Re: Is the flour De Lis Offensive.
 

As for the rest? Do what everyone else in history has done. start your own church, take all the passages from any and all religions and come up with something that works for ya.

That is the way it has been done since religion began. Jews to Muslim to Catholic to Protestants to Methodist to Baptist to whatever religious group listed afterward and there are many. That is just western Christianity. Hell eastern based religion are up for grabs too. mix and match as far as i am concerned. just come up with something that brings you the peace and spirituality you deserve as husbands and wives. Add an "s" problem solved

Much to about nothing in my book. Maybe just to lazy to start a religion or just to bored not to start trouble.

We all have a minority of trouble makers on every side of a topic that is no way representative of the majority they say they are speaking for.

Ireland was smart. people voted it in and avoided all of this crap. it would have passed a general election vote easily here in the states. To be honest most of America could really care less either way. There is the swing vote it needed. But no it went the legal route so lawyers can make more money,

Morality of the issue? I can not cast the first stone because I am not without sin and I can not sit in judgement because my version of God says it is not my job to do.

Yep God comes in many different version to satisfy all pallets of taste. Kind like Baskin-Robbins. All religions mold God to their needs. I often wonder if God believes we see him as a schizophrenic. I am sure everyone of these so called prophets that twist his words to start a new church got B slapped at the gates for making a mess out a simple message.

Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. end of story.

I wish everyone all the happiness in the world.

Best of luck to everyone when judgement day comes. we all will need it. ;)

If not. I look forward to bumping into everyone as a particle of energy somewhere out there in cosmos someday. :p

Re: Is the flour De Lis Offensive.
 

Re: Is the flour De Lis Offensive.
 

I don't think we can do that. As far as I understand it, citizens do not vote on the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. We can vote on proposed laws, but once the challenge is raised as to whether any law is unconstitutional, it is up to the courts to make a decision.

Re: Is the flour De Lis Offensive.
 

Being offended is a self inflicted wound.

Stories like this make me wanna shoot myself in the face. People... smh

Where the hell is the world going? I suspect women in the media is the problem.

Like this stupid article I took a screenie. I coudn't bear to read it.

Re: Is the flour De Lis Offensive.
 

You are without a doubt the biggest troll on this site. What part of separation of church and state did you not understand? I made it clear people can do whatever they want within their own boundaries. Marriage was created for people to make their relationship legitimate and acceptable to God. You can disagree with that, and not believe in God all you want, but that is why it came into existence. Since that time it has been made into whatever people want to think it is.

If you are gay and want to be in a relationship, do what you want, but you don't need to be married. I'm white, but what if I said I want to be considered a Native American so I can try to qualify for some of that trust fund money? That would be pretty dumb. Well with homosexuals, they don't want to worry themselves with morality but they want to get in on the benefits. Yet there are other ways of getting those benefits.

This is about the "progressive" movement pushing their way through all remaining barriers. It really has less to do with gays as it does for the overall movement, and I've mentioned that before on this site.

You say I'm pushing my beliefs on others? Negative. Again, I am very clear that while I don't support everything that people believe in, I'm not asking them to bend over backwards for me, just don't infringe on things that are sacred for me and those who share the same faith as me. I have news for you, there is only one truth. You can interpret what you believe to be true in many ways, but there can only be one truth. So what kind of christian would I be if I said "well it says this in the bible, but I guess I can make an exception for you"? That's wishy washy, and dishonest.

If you think my words are rambling, then that says a lot about your comprehension skills.

We don't vote on interpretation of the constitution? What is there to interpret? There were certain checks and balances in there to prevent the court from just arbitrarily deciding what law is or what it means. Individual states were supposed to have their own say. I'VE VOTED AGAINST SEX MARRIAGE IN THIS STATE. And now, suddenly, the states have no voice? Good luck coming up with a lie to explain that away.

I never said the Bible was the constitution. But the constitution had a law... what was it again? Oh yeah, that ole separation of church and state again. If you enjoy being controlled by the courts, good luck to you.

And lastly, divorce rates have nothing to do with the "essence of marriage" I spoke of. People who cheat on each other or beat each other or in violation of many things. You think I support those people? Sin comes in many forms, and it's all equally evil. No one is perfect, but we should strive to be. That means when you make a mistake, you own up, learn from it and repent. People who refuse to acknowledge their sins can not be forgiven. And those people are everywhere, unfortunately.

