I only have time for a quick post today, so let us take note of the happy fact that Obama has now come out squarely in support of gay marriage. In an interview today he said:
I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.
The real news here is that Obama plainly believes it is now a political winner for him to take this stand, or at least not a political loser. Anyone remotely willing to read between the lines of his previous public statements on this issue could tell that he personally did not have a problem with gay marriage, but he was afraid of the political repercussions of coming out in favor of it.
There's still a real political risk here. The people who are opposed to gay marriage tend to be really, really opposed to it. There's a danger that dispirited Republican voters who might have stayed home rather than bother to vote for Romney might now be more motivated to vote. In a state like North Carolina, which went for Obama last time but which also just voted in favor of a draconian anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment, that could make a difference.
So good for Obama for taking a courageous stand on an important social issue. The Democrats have been weak and craven for too long on these sorts of questions. Now if we could only get them to come out squarely in support of women's reproductive rights and the separation of church and state.
- Log in to post comments
Hmmm, I have a hard time viewing it as a courageous stand now that the plurality of the population is supporting it. It would have been courageous four years ago. Now, he runs a political risk regardless of whether he's for it or against it. How long could he claim to have "evolving" views? Perhaps a galvanized left will counteract any increased hatred by the right.
I don't know that the election in North Carolina is predictive of the state's views on SSM, since it was an off-year, off-cycle election, since it had early voting open on Sunday (when - presumably - lots of Christians who were also voting in the primary cast their lots), it was associated with a GOP primary, and it wasn't (by all that I've heard) really well understood or well appreciated by the populace. In other words, of the population that voted for the anti-SSM amendment probably over-represent their group, while those who didn't have a stake in the primary, those who do support civil unions (or SSMs), those who weren't well informed, etc. are far more likely to vote in the general. (And now that the NC amendment issue is kicking up a shitstorm down there, it's likely that even more anti-amendment 1 voters will show up in Nov than did yesterday.)
I have never really understood the whole gay so called marriage thing. Then again this goes back to evolution versus creationism:
God created Adam and Adam was lonely because he saw all of the beasts of the field (including dinosaurs) that God had made but there was no other like him. God then made a companion for Adam which was another man called Steve. No. That canât be right. How would Adam and Steve follow the commands of God to âbe fruitful and multiplyâ (not be selfish and murder our unborn child) if there was no woman?
So, here is how it all went down: God created Adam and Adam was lonely because he saw all of the beasts (including dinosaurs) that God had made but there was no other like him. God then made a companion for Adam which was a WOMAN.
I guess that about raps that argument up for eternity.
If you really wish to know the thoughtsof God on gay marriage read Genesis chapters 18 and 19. Then ask yourself if that is the destiney you really want for your children. That should sum up whose side you are on.
...Wow, 'Rob' is seriously off his nut. Or the greatest Poe I've ever seen. His blog is not something that should be read.
Rob @3 - Thank you for clearly illuminating the issue. Your post makes it perfectly clear that objection to SSM are entirely religious. Further, that attempts to outlaw SSM are quite correctly seen as efforts by a religious minority to inflict their religion upon all citizens under force of law.
Since marriage is a religious thing and God created it and you are publicly trying to outlaw religious beliefs by force of law then your post on same sex fake marriage explains things well too.
Legalizing two people of the same gender to "marry" may eventually become reality all over the place but the remaining church who has not become apostates will nebver accept it. By your definition and reasoning the legalization of same gender "marriage" then you are thereby outlawing the free practice of religion since under religious laws homosexuality is a sin?
I suppose if you feel that way its ok, but what about your good buddies in the Muslim Brotherhood? What will they have to say about all of this?
I know how america liberals love to challenge christianity and even try to ban it ain all areas of life and history, but I can't wait until they start standing up to Islam on this issue. Perhaps muslims will not take this issue as camly as the christian religions has.
I wouldn't put too much weight on pronouncements such as this from Obama. This will be tossed aside the moment he thinks he needs some Republican votes.
@2 The NC election had very little to attract Republicans since the Presidential and Governor races were already known. Conservatives had to come out to vote for the amendment and they did. There was a very good effort that was well financed to oppose the amendment, but it only garnered 38% of the vote.
The Black churches predominantly supported the amendment and members came out to support it, although the state NAACP opposed it. Other than the amendment, this primary was a bitter fight among many Democrats for a lot of state offices, and many voted for the amendment. After the primary the current governor declared herself for marriage as man with woman only. A sentiment apparently shared by enough other Democrats to carry the amendment. The Charlotte area and the Research Triangle area voted no.
@Rob (the other Rob): I'm fairly sure no one thinks churches should be forced to carry out ceremonies against their beliefs, as you're suggesting. The debate is about who can legally get a marriage license from the government. That's it.
