one night stand the chick gets knocked up and she decides to have the baby and the man has to pay child support for a kid he doesn't want.

Holy shiat.

Seriously? Men shouldn't have to pay child support? (Provided of course, they "didn't want" the kid?) You're seriously advocating that? I thought the poster above was being harsh when he said don't procreate, but I had no idea until just now how morally abhorrent you are.

Waldo Pepper: First, man and animals do not share kinship-all the claims of evolutionists (and those sympathetic to them) notwithstanding. The apostle Paul addressed this very point in 1 Corinthians 15 when he wrote: "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes"

Wouldn't that imply that sometime, somewhere, there was a fish Adam, a beast Adam, and a bird Adam? After all, if each group is "one flesh", that would imply that they all descended from the same parents, otherwise each species of animal would be a unique creation from one another, just as humans are a unique creation from the others.

Waldo Pepper: I simply said "some might say" I did not say I agreed it was natural law.

Who are you, Fox News?

Only religious people use "natural law" as an argument against gay rights. I've never meant a non-religious person against gay rights. I'm sure they exist, at least in theory, but they have to be the most minor of minorities possible.

Waldo Pepper: I simply said "some might say" I did not say I agreed it was natural law.

Very well, if you do not agree in natural law, why do you believe there's nothing wrong with systematically denying basic human rights to those who don't share your opinion?

I doubt it. I'm a creationist (big surprise huh) and I take it literally but allow that there could be some areas that aren't as simple as they seem. I believe Adam and Eve were the first people. I allow that a day in genesis might have been longer that 24 hours. I think a lot changed once sin entered the equation and then again after the flood.

I also understand arguing about it with those who don't feel the same is pretty much a waste of time. There is no 100% concrete scientific proof on the non creation/non divine intervention side and other than the Bible which is taken as false by non Christians nothing 100% on the creation side.

Trolling in Christianity threads is useless. There is no way to tell the troll from the Christians.

May as well piss into the wind.

Waldo Pepper:

First, man and animals do not share kinship-all the claims of evolutionists (and those sympathetic to them) notwithstanding. The apostle Paul addressed this very point in 1 Corinthians 15 when he wrote: "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes" (v. 15, emp. added). As Stuart Walker correctly commented: "Genesis 1:26-30 and 2:7,21-25 clearly states that man was a special creation with no phylogenetic relationship to any other creature. Thus, there is a phylogenetic discontinuity between man and animals-we are not physically interrelated" (1991, 5[2]:21, emp. added). As Adam previewed the animals in the Garden of Eden for a mate and went about naming them (Genesis 2:18-20), this "discontinuity" became clear. Among all the animals that God had created, there was none that corresponded to him. Not one sufficed to remove him from his personal isolation of being "alone" (Genesis 2:18). As Walker went on to note:

Thus, we share in the life principle, but it is not the life principle itself that is precious.... Ontological continuity cannot be established upon the experiences of life, the intrinsic value of life itself, or physical parallels between animals and humans; rather, we are separated from the animal world by an impassable gulf-a chasm of essential difference in who we are (1991, 5[2]:22, emp. added).

Link

Thanks for going to the effort of backing up your interpretation of what the bible says.

I understand why you believe what you believe; but there is no solid evidence beyond the fairy tale Bible you quote. in fact, souls in any creature have never been proven to exist. this natural law thing is a sick world view that you use to sift against facts. There are gay animals, their are gay people. People are considered to be yet another species among all the other interconnected species on this planet.

You have to be willing to look at evidence for your claims instead of interpretations of your fairy tale.

the ha ha guy: Waldo Pepper: I simply said "some might say" I did not say I agreed it was natural law.

Very well, if you do not agree in natural law, why do you believe there's nothing wrong with systematically denying basic human rights to those who don't share your opinion?

where have i denied anyone a basic human right? should I be allowed to have more than one wife, can I have a wife and husband, can i marry a dolphin some say they are as smart as humans.

again where am I denying anyone of their basic human rights

There is no god.

fredzilla: Waldo Pepper:

First, man and animals do not share kinship-all the claims of evolutionists (and those sympathetic to them) notwithstanding. The apostle Paul addressed this very point in 1 Corinthians 15 when he wrote: "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes" (v. 15, emp. added). As Stuart Walker correctly commented: "Genesis 1:26-30 and 2:7,21-25 clearly states that man was a special creation with no phylogenetic relationship to any other creature. Thus, there is a phylogenetic discontinuity between man and animals-we are not physically interrelated" (1991, 5[2]:21, emp. added). As Adam previewed the animals in the Garden of Eden for a mate and went about naming them (Genesis 2:18-20), this "discontinuity" became clear. Among all the animals that God had created, there was none that corresponded to him. Not one sufficed to remove him from his personal isolation of being "alone" (Genesis 2:18). As Walker went on to note:

Thus, we share in the life principle, but it is not the life principle itself that is precious.... Ontological continuity cannot be established upon the experiences of life, the intrinsic value of life itself, or physical parallels between animals and humans; rather, we are separated from the animal world by an impassable gulf-a chasm of essential difference in who we are (1991, 5[2]:22, emp. added).