If you don't believe in God in the first place, it will never even occur to you. Why don't you just for a moment consider that God is real. Would it matter how long ago the Bible was written? If it is the word of God, does it become outdated? What if I tell you the stories of your ancestors are outdated and that no one should believe it? Time can't bend truth, only people choose to do so.

Re: Is the flour De Lis Offensive.
 

Calling me names is not going to make you right, you know?

I don't understand it? LOL. It is you who do not seem to understand it. Because you say that, then on the very next sentence you drop this gem:
Oh, and it gets better... you make this statement:
But then you sprinkle your rant with statements like:
Yeah, not pushing anything... right.

You are rambling. My comprehension skills are fine. You are a bible thumper who thinks his bible supersedes the U.S. Constitution.

That is a good one.
Lie? Why would I come up with a lie? It is actually very, very simple. A challenge was made in court against the constitutionality of such actions.

Again, you keep on bringing the separation of church and state, but want your religious beliefs to become the law of the land. Can't you see how you are contradicting yourself here? "There is separation of church and state, but I don't want gays to marry because the bible says only a man a a woman should be married". Do your really not see your contradiction?

So what is this "essence", then? Would it be something like love for each other, respect for each other, commitment to each other? I guess you think such concepts are only possible between a man and a woman? Because the bible tells you so?

The stories of my ancestors, you can tell me whatever you want, but I'd probably have some level of physical evidence of such stories, and at least I can come up with sound, coherent theories, based on that physical evidence. Now obviously, the further time passes, the more diluted this evidence and the stories themselves get.

With the bible, there is no actual evidence most it says is remotely factual. For example: what proof can you give me that Jesus came back to life? Or that he cured leprosy? Or that he made fish and bread rain from the skies? None whatsoever, other than words written by someone a couple thousand years ago, who by the way, was not God himself.

You ask if I've ever considered whether God is real, and I take it you mean the Judaeo-Christian God...I'll ask you this: do you really know why you are a Christian and believe in the Judaist God?

Re: Is the flour De Lis Offensive.
 

Everything I said to you, I stand by 100%. The Constitution was supposed to protect the rights of the church as much as any other party. These judges have usurped the constitution in their rulings. You're basically telling me it's ok for the supreme court top do whatever they want, just because they can. That's a very dangerous thing.

Secondly, I am not contradicting myself in speaking of separation of church and state. My point is very simple. Marriage is (meaning should be) for the church. But I'm not legally forbidding homosexual from entering into some other kind of civil union. It takes no advantages away from them, while allowing the church to practice marriage under it's own laws. Now I'm aware that this will not always include Christian churches, but in cases where people DO try to get married in, say, a protestant church and the pastor says no, the church will be in danger of losing it's tax exempt status, and that isn't to mention the public display it will likely be made into. Just look at how people yourself respond to me taking a stance. And as far as I know you aren't gay. anytime someone on tv is asked for an honest answer about homosexuality and says something as simple as " I don't agree with it", he gets bashed and told to apologize.

What do I mean by essence of marriage? Simple. One man, one woman, united before God. If a man marries a woman, and proceeds to beat her, he is breaking the sanctity of marriage just as much as a homosexual in an obviously much different manner. Sin is Sin. The thing about a same sex marriage is that it's a sin before it even gets started. Now the law doesn't define it that way anymore, yes, I know.

Calling me a bible thumper is the oldest trick in the book. You don't like that I'm not a cowardly PC tool like almost everyone else. I'm not here for a high five.

You don't like that I said there is only one truth? Prove me wrong then. When I said that I made sure to leave the door open for your beliefs, but you're too eager to attack my words and paint me as a hypocrite instead of reading what I say and giving an actual response. I said you can interpret the truth however you want... That means even if you think I'm wrong and you're right (which is the case for both us) there is still only one truth. We can't both be right. In theory, we could both be wrong. But there is a truth, as to how we got here and who is really in charge, or if you are an atheist, that we all just got here from some massive cosmic fart. There aren't multiple answers.

Do I have physical evidence on hand to show you? No, not personally, and neither does an atheist have physical evidence that we weren't created. Why do I believe in God? I'll give you the answer that is easiest to understand. Prophesy. The bible WAS written a long time ago, meaning it couldn't have knowledge of anything going on recently without divine knowledge.

There have been many,many prophecies that have been fulfilled, to perfection. Many of those prophecies were fulfilled within the time frame of the bible, as it was written over a very long period of time. So if you want something more current, look no further than end time prophecy. The signs are everywhere and America is filling out just about the entire list. It would take a lot longer to go through it all, so here is a link with a lot information including where to look in the bible and see it for yourself. Prophecy Being Fulfilled in Current Events

This isn't new to any of us who have followed it, but it is clearly accelerating.

