Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Mike Adams :: Townhall.com Columnist
My Idea and Your Consequence
by Mike Adams
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Ideas have consequences. That is why it is sometimes difficult to understand how bad ideas can survive, and even thrive, in certain environments. One really bad idea that is thriving in higher education is the so-called trans-gendered rights movement. It is thriving not because of the work of trans-gendered persons but because of feminists who are willing to use them to advance their own ideas about gender and equality.

Feminists have been increasingly enamored with the idea that there are no innate differences between men and women. In recent years, they have been arguing with greater and greater frequency that all male/female differences come from the “culture” or that they are “socially constructed.” In his latest book, One Party Classroom, the always brilliant David Horowitz shows just how prevalent this very stupid idea is – at least in higher education.

The idea that culture is responsible for all male/female differences is appealing to feminists. They like it because it suggests that all such differences are the result of discrimination and oppression. It, therefore, stands to reason – to the extent that feminists actually “reason” – that these differences can be eradicated by simply changing society.

Of course, when feminists speak of changing society the desired change usually consists of the implementation of socialist policies. And, for the Marxist, creating equality is achieved not by raising oneself up to the level of others but by pulling others down – through the use of force and without the consent of the “others.” In that sense, most feminists are in favor of economic rape as a means of achieving power.

The fact that feminists have few children helps facilitate their silly views concerning the “social construction” of male/female differences. Of the six most radical feminists in my department, one has no children and the other five have only one child each. Therefore, none of the six has ever had the experience of raising both a boy and a girl. No one who has raised both a boy and a girl could pretend to hold such ridiculous views concerning the influence of “society” on male/female differences.

Nonetheless, those who are most opposed to marriages and families are the ones most likely to teach “Marriage and the Family” on our college campuses. And, unfortunately, most of those teachers are sociologists with a limited understanding of biology and a limitless desire to promote their radical political views in the classroom. These people are either ignorant of the evidence concerning male/female differences or they simply view the evidence as irrelevant.

And that is why the so-called trans-gendered persons are so beneficial to them. They appear on university-sponsored panels to explain how they feel like a man on some days and feel like a woman on others. They dress like members of the opposite sex. They even try to trump male/female differences by having sex changes. All of this is done with the full support of the feminist “scholars” who want to mask innate male/female differences for their own political purposes.

Of course, the majority of the people in the university community are annoyed by this – even if they are afraid to express their annoyance. The feminists push for “trans-gendered” or “questioning” restrooms. Where funds are not available they argue that the trans-gendered should be able to use the men’s or women’s restroom depending on their mood.

Many parents are understandably offended by the idea that a man dressed like a woman – surgically altered or not – would be allowed to go to the same bathroom as their little girl. They rightly see the trans-gendered as suffering from mental illness. But their reasonable objections are now dubbed “trans-phobia” by universities that have turned morality on its head.

But those who are normal are not the real victims, here. The real victims are the sexual deviants who are being used by the feminists instead of being given psychiatric treatment. They are brought before university panels to discuss issues regarding trans-gendered rights. The students who are forced to attend or who are lured by the promise of extra credit often laugh at the spectacle. The trans-gendered are paraded out like a traveling circus. It is all terribly demeaning to anyone with a conscience.

Some years ago a group called the Gender Mutiny Collective complained about some of my public comments about the trans-gendered. By the way, the Gender Mutiny Collective is an anarchist group that supports the use of violence to achieve equality for trans-gendered persons. Some of its members are also admitted pedophiles. In the past, one of their recruitment manuals read “I don’t trust a boy unless he knows how to suck [expletive deleted].” That statement was made by the then-president of the Gender Mutiny Collective.

Sadly, when the violent, anarchist, pedophile-friendly organization complained about me to the UNC-Wilmington administration they received full support. And it was a radical feminist administrator who sided with them. Apparently, I was the subject of an investigation to determine whether I suffer from “trans-phobia.” But there was no effort to cure those in the Gender Mutiny Collective who support violence and who like to receive oral sex from children.

Feminists applaud, rather than treat, trans-genders who go to the extreme of permanently mutilating their genitals. And they do so in the name of gender equality. It’s almost as bad as applauding the dismemberment of children in the name of sexual liberation.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to receive Mike Adams' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Yes, yes YES!
I want to stand up in my seat and applaud right now. This is a masterpiece! You hit the nail on the head!

Who's confused here?
The author suggests that transgendered people go to a psychiatrist to get cured. But, the "cure" according to the APA is alignment of body to the mind which may involve surgical transformation.

I'm sure the author would be able to help the poor, miserable, damaged transgendered person select the psychiatrists that would propose such promising "cures" like shock therapy. Unfortunately, those cures were inflicted upon many, many people with no positive effect.

This forum deserves more well-informed and literate advocates of hate.

Another idea that's thriving in higher
education is assessment of learning.

This does not include asking students to submit -- anonymously -- typewritten papers about what's in their trash or which books they'd ban from the library.


Anderson's done the world a service, du
by exposing you.

du wrote this:
"If you [Anderson] were so concerned about defending your position, or your religion maybe you should do so without resorting to invasive inappropriate behavior and deeply personal attacks."

-- du, who is being "invasive"? He is re-posting material you've posted elsewhere to support his charges and expose your duplicities.

You have published this stuff before the world. Anderson is merely reproducing your own publications here. Who is being "invasive"?

As for Anderson's "religion," why don't you leave that alone? You don't know anything at all about his religion, and yet you keep sitting in judgment of it as though you were some pope or archbishop or something.