But it seems clear to me that we're going to go all the way, soon -- and the next step is *obligatory* same-sex marriage -- where not only are good, God-fearing Americans prevented from marrying members of the opposite sex, they're legally forced into a same sex marriage, including a federally-funded honeymoon in Amsterdam.
The Pope himself, eventually becoming subject to the laws of the new world order as socialist America accepts the euro and integrates with European governments, will likely be forced into marriage with the most senior of the cardinals, and the two will be forced to sit uncomfortably together in the viewing chamber in the Pope mobile on future tours.
For this, and this alone, I say: I want this future.
I has to ROFLMAO at whackjobs like Mr. Rob who, apparently, have never read their holy book.
Mr. Rob quotes the 2nd book of Genesis which talks about the creation of Adam before the creation of all the other animals. They conveniently forget that the 1st book of Genesis claims that the other animals were created first before the creation of the first man, who, by the way is never identified as Adam there. And, it should be added that in the 1st book of Genesis, there is no mention of Eve being created from one of Adam's ribs.
They will never accept, unless they do, in which case they will claim that they have always accepted and all that talk about being anti-gay-marriage is a lie propagated by evil atheists and liberals, just like they did with slavery, the civil rights movement, women's rights, etc.
American Christianity has been on the wrong side of every societal issue, and it has always gone on to take credit for its own defeat. And the sheeple always swallow it.
Yeah, ain't it nice that we've always been at war with Eastasia?
Obama: I support gay marriage personally, but I so sincerely respect the 10th amendment, which I have heretofore ignored, that I will maintain that the states must have final say. Pay no attention to the 27 states suing me on 10th amendment grounds. No, seriously, please donât. My hands are tied by the hawser of federalism. Now go but health insurance.
Yes, his courage is inspiring.
@SLC
Haven't you heard? contradictions in the Bible are proof that every part of it is true.
A relevant link from 2009: The Varieties of Biblical Marriage.
Contradictions? What contradictions? There are entire books written devoted to contradicting your so called biblical contradictions. A new one out just this month is called "Demolishing Supposed Bible Contradictions" written by Tim Chaffey, Bodie Hodge, and Ken Ham. There are hundreds elsewhere written by other authors. Your so called biblical contradictions do not exist. Sounds like you took the bait my friend.
Obama decided to come out of the closet becuase he needed the money that this wonderful news of a president endorsing sin would bring. Once he gets his votes and his money, he will just change his mind again. Besides he claims he is NOT muslim, but christian. In either case homosexuality is viewed as sin in BOTH religions so he contradicts his religion by supporting anti-God actions of gay "marriage".
APOSTATE American Christianity has been on the wrong side of every societal issue, and it has always gone on to take credit for its own defeat.
I suppose secularism has been on the right side of every societal issue. Wasn't is atheism and secularism that was the epicenter of soviet communism? Tell me, under communism how many poor people rose to the top? The answer is NONE becuase it is illegal for anyone but the overseeing barons of government to be rich in such a society. We have all seen how income equality works. Everyone ends up equally poor. Take Germany for instance. At one time it was deemed a human right for everyone to own a car. So they did. A plastic and cardboard car with a crappy three cylinder engine that smokes so much you would swear you were driving a volcano to work provided you had work to go to. Once the cars broke down you didn't fix them, you crumpled them up and threw them away. Literally. The doors were made of cheap particle board. If the paint got scratched and it rained then the doors swelled up and you couldn't open or shut them. Eventually it rotted and fell off.
Income equality at its finest example. Everyone has the right to own this or that. Yep. What they don;t tell you is that everyone is equal and owns the exact duplicate of each others crappy devices. Since there is no competition and no mney to be made, all that exists is crap that don't work and everyone is equal. Equally miserable.
Socialism is a plan to defund the wealthy and make everyone equally poor. Under this system only the politicians who make the rules get wealthy. Sound familiar? Worked great for Greece. A society of Gimme. Gimme. Gimme. And government gave and gave and gave until all there was to give was gone and none was left. Now they are griping becuase all their free stuff is gone. I suppose the magic fairy could just make more free stuff again. We all know free stuff just pops out of thin air. No one has to work for it you know.
Rob@16:
Emphasis added.
Rob, buddy, you may want to choose references that don't include known charlatans.
Re Rob @ #16
A question for Mr. Rob. In his considered opinion, is Mitt Romney a Christian?
You mean a Renault 4? My sister owned one of those. The plastic windows slid sideways instead of opening, and the floor was wood and cardboard. Awesome car; she bought it used, it got her around town for 2 years, and it broke down once. I think she had to change the spark plugs and fan belt. Which she could do herself, because the engine was easy to work around.
