Todd Young did not waste any time in proving his continued worthlessness

[bobzilla]

Ok, take your ball and go home then.

there's no point. You will just shou down your opposition to get your way. I've dealt with your kind before. There is no compassion. Only condescension.

 

[buckwacker]

there's no point. You will just shou down your opposition to get your way. I've dealt with your kind before. There is no compassion. Only condescension.

How can I shut down my "opposition", I'm not a mod, I can't ban you. Your free to make your best argument. Compassion does not equal acceptance, and pointing out the truth is hardly condescending. I do find it humorously ironic that you call me condescending, closed minded, uncompasdionate; isn't the act of calling me those things actually congruent with your definition of them?

 

[bobzilla]

How can I shut down my "opposition", I'm not a mod, I can't ban you. Your free to make your best argument. Compassion does not equal acceptance, and pointing out the truth is hardly condescending. I do find it humorously ironic that you call me condescending, closed minded, uncompasdionate; isn't the act of calling me those things actually congruent with your definition of them?

Ive never said I wasn't a condescending *******.... because I am. It's how I can spot is so well. I don't claim to be a compassionate christian following the teachings of Christ. I claim to be an ******* that cares about specific people. If you ain't in that sphere I don't give a ****. And you've managed to insult multiple people in that sphere for me.

 

[buckwacker]

Ive never said I wasn't a condescending *******.... because I am. It's how I can spot is so well. I don't claim to be a compassionate christian following the teachings of Christ. I claim to be an ******* that cares about specific people. If you ain't in that sphere I don't give a ****. And you've managed to insult multiple people in that sphere for me.

So you're emotionally invested. You're making emotional rather than logical arguments.

 

[bobzilla]

So you're emotionally invested. You're making emotional rather than logical arguments.

I made my logical arguments already. Whether or not you read them is on you. Being overly concerned what people do at home is an awful lot like the anti-gunners. Just a different topic. Same actions.

 

[Ziggidy]

The fact that they want to follow in their history and tradition and make it a marriage shouldn’t be ignored.

It's "their" history or tradition? It belongs to the originators. Sort of like some one saying they will follow "their" constitution, the way they see it or want it.

We're allowing redefined history and tradition to lead us. It's gotten us into deep trouble and it's time to stand for what's real and not what one wants to be real.

 

[Tombs]

Since there actually is a legal definition of adult, yes you basically are.

That legal definition seems to have little relevance. We're constantly told kids can consent to radically invasive fetish surgeries.

As long as we allow the line in society to be placed so deep into the degenerate side of things, that moral boundary will always be threatened.

It's surprising to me how few people are comprehending any of this, as they watch the consequences every single day.

 

[buckwacker]

I made my logical arguments already. Whether or not you read them is on you. Being overly concerned what people do at home is an awful lot like the anti-gunners. Just a different topic. Same actions.

I didn't see any logical arguments. What I saw was I have friends that are this way, so I have a different view. That is an emotional argument. What were your views on these issues 30-40 years ago?

I'm not concerned with what they do at home, I'm concerned with what they do in public. What they're doing in public is dragging the moral character of the country into the sewer of sexual deviency to such a degree that we're now being told it's acceptable for 8 year old children to stuff dollar bills in a trannys bra during a drag show, and that we're some sort of bigot for saying oh heck NO. I warned you people during the whole gay marriage debate and before that this was coming if we continue to tolerate>accept>promote sexual deviency, and just as you're doing now, I got the "you're a condescending, closed minded bigot sermon". What will it take to wake you up? Sacrificing your grandchildren to Moloch?

 

[buckwacker]

Since there actually is a legal definition of adult, yes you basically are.

We also used to have legal definitions of man and woman. Where are we now?

 

[Tombs]

I didn't see any logical arguments. What I saw was I have friends that are this way, so I have a different view. That is an emotional argument. What were your views on these issues 30-40 years ago?

I'm not concerned with what they do at home, I'm concerned with what they do in public. What they're doing in public is dragging the moral character of the country into the sewer of sexual deviency to such a degree that we're now being told it's acceptable for 8 year old children to stuff dollar bills in a trannys bra during a drag show, and that we're some sort of bigot for saying oh heck NO. I warned you people during the whole gay marriage debate and before that this was coming if we continue to tolerate>accept>promote sexual deviency, and just as you're doing now, I got the "you're a condescending, closed minded bigot sermon". What will it take to wake you up? Sacrificing your grandchildren to Moloch?

They are ideologically driven like the radical left, crutching on ideology they do not understand to make their arguments for them.

Rights carry responsibilities, and these responsibilities are being ignored.
You can not have a freedom celebrating society without a moral backbone.

 

[bobzilla]

My "logic" has always been what two (or more) consenting adults choose to do with each other is their business not mine. If two brother can legally be married then so be it. Polygamy in many states is illegal, so at this time those states say that is not a legal marriage. Me personally? I don't care and states where it is legal good for them.

But I'm not trying to shove my beliefs down anyone else's throats. I just want to be left the **** alone and I'll leave you alone (again, not personal but royal use of "you")

Post #69

I didn't see any logical arguments. What I saw was I have friends that are this way, so I have a different view. That is an emotional argument. What were your views on these issues 30-40 years ago?