Link

Thanks for going to the effort of backing up your interpretation of what the bible says.

I understand why you believe what you believe; but there is no solid evidence beyond the fairy tale Bible you quote. in fact, souls in any creature have never been proven to exist. this natural law thing is a sick world view that you use to sift against facts. There are gay animals, their are gay people. People are considered to be yet another species among all the other interconnected species on this planet.

You have to be willing to look at evidenc ...

so you call what I believe a fairy tale and at no point have I demeaned what you believe by calling it a name. I doubt animals are gay more like simply horny but honestly I don't care about what animals do sexually.
.
I truly don't know what is about seems new age but they seem to agree animals have no soul just a life spark Link

Waldo Pepper: I also understand arguing about it with those who don't feel the same is pretty much a waste of time. There is no 100% concrete scientific proof on the non creation/non divine intervention side and other than the Bible which is taken as false by non Christians nothing 100% on the creation side.

What makes you believe I'm an athiest? I follow the teachings of Jesus every day. Though to be fair I follow the homeless hippie philosopher google ("don't be evil") Jesus, not the flying zombie psychopath ("if you don't eat the living flesh from my body I will send you and everyone you have ever loved to a place of everlasting fire and torment") Jesus.

Waldo Pepper: where have i denied anyone a basic human right?

You did not say that you were doing it, you said that there's nothing wrong with it.

If you're going to have a debate, at least try to remember your own words.

/I knew this would be a circular argument, but I didn't expect it to be copy-and-paste level circular.

eddiesocket: Waldo Pepper: no different that the one night stand the chick gets knocked up and she decides to have the baby and the man has to pay child support for a kid he doesn't want.

Holy shiat.

Seriously? Men shouldn't have to pay child support? (Provided of course, they "didn't want" the kid?) You're seriously advocating that? I thought the poster above was being harsh when he said don't procreate, but I had no idea until just now how morally abhorrent you are.

did I say men shouldn't pay child support? dang nothing like making an issue out of nothing. i simply said it is unfair the a man has to pay child support if he doesn't want the kid but the has no say if the woman doesn't want to have the kid and he does. how is that abhorrent? I also said in the "one night stand context"

the ha ha guy: Waldo Pepper: I also understand arguing about it with those who don't feel the same is pretty much a waste of time. There is no 100% concrete scientific proof on the non creation/non divine intervention side and other than the Bible which is taken as false by non Christians nothing 100% on the creation side.

What makes you believe I'm an athiest? I follow the teachings of Jesus every day. Though to be fair I follow the homeless hippie philosopher google ("don't be evil") Jesus, not the flying zombie psychopath ("if you don't eat the living flesh from my body I will send you and everyone you have ever loved to a place of everlasting fire and torment") Jesus.

so then what do you believe?

the ha ha guy: Waldo Pepper: where have i denied anyone a basic human right?

You did not say that you were doing it, you said that there's nothing wrong with it.

If you're going to have a debate, at least try to remember your own words.

/I knew this would be a circular argument, but I didn't expect it to be copy-and-paste level circular.

there is nothing wrong with anyone fighting for what they believe even if they are wrong. on either side.

Waldo Pepper: there is nothing wrong with anyone fighting for what they believe even if they are wrong.

Waldo, Sorry I can't quote you this time through Fark, but you kind of insinuated I demeaned you. Sorry that came off that way, I was just inserting my interpretation of how I see the bible.

You're obviously devout to your way. I can't demean that.

I was wondering, Do you think it's right for Christians to legislate against gays?

LordOfThePings: Waldo Pepper: there is nothing wrong with anyone fighting for what they believe even if they are wrong.

[www.resistanceisfruitful.com image 425x399]

cute

SuperNinjaToad: MAYORBOB: I love the incredible arrogance of, "I was doing this on my property."

Yeah but the noise you were making didn't stay on your property, Tammy Faye.

....and yet double standards (giant loud speakers, 5 times azan daily) are not only applied but actually encouraged for fear of offending the minorities in the good ole USA.

[img2.allvoices.com image 609x480]
Islamic Center, Dearborn MI

Can I sue the three churches in town that ring their bells, which can be heard halfway across town, on the hour?

Waldo Pepper: eddiesocket: Waldo Pepper: no different that the one night stand the chick gets knocked up and she decides to have the baby and the man has to pay child support for a kid he doesn't want.

Holy shiat.