Of course, it was a manual transmission with the shifter on the wheel. Get thee behind me, Satan!
But I digress. Rob, I fully get that you think its a sin, and you're completely entitled to your opinion. By all means, don't marry another man if you think its an offense against God. But...none of this is a reason to make it illegal. Do you have a reason why other people, non-Christians and the like, should be required to adhere to biblical morality?
"There's a danger that dispirited Republican voters who might have stayed home rather than bother to vote for Romney might now be more motivated to vote."
You're responsible for your own actions, not the actions of others unless you intend those consequences.
I thought Republicans were all for "taking responsibility". Seems they were lying.
"God created Adam and Adam was lonely because he saw all of the beasts of the field (including dinosaurs) that God had made but there was no other like him."
And he refuse to procreate with any of them, as God had intended. So God created Eve. He didn't HAVE to make it a woman (though since this story is complete bollocks, it would be hard to have one where there were no women on earth).
If you're going to believe PART of a fairy story, you have to believe it all, kid.
Wow, where did you get that from? I mean every sentence is wrong on so many levels.
I have never really understood the whole gay so called marriage thing.
Yeah, Rob, that's pretty obvious. Come back when you do understand it, okay?
Oh, and you don't seem to understand what the Bible is about either. Read this little pamphlet for some protips:
http://www.psa91.com/pdf/whatthebiblesays.pdf
Worked great for Greece. A society of Gimme. Gimme. Gimme. And government gave and gave and gave until all there was to give was gone and none was left.
I see Rob doesn't understand recent economic events either. Here's a hint: Greece's current problems started with a flood of loans made by banks who put their own profits above longer-term fiscal responsibility. Sort of like all those subprime loans, mortgage-backed this and that, and other scams that worked so well for America.
Of course, admitting the truth about Greece is kinda dangerous, since it would soon force right-wing morons like Rob to admit a similar truth about America.
Re Rob
Here's something else for Mr. Rob to explain. Yeshua of Nazareth promised his followers that he would return while some of them still lived. And, courtesy of a fellow calling himself barefoot runner over at Larry Moran's blog, here's the exact excerpt:
Matthew 16:27-28: âFor the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.â
Now, nearly 2000 years later, ole Yeshua has yet to make an appearance. Somehow I don't think the any of his followers at the time are still around and kicking.
@ WOW
I do believe it all. Even the part about THERE WAS NO DEATH BEFORE SIN and that yes ADAM was the only human on the planet. He didn't procreate with animals becuase that is a sin, is disgusting, and animals are not people. They do not have souls and are not accountable for their creator. You have a warped mind my friend.
@Raging Bee
I know all about the banks and loans, but correct if if i am mistaken here: Was it not the GOVERNMENT who forced banks to make loans to people who could not afford to pay back the loans all in the name of humans rights to own a home? You can blame liberalism for that one. Two names come to mind that deserve a prison sentence: Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. They basically bankrupted America. Bush may have helped by doing some damage of his own, but the whole "its a human right to own a home so give everyone a loan wether they can pay for it or not" mentality far preceded Bush and it is this marxist style thinking that brought many problems.
As for banks making profits, is that not the whole point of a business to make money? There is a difference between a business and a charity. You need to learn that difference. Academia has you trapped. Live in the real world for one day and leave academia behind anf you will learn how things work outside of pages in a book.
@SLC
Look around my friend. The end times are here. Muslims are yelling for the return of the mahdi (anti-christ), the Jews have returned to Israel, the left is pushing a single currency system and a world government. The Jews are planning to rebuild the temple - the very temple from which the anti-christ and his prophet will rule. Looks like the prophecy is coming true to me. He will come back, but not before all that was prophecied has come true. It is happening before our very eyes. Wake up.
Re Rob @ #26
And Mr. Rob tries to weasel out. Yeshua of Nazareth said he would return before the death of all those listening to him. He didn't do so. Period, end of story.
As For Dodd/Frank, that was passed after the big meltdown so Mr. Rob's claim that it caused the big meltdown is a lie.
The claim that the government forced the banks to loan money to marginal individuals and that caused the big meltdown is another lie. The banks made the loans under the mistaken theory that property values would continue to rise into the infinite future and that, if the loanees defaulted, the banks could take over the properties and resell them at a profit. Unfortunately, the notion of property values increasing into the infinite future collapsed when, instead, they decreased, leaving the banks upside down.
As for the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, in order to do that, the Dome of the Rock would have to be demolished. That, of course, would set off a world wide religious war so there is not the slightest chance that the Government of Israel will do any such thing.