I'm not concerned with what they do at home, I'm concerned with what they do in public. What they're doing in public is dragging the moral character of the country into the sewer of sexual deviency to such a degree that we're now being told it's acceptable for 8 year old children to stuff dollar bills in a trannys bra during a drag show, and that we're some sort of bigot for saying oh heck NO. I warned you people during the whole gay marriage debate and before that this was coming if we continue to tolerate>accept>promote sexual deviency, and just as you're doing now, I got the "you're a condescending, closed minded bigot sermon". What will it take to wake you up? Sacrificing your grandchildren to Moloch?

30 years ago I was 16 and thought the same way. Let others take care of themselves. IF thats the choice they want to make, then it is their choice. It is not for me to judge others, and it is not for me to decide what is right for them.

 

[Denny347]

 

[KLB]

So is this a fact? Seems like a plan to put churches out of business.

View attachment 237386

No it is not. It is a fear of some that the government can try to use a ruling in the 70s against a racially discriminatory school to deny charity status based upon excluding same sex marriages in some way. I do not see this court throwing religious freedom out for this.

The bill is actually very short

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text

She is also apparently ignorant. The bill is being passed because it is just a court ruling right now, and could be reinterpreted at a later date. Passing a law is how it should have been done in the first place.

 

[KLB]

Ok? So we can't speak the truth for fear of offending someone? That is precisely how we've arrived at deviants grooming children, and I won't be quiet about it because it will continue to get worse, particularly when people who should know better sit quietly and tolerate it. I am offened by what they've done to my country, but offending me doesn't carry any currency with those destroying the country through woke cultural marxism. If you haven't figured it out yet, that is the reason we dare not offend them. Every member of the alphabet club is not a militant lunatic, but they are happy enough to use their lunatic friends to bludgeon society into giving them what they want.

You speak your opinion, not truth. You can be a bigot all you want. It is up to the mods whether that is acceptable to be so here.

 

[buckwacker]

You speak your opinion, not truth. You can be a bigot all you want. It is up to the mods whether that is acceptable to be so here.

What is truth? And calling membership bigots is acceptable?

 

[Tombs]

You speak your opinion, not truth. You can be a bigot all you want. It is up to the mods whether that is acceptable to be so here.

It is the truth.

If kids can consent to mutilation and hormones, what else can they consent to?

And if you think that's off topic, remember how we got to this point.

 

[bobzilla]

What is truth? And calling membership bigots is acceptable?

He's merely stating the hard facts. If that gets peoples panties in a wad well too bad. Isn't that what you said?

 

[AndreusMaximus]

No it is not. It is a fear of some that the government can try to use a ruling in the 70s against a racially discriminatory school to deny charity status based upon excluding same sex marriages in some way. I do not see this court throwing religious freedom out for this.

The bill is actually very short

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text

She is also apparently ignorant. The bill is being passed because it is just a court ruling right now, and could be reinterpreted at a later date. Passing a law is how it should have been done in the first place.

I don't know about tax exempt status specifically, but the area of concern seems to be:

(a) In General.—No person acting under color of State law may deny—

...

“(2) a right or claim arising from such a marriage on the basis that such marriage would not be recognized under the law of that State on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals.

I'm not a lawyer, but in layman's terms this section seems to say that any state law regarding marriage has to be applied to same-sex "marriages." So if a state has a law that penalizes organizations that discriminate against interracial marriages, for instance, this section would appear to say that the state now has to enforce that law against organizations that don't recognize same-sex "marriages."

 

[buckwacker]

He's merely stating the hard facts. If that gets peoples panties in a wad well too bad. Isn't that what you said?

Well I'm not sure what hard facts you're referring to. And INGO cant get my panties in a bunch, I'm not that emotionally shallow. And I don't remember saying that.

The question about the acceptability of calling someone a bigot was a reference to the veiled threat of asking for a mod to give me a time out for my saying something he took offense to. It was a bit hypocritical.

 

[bobzilla]

Well I'm not sure what hard facts you're referring to. And INGO can get my panties in a bunch, I'm not that emotionally shallow. And I don't remember saying that.

The question about the acceptability of calling someone a bigot was a reference to the veiled threat of asking for a mod to give me a time out for my saying something he took offense to. It was a bit hypocritical.

You didn't say this:

Ok? So we can't speak the truth for fear of offending someone? That is precisely how we've arrived at deviants grooming children, and I won't be quiet about it because it will continue to get worse, particularly when people who should know better sit quietly and tolerate it. I am offened by what they've done to my country, but offending me doesn't carry any currency with those destroying the country through woke cultural marxism. If you haven't figured it out yet, that is the reason we dare not offend them. Every member of the alphabet club is not a militant lunatic, but they are happy enough to use their lunatic friends to bludgeon society into giving them what they want.

I paraphrased you sorry. Since apparently we are doing the everything literal I'll make sure to use only direct quotes from here on out.

As for the "veiled threat", that was no veiled threat. He was quoting you saying that you weren't a mod and couldn't silence anyone. HE was merely stating that its up to them to decide what is acceptable and not. For someone that's not emotionally engaged you sure have thin skin.