Re: Is the flour De Lis Offensive.
 

Here's a poem for you, Tobias.

The Hollow Men by T S Eliot - Famous poems, famous poets. - All Poetry

Re: Is the flour De Lis Offensive.
 

That is what the lawyers want you to believe.

Gay marriage had nothing to do with a constitutional change. Or any such interpenetration of it. That is just not true.

The battle over state rights was at issue thus constitutional. Not the act of marriage itself. A simple nation wide petition would have forced the issue on a ballot. Much like in the last election were businesses were given the same rights as people in covering up campaign contributions. It easily could have been handle this way. Even without having to word the options as double negatives to make sure it passed.

By going the legal route it allows for more aggressive changes that really only the extremist of the movement want. IE California doing away with husband and wife terminology because it was anti gay and offensive.

Me? I am offended that if i go in and get married we are now a couple. So I am to spend the rest of life making sure anyone who inquires to the state of our marriage is hetero and not homo. This is just the start of making everyone's life more complicated than it has to be. If i lived in California. This will spread.

Why not two simple options husband and wife or couple. hell inter mix them wife and wife and husband and husband even you pick. At least equality is reach. Addition is more peaceful than subtraction. I thought that was the overall goal of this.

Who benefits in the end? not the people. All of this just adds fuel to fire of an already semi volatile situation. It will grow from extreme left vs extreme Right to include those of us who were on the fence about the issue whole time. This will get out of control

Now so called equality is screwing with my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. That is why when it went to the courts i saw this mess coming. something so simple made so dangerous.

The lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank.

Yes we could have done the same as Ireland. The courts could have ruled it so also. They have that right to put it into our hands as a people. But that does not happen anymore in our present day version of democracy. They wanted the mess. It just perpetuation the income of their profession.

This is why Ireland put it to the vote and did not address it as a constitutional issue. They knew this is what would happen. Now they can get married and that is were it ends. Which is exactly what gay couple wanted. They did not want to open this can of worms.

My Irish relatives are having a field day with topic. yet another topic to bust my chops about.

off to the political section in 3 2 1 ;)

Re: Is the flour De Lis Offensive.
 

No. I am telling you is that the SCOTUS ultimately interprets the US Constitution. That is all.

Like it or not, today, marriage is a legal biding civil contract. And marriage is not the exclusivity of the Christian church, not even close. Marriage has been around in one form or another for much, much, much longer than the bible says the Earth is old.

No fully familiar with the law, but the U.S. is one of the countries who accepts a church marriage as a legal civil binding contract (which should not be, since there is alleged separation of church and state). And it simply comes down to, if you take advantage of government laws, you have to abide by all of them, not just the ones convenient to you.

I respond how? You don't like that I don't agree with you? You don't like that I don't discuss what the bible says from a point of view the bible is right?

No, I am not.

If that is what it means to you, ok. But you don't get to impose that on everyone just because "the bible says so".

It is not "the oldest trick in the book". It is what it is. When you use your bible and your religion to argue matters of civil law, when you think what the bible says should supersede what civil law says, that is what makes you a bible thumper. And good to know that for you "almost everyone else" is a "cowardly PC tool".

I'm a bit confused by all of that. Do you want me to prove you wrong that there is only 1 truth, or that your truth is wrong? 2 different things. The former, big philosophical debate.

I don't know if an atheist per se, but science does have physical evidence of the origins of mankind... oh, wait, forgot being a cowardly PC tool: humankind. Science has theories based on physical evidence. Are these theories correct? Are they the truth? By definition, a theory is not a fact, so these theories could be wrong, but they are the best we got based on what we know to be factual.

I asked you if you knew why you were a Christian. But you didn't go far enough. So let me rephrase: do you know why most of the Western Hemisphere is Christian? I'll tell you the answer... Constantine The Great, and the expansion of the Holy Roman Catholic Church through the Roman Empire, mostly by the sword, as well as its offshoots in Spain, France and England, and more proliferation by the sword (you know, crusades, inquisitions...). Had you been born in the Eastern Hemisphere, you probably would not be a Christian.

As for prophesies, please. Just about every culture that has any prophesies, they all refer to similar things: natural disasters, war, an evil nation that would conquer the world, pestilence, famine, persecution... but it doesn't occur to you, all of those, humans have experienced them in one way or another, over and over, for millions of years. So what a stretch it is to predict them, uh?