I do believe it all. Even the part about THERE WAS NO DEATH BEFORE SIN and that yes ADAM was the only human on the planet. He didn't procreate with animals becuase that is a sin, is disgusting, and animals are not people. They do not have souls and are not accountable for their creator. You have a warped mind my friend.
Mr. Rob has failed to tell us whether, in his considered opinion, Neanderthals had souls. Or Homo Erectus had souls. Or Australopithecus Afarensis had souls. He has also failed to tell us whether they had representatives on the Ark.
Mr. Rob has also failed to tell us why the first book of Genesis tells us that the two first humans were created after all the other animals (by the way, they are not named there and there is nothing about the first woman being created from a rib) and the second book of Genesis tells us that Adam was created before the other animals, with Eve being created after the other animals from a rib. Mr. Rob is a typical Christofascist who hasn't bothered to read his own holy book but instead relies on lying slimeballs like Ken Ham.
Re Rob
Relative to the business or procreation, let me explain something to Mr. Rob, who, apparently, has been living his entire life in a closet. When the Hebrew Bible was written, based on campfire fables by itinerant goat herders, the folks in those days were totally ignorant of biology. These days, it is quite possible for gay men and lesbian women to procreate via a process known as in vitro fertilization. Ever here of former Vice-President Cheney's lesbian daughter Mary who has had 2 children via this process?
Re Rob
Mr. Rob has also failed to inform us as to whether he considers Mitt Romney a Christian.
No, people in those times were NOT ignorant of Biology. They knew the difference between men and women and Knew that God created a woman as a man's mate. This had been know for quite some time, my friend.
As for as lesibains having babies through in vitro, just becuase it can be done doens not mean that it should be done.
Mitt Romney is a Mormon. His personal views on Christ I know nothing about sonce I have never conversed with him on a personal level. He says he is christian, so i take his word for it. Only he knows for sure.
Ken Ham has brought about a revolution against evolution and should be given an award for standing up to fake science.
All animals had some type of representative on the ark since each species comes from one KIND as is stated in the Bible. A wolf and a coyote snd German Shepherd are different animals even though they are the same KIND of animal.
Christofacist? I bet you have never used Islamofacist in a sentence have you? have you ever used Atheistofascist in a sentence? I prefer the term Secular Oppressive myself. It is more modern yet more accurate.
As for you bearded buddy Darwin, he was just a lonely old slave owner who had little to contribute to society other than his hatred of God and his hellbent intentions on secularizing the world through whtaever means necessary.
As for you bearded buddy Darwin, he was just a lonely old slave owner who had little to contribute to society other than his hatred of God and his hellbent intentions on secularizing the world through whtaever means necessary.
Another lie from Mr. Rob. Darwin never owned slaves and, in fact could not have owned slaves because the practice had been made illegal in Great Britain before he was born. As a matter of fact, Darwin and his influential in-laws, the Wedgewoods, were front and center in preventing the British Government from intervening in the Civil War on the Confederate side, in addition to which, Darwin and his family were fervent opponents of slavery. Mr. Rob has been reading the lies of too many right wing web sites.
Christofacist? I bet you have never used Islamofacist in a sentence have you? have you ever used Atheistofascist in a sentence? I prefer the term Secular Oppressive myself. It is more modern yet more accurate.
Actually, I have used the term Islamofascist. There is very little difference between Christofascists and Islamofascists. Both are authoritarian bigots.
Mitt Romney is a Mormon. His personal views on Christ I know nothing about sonce I have never conversed with him on a personal level. He says he is christian, so i take his word for it. Only he knows for sure.
Mr. Rob tries to weasel out of answering my question. So I'll rephrase it. Are Mormons Christians. Just for Mr. Rob's information, Mr. Romney is a devout Mormon.
As for as lesibains having babies through in vitro, just becuase it can be done doens not mean that it should be done.
So our Christofascist commenter, Mr. Rob, is in favor of making in vitro fertilization illegal. Would he also recommend that Ms. Cheney's children be taken away from her?
Ken Ham has brought about a revolution against evolution and should be given an award for standing up to fake science.
Mr. Ham is as phoney as a 3 dollar bill, is a congenital lying piece of filth, and deserves to be in jail like Kent Hovind.
I notice that Mr. Rob failed to answer the question relative to Neanderthals, Homo Erectus, and Australopithecus Afarensis.
No, people in those times were NOT ignorant of Biology. They knew the difference between men and women and Knew that God created a woman as a man's mate. This had been know for quite some time, my friend.
Well, they certainly knew the difference between men and women. King Solomon had several hundred wives and several hundred concubines. A pretty randy fellow that.