Seriously? Men shouldn't have to pay child support? (Provided of course, they "didn't want" the kid?) You're seriously advocating that? I thought the poster above was being harsh when he said don't procreate, but I had no idea until just now how morally abhorrent you are.

did I say men shouldn't pay child support? dang nothing like making an issue out of nothing. i simply said it is unfair the a man has to pay child support if he doesn't want the kid but the has no say if the woman doesn't want to have the kid and he does. how is that abhorrent? I also said in the "one night stand context"

If you don't know how that's abhorrent, i honestly don't know what to say to you. You're even pro-life. Which means if a man and a woman have a one-night stand and the woman gets pregnant you believe it is wrong and should be illegal for her to have an abortion and that it is unfair for the man to pay child-support. Do I have that right?

Waldo Pepper: so then what do you believe?

I believe that he who is without sin shall cast the first stone. When you can find someone who is without sin, I'll show you someone qualified to fight against things that you believe are wrong.

I can appreciate blasting some good old Johnny Cash, but back in the day my Sunday-morning revelry was performed by Les Claypool and his various troupes.

Finding Waldo used to be hard. Now he screams his opinions from the rooftop and then denies he ever said that at all because lalalala.

Waldo Pepper: so you call what I believe a fairy tale and at no point have I demeaned what you believe by calling it a name

If nothing else, you have a point here. Fark can sometimes get nasty in its anti-Christian rhetoric and name calling is rude.

Waldo Pepper: I doubt animals are gay more like simply horny but honestly I don't care about what animals do sexually.

You should do some reading on the subject, There are animals that are sexually active exclusively with animals of the same gender, even when the opposite sex is around. They even form relationships. There were two gay penguins in a zoo that were pretty popular until the zoo split them up and forced them to procreate. (I'm not some animal nut, I'm not saying the zoo did anything wrong, just reporting what happened)_.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

Bonobo monkeys use homosexuality as part of their social life, not just because they are horny.

fredzilla: Waldo, Sorry I can't quote you this time through Fark, but you kind of insinuated I demeaned you. Sorry that came off that way, I was just inserting my interpretation of how I see the bible.

You're obviously devout to your way. I can't demean that.

I was wondering, Do you think it's right for Christians to legislate against gays?

thank you. I'm sort of amazed I got no love for not having "in God we trust" on the money. lol

if a Christian legislate against Gays purely on their belief in God's word and without hatred for the person/people then I have no issue with it. This is what is great about this country with have the right to fight for what one believes. unfortunately most who legislate against or for anything in this Country have other motives usually revolving around greed, power or both. I feel Obama coming out for gay marriage was a political move and I feel he could careless about gays except it advances his power. I could be wrong. (I don't either candidate ).

i honestly don't know what is the right answer on gay marriage. I think I've indicate what all other areas there is no issue. It is easier to say "sure all should have the same rights" then to stand up and say No I don't feel this is right. if it becomes legal in virginia and when my cousin invites me to his wedding I will go and have a great time and be very happy for him and his spouse. We are both Christian and when we die and go to heaven if being gay is wrong that is between him and God, I will be too busy answering for all my sins especially clicking all those links on the foobies section.

Waldo Pepper: there is nothing wrong with anyone fighting for what they believe even if they are wrong. on either side.

Is there anything wrong with followers of one religious belief actively working to control the daily lives of those who do not share that same religious belief?

eddiesocket: Waldo Pepper: eddiesocket: Waldo Pepper: no different that the one night stand the chick gets knocked up and she decides to have the baby and the man has to pay child support for a kid he doesn't want.

Holy shiat.

Seriously? Men shouldn't have to pay child support? (Provided of course, they "didn't want" the kid?) You're seriously advocating that? I thought the poster above was being harsh when he said don't procreate, but I had no idea until just now how morally abhorrent you are.

did I say men shouldn't pay child support? dang nothing like making an issue out of nothing. i simply said it is unfair the a man has to pay child support if he doesn't want the kid but the has no say if the woman doesn't want to have the kid and he does. how is that abhorrent? I also said in the "one night stand context"

If you don't know how that's abhorrent, i honestly don't know what to say to you. You're even pro-life. Which means if a man and a woman have a one-night stand and the woman gets pregnant you believe it is wrong and should be illegal for her to have an abortion and that it is unfair for the man to pay child-support. Do I have that right?

only from a rights stand point yes you have it wrong. why should a woman have more rights than a man? if all things are equal why does the man have no choice? that is all i'm saying.

If you think christians advocating against gay marriage has nothing to do with hate against a group then I know quite a few folk who would like to have a word with you. Obama doesn't even matter. Denying civil rights to a group whose sexual orientation is different is still denying civil rights. It isn't easier to say standing up against gay rights is easier since people have been denying it for a very long time. I have an aunt who is gay and over 60 years old and struggled with coming out for decades specifically because she knew people would absolutely destroy her self-esteem for not being what they think is normal.

the ha ha guy: Waldo Pepper: so then what do you believe?