Re: Is the flour De Lis Offensive.
 

Sorry, but no. It had nothing to do with states rights. That may have been the argument people against it put forth, but this whole gay marriage thing is definitely about individual rights and equal treatment of individuals under the U.S. Constitution.

As far as I know, states can govern themselves, and create their own laws, but have no right to defy the U.S. Constitution. A state cannot turn around and say, for example "we are repealing the 13th amendment".

Re: Is the flour De Lis Offensive.
 

Thanks?

Re: Is the flour De Lis Offensive.
 

Do you know what is offensive? Al Sharptons breath. True story. I waited on him and about 10 others at a restaurant where I worked several years back. He had horrible halitosis. We all noticed it. We were not right in his face either. He also tipped like ****. I think I got like 10 bucks on a $1200 bill.

Re: Is the flour De Lis Offensive.
 

Why don't you guys take this discussion elsewhere? There is nothing wrong with a good healthy debate but find the right place for it please. I thought this was a Saints football site and this debate on here seems to have gone on a bit too long. Have your beliefs and show some respect. Now, who's for some waffles...:p

Re: Is the flour De Lis Offensive.
 

I'm in ... open 24/7, baby ... yum, :D.

http://www.mrconservative.com/files/...ffle-house.jpg

Re: Is the flour De Lis Offensive.
 

See that is my whole point. This in truth had nothing to do with marriage. That was the what the lawyers sold it as. legal con job in my book. That is why marriage itself was dealt with as an issue all by itself in Ireland. Now comes the rest of the issues. which in my opinion should have been done separate from the marriage issue.

The shot gun effect of gay rights laws passed over the years was yet another con job done by lawyers. All these laws scattered all over the place and needed to be rounded up and packaged into one complete court case to deal with equality once and for all. But once again that is not supported by the Lawyers.

By doing it this way lawyers have made a dysfunctional set of laws for one group a mess for an even larger portion of society. Which it never needed to be. Add in the marriage to all the other other laws scattered all over the place would have been a strong court case to simplify the laws about gay rights.

This yet again a case were the Legal profession in this country has gone out of their way to perpetuate their profession.

By going along with the lawyers both side have shot themselves in the foot and made a mess into a total disaster.

The supreme court left it to states for so long because they had a good idea this is what would happen. But once you get judges that see the mess that can made and the money to had it was a done deal.

Sorry ethics and morality no matter what side of this issue your on has little to do with the reason the courts went the way they did. they do not care either way IMO. this was a money grab by them.

Courts send the marriage issue to the voters on a national level and tell both sides to get their act together and clean up the mess on the books once and for all.

So in summary ;)

IMO marriage would pass and it would be the nail in the coffin on this topic

With the coffin nailed gay rights can be addressed and established once and for all.

This is the way they are forcing the issue in Ireland

But the way we are proceeding now it will years upon years till a true law on gay rights ever gets on the books. We all get hurt and the lawyers get rich.

Re: Is the flour De Lis Offensive.
 

What other issues? And yes, it had to do with marriage, and individuals of the same sex not being allowed to enter into the civil contract known as marriage. And no, Ireland did not do it right.

Shotgun effect? What shotgun effect? And these are not "gay rights laws". They are the correct interpretation of "all men are created equal" and "the inalienable right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" for everyone.

That is not the case. At all.

And again, there is no such thing as gay rights. Unless you get the right to do something specifically because you are gay, and others can't because they are not gay, no such thing as gay rights.

Re: Is the flour De Lis Offensive.
 

Ireland did grant civil contracts. they are now working on the other laws so there is no misunderstanding or better yet ambiguous laws to protect a persons rights beyond the marriage laws.

In the US laws that indirectly or directly applied to gay rights are on the books. The issue is almost all of them are not clearly stated. Way to much time is needed in court to establish rights to use a law for ones protection. that is probably a better way of putting it. that is the shotgun effect i was talking about. Lawyers making themselves money.

The marriage laws passed here is truly ambiguous at best. Nothing beyond the marriage was addressed clearly. that's is were i point at the lawyers for being at fault. They knew this going in and they knew this when they ruled on it. The judges that ruled against it did not have issue with the rights of gay marriage as much as the issue of the way it was presented. Ambiguous. Lawyers love ambiguous. It makes them needed and makes them money.

I am glad we are not on opposites sides of the big picture on this.