Neanderthals were a different race of men, estimated to be more intelligent than the secular society gives them credit for. As for the others, all different races of men. Same thing.
I am not in favor of making in vitro illegal. I am in favor of making GMO foods illegal and ethanol illegal and most abortions illegal (except in some rare cases). The nuclear bomb was built. Just becuase we could do it, does that mean we should do it? We can manufacure killer viruses in a lab that could wipe out mankind in weeks, but just becuase we CAN, does that mean we should?
I support Ken Ham and many other patriots who has led a campaign against the lies of evolution. He alone has opened the eyes of millions. The only reason secular oppressives hate him so much is that he is tearing down secularism one step at a time by reminding Christians how Christianity got started - IN GENESIS. The entire faith of christianity is baseless without the story of Genesis. Evolutionists have tried for over a century to tear it down, yet it remains very strong indeed. God Bless Ken Ham. Every time you talk bad about him, I make it a point to send him some money. Kind of like When the liberals all rallied around Obama after he instantaneously chnaged his mind on gay so called marriage. He changed his mind to get donations. Kind of the same thing you accuse Ham of doing? At least Ham has some progress to show for his work wheras said mentioned president lacks little positive. He wants to make America like Europe and most American just cannot sit by and let that nightmare happen.
I do not believe that Mormanism is a legitimate faction of christianity, so NO I do not believe Romney is a christian. Joseph Smith, like Muhammed, is a self made prophet and more people worship this false prophet than do the God whom he is supposed to be representing.
You cna call me a bigot and you can call a muslim a bigot as well. But do you really want to do that since both of us outnumber your side considerably? I do not think it is a fight you could win. Besides, you get off light by calling me a bigot. Call Habib Jafar Hussein a bigot and you get your head chopped off. So, we are not the same. Oh, and by the way, when the madhi does come and Islam rules the world you will be forced to apologize to muslims for your bigot remark or get beheaded. Since Christianity is at least number one or number religion in the world I do not see evangelists calling for your head when you call them names. Just pointing out a slight difference in religion there.
I don't see any reason in any of your posts for why gay marriage should be illegal. People who want to follow your brand of Christianity can choose not to marry someone of the same sex. That's your right, and nobody will force you do marry anyone you don't want to marry. Why should the rest of us be forced by law to live according to this biblical proscription?
Rob@32:
The only thing Ken Ham is doing one step at a time is increasing his bank account at the expense of low information folks like you.
It seems fairly certain that had you been living in Los Angeles in 1925, you would have been forking over money you could not afford to waste over to Sister Amy. Or in Oklahoma City in 1975, over to Oral Roberts.
These characters know that there is gold - GOLD! - in them thar rubes; it's just a shame you line up so enthusiastically to get screwed over.
Re Rob @ #32
Given the nuclear arsenals of the US, Britain, France, Russia, India, and Israel, I don't think that the Muslims are going to take over the world anytime soon.
A fellow named Frankenberger thought he was going to take over the world in 1939 and Germany, then, was far stronger then any combination of Muslim countries today. He ended up chewing on a vial of cyanide in his bunker in Berlin in 1945 with the Red Army knocking on the door.
Relative to nuclear weapons, I would argue that the possession of such weapons by the US and the former Soviet Union almost certainly prevented WW3 between NATO and the former Soviet Union. A lot of folks think that the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) was immoral and maybe it was. However, it was certainly more moral then WW3 would have been.
I would further point out that the 30 years war between Protestants and Catholics in the 17th Century inflicted more deaths as a fraction of the population of Europe then either WW1 or WW2 did. We can only be thankful that Gustavus Adolphus, Count Tilly, and von Wallenstein didn't have 20th century conventional weapons available to them or the entire population of Europe would have been wiped out.
But muslims have already taken Europe. They are catered to and coddled in every way conceivable. Even though Britain is involved in the war on terror, islam has already taken over there. It replaced christianity many years ago as the number one religion.
Eventually the "Mahdi" will return. He will be so slick and so peaceful talking and so smooth talking that the whole world will follow his ideas. Eventually there will be another world war as a result. There will be a mass invasion of Israel by God and Magog (Russia and many middle east countries). The enemies of Israel will be crushed under ice blocks as big as a man that fall from the sky. God will not let His people be defeated permanently.
Somehow Islam will play a vast part in the end times. The mahdi is described in almost every way as the anti-christ who will control the entire globe and those who do not bow to him will be beheaded.
I am probably wasting my time telling you these things since you view end times prophecies the same way I view evolution - non existant.
I leave you with one last comment. Go ahead and let people who choose to be gay "marry" each other. Technically they are not really married anyway since marriage is God ordained and God does not accept homosexuality as anything other than sin. So even if some states recognize so called marriage between people of the same gender, real churches never will and it is unconstitutional to force churches to perform apostate services.