I believe that he who is without sin shall cast the first stone. When you can find someone who is without sin, I'll show you someone qualified to fight against things that you believe are wrong.

do you fight against things you believe are wrong?

Waldo Pepper: do you fight against things you believe are wrong?

Does Jesus teach that we should fight against people who hold different opinions?

Waldo Pepper: eddiesocket: Waldo Pepper: eddiesocket: Waldo Pepper: no different that the one night stand the chick gets knocked up and she decides to have the baby and the man has to pay child support for a kid he doesn't want.

Holy shiat.

Seriously? Men shouldn't have to pay child support? (Provided of course, they "didn't want" the kid?) You're seriously advocating that? I thought the poster above was being harsh when he said don't procreate, but I had no idea until just now how morally abhorrent you are.

did I say men shouldn't pay child support? dang nothing like making an issue out of nothing. i simply said it is unfair the a man has to pay child support if he doesn't want the kid but the has no say if the woman doesn't want to have the kid and he does. how is that abhorrent? I also said in the "one night stand context"

If you don't know how that's abhorrent, i honestly don't know what to say to you. You're even pro-life. Which means if a man and a woman have a one-night stand and the woman gets pregnant you believe it is wrong and should be illegal for her to have an abortion and that it is unfair for the man to pay child-support. Do I have that right?

only from a rights stand point yes you have it wrong. why should a woman have more rights than a man? if all things are equal why does the man have no choice? that is all i'm saying.

Things are not equal between men and women involving children. Women have more rights because they are the one stuck with the kid most of the time and they birth the child. Natural law and all.

Waldo Pepper: only from a rights stand point yes you have it wrong. why should a woman have more rights than a man? if all things are equal why does the man have no choice? that is all i'm saying.

Why should an opposite-sex couple have more rights than a same-sex couple? If all things are equal why does the same-sex couple have no choice?

Waldo Pepper: fredzilla: Waldo, Sorry I can't quote you this time through Fark, but you kind of insinuated I demeaned you. Sorry that came off that way, I was just inserting my interpretation of how I see the bible.

You're obviously devout to your way. I can't demean that.

I was wondering, Do you think it's right for Christians to legislate against gays?

thank you. I'm sort of amazed I got no love for not having "in God we trust" on the money. lol

if a Christian legislate against Gays purely on their belief in God's word and without hatred for the person/people then I have no issue with it. This is what is great about this country with have the right to fight for what one believes. unfortunately most who legislate against or for anything in this Country have other motives usually revolving around greed, power or both. I feel Obama coming out for gay marriage was a political move and I feel he could careless about gays except it advances his power. I could be wrong. (I don't either candidate ).

i honestly don't know what is the right answer on gay marriage. I think I've indicate what all other areas there is no issue. It is easier to say "sure all should have the same rights" then to stand up and say No I don't feel this is right. if it becomes legal in virginia and when my cousin invites me to his wedding I will go and have a great time and be very happy for him and his spouse. We are both Christian and when we die and go to heaven if being gay is wrong that is between him and God, I will be too busy answering for all my sins especially clicking all those links on the foobies section.

LOL!

For me, I don't like laws that are bigoted that cavort under the guise of religious basis. Nowhere have I seen an example of non religious people lobbying against gays. Like I said, (and I realize you don't have a beef with) a person's gay sexual preference shouldn't preclude them from having the same rights from a straight person. If there is a law that stipulates marriage is defined as being between a man and woman only, then it has a basis that is not equal for gay people who want to get married. It's a human rights issue. People might not agree with it, but all people should be afforded equal rights.

Well, it's been a long day and I must go to bed now. But thanks as always for the interesting discussion.

liquidsiphon: If you think christians advocating against gay marriage has nothing to do with hate against a group then I know quite a few folk who would like to have a word with you. Obama doesn't even matter. Denying civil rights to a group whose sexual orientation is different is still denying civil rights. It isn't easier to say standing up against gay rights is easier since people have been denying it for a very long time. I have an aunt who is gay and over 60 years old and struggled with coming out for decades specifically because she knew people would absolutely destroy her self-esteem for not being what they think is normal.

sorry for your aunts struggles. it is possible to love someone and not agree with what they are doing doesn't make it hate. the gay issue is tough for Christians anything we say seems harsh,mean or evil.

I thought I was quite clear on what i said if they are pure in heart in working against it from a purely religious standpoint I can't argue. that is their belief. but most who fight against issues in the public forum have other agendas for it.

Waldo Pepper: the ha ha guy: Waldo Pepper: so then what do you believe?

I believe that he who is without sin shall cast the first stone. When you can find someone who is without sin, I'll show you someone qualified to fight against things that you believe are wrong.

do you fight against things you believe are wrong?
You know, I disagree with virtually everything you've said but I would like to thank you for having the balls to defend your beliefs.