I do hope America does not become the dictatorship that Britain has become. The whole side of that world has gone beyond insane. Must be something in the water. Then again the lack of christianity and the turn of secular oppression has dulled the minds of the people there to the point of become communists. The very evil that britain and most of europe has strugled against, they have now become, and looks like we are headed in that dangerous direction. We can only hope that we could get a real true conservative prsident one day to turn things back before it is too late.
I am probably wasting my time telling you these things since you view end times prophecies the same way I view evolution - non existant.
Mr. Rob is certainly correct here as his chances of convincing anyone who reads this blog with his insane ravings are slim and none and none is on the bus headed out of town.
We can only hope that we could get a real true conservative prsident one day to turn things back before it is too late.
Like Rousas John Rushdoony per chance.
I leave you with one last comment. Go ahead and let people who choose to be gay "marry" each other. Technically they are not really married anyway since marriage is God ordained and God does not accept homosexuality as anything other than sin. So even if some states recognize so called marriage between people of the same gender, real churches never will and it is unconstitutional to force churches to perform apostate services.
Just for the information of Mr. Rob, nobody is proposing that ministers, priests, rabbis, etc. be forced to perform same sex marriages.
Furthermore, Mr. Rob is seriously in error in claiming that individuals choose to be attracted to the same sex. They are born that way. Mr. Rob is as ignorant of the biology of inheritance as he is of evolutionary biology.
Hey Rob, I've just donated $100 to Planned Parenthood in your name.
The dollar is weak compared to my local currency, so I'm going to give an extra $10 for every new contradiction you make, and every mention of your Sky Daddy.
Deal?
Think of how many women you'll be helping!
President Obama supported same-sex marriage back in 1992 and signed a statement then saying that he would fight to keep it from being made illegal. So how has he changed his mind.
Please respond to the fact that the Darwins were not slave-owners but in fact abolitionists. At that time, Britain was embargoing American slave traders on the high seas.
If planned parenthood is involved, think of how many women I will be HURTING. Not to mention babies. How many deaths of babies is Planned Parenthood responisble for now? Who knows after 55 million abortions nationwide and counting it's hard to keep up with which wretched organization is the worst. Just since 1973, more human deaths have occured through abortion than through all of the wars that has ever been fought by man combined. Abortion is the nuclear warhead of the left wing movement.
"How many deaths of babies is Planned Parenthood responisble for now?"
Since spontaneous abortion is far more common, how many deaths of babies is God responsible for, now?
Not to mention all the deaths after birth, of both child and mother.
correct if if i am mistaken here: Was it not the GOVERNMENT who forced banks to make loans to people who could not afford to pay back the loans all in the name of humans rights to own a home?
Those were not the loans that dragged our financial sector under; like most right-wing dupes looking for an excuse to blame the poor for the misdeeds of the rich, you're confusing CRA loans with subprime loans. It was the latter that undermined our financial system; and no, the government did NOT force anyone to make them.
I do hope America does not become the dictatorship that Britain has become.
Okay, this Rob guy is completely unhinged. Who's the British "dictator" -- David Cameron or the Queen? (Don't worry about getting the wrong answer here -- we'll just laugh your ass back home either way.)
Come to think of it, perhaps Rob is a LaRouchie.
Look around my friend. The end times are here.
I heard lots of people saying that in the 1970s, when the alleged end-date was sometime in 2000. You End-Times escapists don't learn your mistakes, do you?
Well, one day they'll be right.
At least for them (the centre of the universe), it will end. But they don't like the idea.
"Was it not the GOVERNMENT who forced banks to make loans to people who could not afford to pay back the loans"
No. The banks didn't have to, they chose to.
They were forbidden from using merely the LOCATION of the home to determine whether a loan could be made.
Before then, you may have been absolutely 100% able to afford a mortgage, but you wouldn't be given one. Just as if they had decided "You're black, you cannot have a mortgage".
Nothing was changed about what was allowed to rate the financial situation to allow a mortgage to go ahead.
Besides, it was the derivative market that CAUSED the crash, along with naked credit swaps. Neither to do with mortgages, and all to do with the richest people skimming off the top.
Rob @36:
On both of these, we wholeheartedly agree. Though I'd lose the scare quotes.
Though "marry" does seem to be appropriate for many fundie marriages where it doesn't even last out the cake.
Problem is, Rob "knows", despite every evidence to the contrary, that gay marriage laws will FORCE him to attend gay marriage and FORCE churches to officiate.
Even though it exists NOWHERE in reality, Rob doesn't have to look there.
NOWHERE in reality, Rob doesn't have to look there.
For now my friend, but once gay marriage is legalized the gays will then be sueing to get churches to accept their way of life. It is coming. One step at a time. Next thing you know churches will be sured for discrimination and be sued for not allowing gay ceremonies in the church. That day will come. Mark my words. Some churces do this anyways, they are apostates.
As fas as the financial system is concerned I will admit there was some pretty shady deals going on and perhpas some big bankers di do some wromg things and if this is the case, NONE of them should have been bailed out. Besides much of the bailout money went to solar panel compnies where billions of dollars dissapperaed into thin air. Many of Obama's buddies got this money.
Rob, Roman Catholic churches don't have to marry Protestants. Baptist churches don't have to marry Mormons. Heck, Christian Identity churches don't have to marry black people.
Churches that don't want to marry gay couples are safe.
Rob@47:
$700 billion (Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 enacted October 3, 2008) >>> $527 million (Solyndra)
from Wikipedia:
Rob, buddy, it seems clear where your problems are coming from. You are relying on highly unreliable sources for your information.
NJ "Rob, buddy, it seems clear where your problems are coming from. You are relying on highly unreliable sources for your information."
To be fair, that was obvious in his first comment.
True enough. But perhaps the repetition will allow something to sink in.
So, where did all the money go when Solyndra crashed?
Solyndra is a California "green" company that went bankrupt despite $500 million in stimulus dollars. In September 2011, FBI officials raided their Fremont, Ca. solar plant and homes of executives.
These are the same executives who visited the White House on at least 20 occasions and had Obama administration officials sit it on their board meetings.
President Barack Hussein Obama and his administration, appears to have had an extensive relationship with Solyndra LLC. Investigations have revealed that the California Democrat Party became a financial creditor for Solyndra.
Sounds like prison time for somebody.
On a chnage of subject that the readers of this might wan to know of:
Evolutionists will soon be behind the 8 ball. Eighth chapter of upcoming Question Evolution! booklet has been completed.
Creationists are ramping up their outreach capabilities, while the evolutionists at the National Center for Science Education are bogged down in a two front war defending evolutionism while simultaneous involving themselves in the global warming controversy.
Didn't the evolutionist Adolf Hitler and his so-called master race of fellow evolutionists unsuccessfully engage in a multiple front war? Evolutionists never learn!
This was directly from Conservapedia.
Rob@52:
Read the comment again. Slowly. Go to the Wikipedia entry. Follow the links to the original documentation.
The program for funding Solyndra was started before Obama was elected. The vetting of their applications was done before Obama was elected. A decision to fund them was proposed before Obama was inaugurated.
Before. Obama.
If you got information, rather than FauxNews, you would have known this already.
Rob@53:
Eberhard Dennert, At the Deathbed of Darwinism, 1904:
Plus ça change...
From "12 Theses Against the Un-German Spirit: A Propaganda Campaign of the German Students' Association (Twelve Book-burning Slogans)" as printed in the Volkischer Beobachter, April 14, 1933:
How are you coming up with this easily refuted crap?
There's your problem. Ref my comment #49 above.
Dear Rob,
Thanks for the Poe.
Eighth chapter of upcoming Question Evolution! booklet has been completed.
ZOMG I'm still on chapter two of my novel! How will I ever catch up?!
Really, boy? You're bragging about a chapter of a bookLET being finished? Wake us up when the bookLET is published in its entirety and we'll see if we have to quake in our commie scientistic jackboots.
You sound almost as silly as that other Christian troll Anthony McCarthy(ist), forever promising to "write us all up" in some unspecified magnum opus, to be published at some unspecified time in the mists of the future.
Rob:
Can you give a link or a search term for that page? I am not disputing you. Quite the opposite - I completely believe you, and would like to read the rest of that entry. It sounds funnier than their dinosaur page.
Rob, marriage equality was legislated for all of Canada in 2003. Before that, same-sex marriage was legal in only four provinces. Society hasn't fallen apart, people aren't marrying their toasters, and no gay people have sued their churches to force them into providing same-sex marriage--which, contrary to your impression, Christian churches celebrated for centuries up til the 1700s in some places.
Having attended a recent rally of atheists, did you come across any that believe buggery is immoral?
If not, would you not be surprised if an entire body of free thinkers were of one mind on this value judgment?
For example, as a matter of pure reason, in the statement, "marriage is between one man and one woman who are not within the prohibited degrees of relationship", why are the "one" parts non-discriminatory? And why the "prohibited degrees"? If it is permissible to interfere with an incestuous relationship because one has concern for the well-being of any offspring (even though it may be legal to abort "defective" offspring), and if it is permissible to interfere with a polygamous relationship even though it is consensual, might it not also be permissible to interfere with relationships that direct the sexual appetite away from procreation?
In brief, should one not expect at least some variation among atheists' sexual morality? (If any exists, it does not seem to be well publicized.)
Markita Lynda "Rob, marriage equality was legislated for all of Canada in 2003. Before that, same-sex marriage was legal in only four provinces. Society hasn't fallen apart, people aren't marrying their toasters, and no gay people have sued their churches to force them into providing same-sex marriage..."
Lies! I've been to Canada. First thing that happened after I got off the bus for the Winnipeg International Snow Festival was the RHMP (Royal Homosexual Mounted Police) branded me, blindfolded me and dragged me away for a mandatory gay marriage to some random other tourist.
And the last seven years together have been the happiest of our whole lives.
...
Ignore that last part.
Rob, Rob. You know when you drag in Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, you lose the thread by default? And I just fetched extra beer and peanuts.
Ontopic, in Denmark homosexual civil unions have been legal since 1989 and marriage is likely to become so in, err, 30 days. No church has ever, or will be, forced to perform the rite. At least not by the government.
Interestingly, most of the opposition against homosexuality stems from the muslim population, the faction which Rob claims have taken over our European governments. But their number is so small they can't punch a dent i a packet of political butter.
Re Rob
Just for the information of Mr. Rob, Frankenberger specifically rejected the main tenant of evolution, namely common descent, in Mein Kampf.
Old Joe Stalin rejected the theory of natural selection in supporting Lysenkoism and sent a number of Russian geneticists who demurred to the gulag.
By the way, Conservapedia also has a section denying the Theory of Relativity so I guess Einstein joins Darwin in the Christofascist dungeon.
"Didn't the evolutionist Adolf Hitler and his so-called master race of fellow evolutionists unsuccessfully engage in a multiple front war? Evolutionists never learn!"
=> Adolf Hitler an evolutionist ? That´s one of the most idiotic things I´ve ever heard... Let me tell you a few things about Nazi germany (I am german btw):
- Darwins and Haeckels books were *banned* in Nazi germany.
- The few atheist / humanist / freethinker clubs that existed in germany in the 1930s were shut down by the Nazi government, almost immediatly after their rise to power.
- Virtually every single soldier in the Wehrmacht and the SS was either a lutheran or a catholic christian. Heinrich Himmler, leader of the SS, publicly said that he would under no circumstances allow an atheist to serve in the SS.
- The very idea of a "master race" is absurd from a darwinian perspective.
"This was directly from Conservapedia."
=> Then this "Conservapedia" propagates some of the most idiotic lies ever put forth.
Re Raging Bee @ #56
I am sure that Mr. Rob would be greatly insulted to be conflated with Anthony McCarthy, who, by his own admission, is gay.
Re Rob
In addition, I would point out that the Nazi regime in Germany persecuted gay men mercilessly, murdering some 4 million such persons in the death camps.
@Brave Sir Robin Wingnut,
I'm glad we were finally able to chase you off of Respectful Insolence, but you really should leave ScienceBlogs altogether. Nobody here is going to tolerate your patented brand of BS either.
@ All other sane people:
For those who don't know, Rob Hood, or Brave Sir Robin Wingnut as some call him, has been a regular troll over at Respectful Insolence for some time. Hereâs a link to an example thread containing his idiocy over there (he's 'Medecein Man' at first):
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/12/jenny_mccarthy_plans_to_promo…
His usual tactic is to spam posts using various sockpuppet ânyms (including those of other real commenters) with illiterate nonsense after Orac is asleep only to have them deleted the very next day. His posts are easily recognizable by their lack of any sense at all and a bizarre fixation on anal sex and scat. The man is truly crazy, I suspect itâs only a matter of time before he devolves into his usual schtick of scat-based insults here as well.
AdamG@66:
Now, now, Adam. Rob has been very straightforward on this thread, using his name and even linking back to his blog so people can check his ideas out further. His ideas have gotten a lot of flack, true, and I would say deservedly so, but he has not gone off into bizarro accusations against other posters or tried to hijack anyone's 'nym.
I would suggest that this is meritorious behavior.
"For now my friend, but once gay marriage is legalized the gays will then be sueing to get churches to accept their way of life."
Really? How do you know?
And in the USA, given you are allowed to sue for anything, but this doesn't mean you have to cave in, what would it mean if it were true?
You're just (ironically) butt-hurt that you can't force OTHER PEOPLE and groups NOT to marry gays.
For all your whinging about how you or churches are being "forced" to do stuff, you certainly don't seem to care about churches being forced to do stuff.
What if a church WANTS to marry two gay parishioners?
Should they be banned from that?