You are a dishonest, deceptive, fraudulent, truth-challenged and, frankly, contemptible being.

Those comments you published in the LA Times about blacks, slandering their religious attitudes and views, are viciously intolerant and bigoted, as well as breathtakingly ignorant. All the evidence anyone needs that what I say here is true is right there in the very words you yourself wrote.

You keep accusing Anderson of "personal" attacks.

But you are PERSONALLY culpable. What do you expect?

You are utterly beyond description in your abominable disregard for truth. You are all about whatever suits your diabolical purposes in the moment.

You are beneath detestation.

GO AWAY. GO AWAY.

Who is du calling 'weird'?
du writes:
"I don't think anyone cares, anderson."

-- No? Well, I care. Yes, I am "anyone."

du writes:
"Whatever the point is you're making, I'm still free to express an opinion. …"

-- No one ever said you weren't. Not Anderson or anyone else. The objections raised here are to your activism elsewhere that makes false and unfair references back to Anderson and to the opinions expressed on this forum. We also object to your continually coming here and wasting our time, given that Townhall readers aren't interested in your selfish screeds about those narcissistic obsessions you call "civil" or "human" "rights." Your preoccupation is with the legitimization of perversion and unnatural sexual conduct, and we don't want to hear it. We have better things to discuss, and you are hindering us -- deliberately, I would add.

Go away.


du writes:
"[T]his isn't evidence that I engaged in harassment or attacks on anyone. …

-- Well, Anderson has already produced mountains of evidence about your machinations, schemings and camlumnies, evidence that anyone can verify with a simple Google search -- I myself have done so, and I vouch for what he has uncovered.

I marvel at the saturation of your soul in deception and in detachment from reality. Truly the ends justify the means, eh? You are a typical nihilist/post-modernist psycho.


du writes:
"I think you're proving only one thing.
And it has nothing to do with me."

-- That chestnut is tiresome, du. WHAT is that "one thing"?

You keep calling Anderson weird. The weird one is you, kid.

con't
If you were so concerned about defending your position, or your religion maybe you should do so without resorting to invasive inappropriate behavior and deeply personal attacks.

I don't have to give anything or anyone a bad name, but you apparently can do that, whether it's my opinion or YOURS.

con't
You are inappropriate and are in no position to make accusations not even substantiated by your posting my opinions.
Which aren't as virulent as yours.

Even a painful personal episode for me was used as a tool of defamation.

Way to go anderson, if this is the way you choose to convince me what a person of faith is willing to do to someone who challenges or criticizes religion in general. Or even if it's not about your faith, you've done a great job keeping me from any further criticism, haven't you?

the consequnces of being honest
Well, then anderson, rich d.
Evidently, my being a conservative, critical of hypocrisy will get your attention.
And anderson, a straight person DID say what I did about the black folks in the Times, because I AM straight.
These are criticisms, not personal attacks.
And generalized criticisms of the actions of a group are stock and trade in TH. I just do what everyone here is allowed, or is that only for YOUR club members?

Defamation of a minority like gay people does get the attention of orgs like the ADL and the SPLC and MOT.
MOT doesn't have to 'declare' anything. The TH articles and posts speak for themselves.
As do you.

And you're right, badgering or harassing a citizen if you work in law enforcement is against their rules. That's why I never did and don't...and you make the accusation, but have absolutely NO proof or evidence that I did do such a thing. But my being honest about a meeting and being one of nearly 12,000 members at a rally, will make you take great leaps of nasty creativity to call it something else.
For someone who wasn't there, you sure made up a lot of what didn't happen.

My saying all this was just a courtesy, you're of no authority (or substance) to answer to, so quit behaving as if you are.

I see you take criticism, not even directed at you, with exceptional bad temper.

Fortunately, I know some highly evolved, compassionate and caring people of faith who respect their religion (and so do I) and that of others who don't share theirs. And unfortunately, you simply have demonstrated, you (and others on this thread) are not one of them.
And that's on you.


du- his consequence for being a liar
Du the pathological homosexual liar writes:

"BTW, they aren’t the only ones. I am a member and volunteer at the Simon Wiesenthal Center/Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles.
They keep an extensive amount of research and information on hate groups and their pattern of speech, activity, who they want to reach and how they do it. Lively has been in their sights for a long time. Especially because of his distortion of the Holocaust and the MOT is a Holocaust archive.

"TownHall is coming close to having the same thing happen because of their chronic anti gay articles."


All TH readers take note. du states the Simon Wisenthal center is close to declaring Townhall a hate group because articles differing from du are printed.

Du, the homofascist mafia at work.

du- A confirmed racist
Here is a post to the LA Times du wrote:

Black people might be religious, but that faith falls short, as it does for most anyone regardless of ethnicity who claim faith, when it comes to treating a person the way they'd want to be treated. Empathy is from where the most ethical decisions and actions flow.

Black people are not so religious that out of wedlock births, children in foster care and on welfare or the issue of crime and incarceration reflect it. But they sure showed 'the gays' how religious they are!

Posted by: Regan DuCasse | June 19, 2009 at 05:42 PM


Du, on black people. Imagine if a straight had said this about a black person of faith.

that didn't take long...
I don't think anyone cares, anderson.
Whatever the point is you're making, I'm still free to express an opinion and this isn't evidence that I engaged in harassment or attacks on anyone.

I think you're proving only one thing.
And it has nothing to do with me.




du writes:
"Mores the point, homosexuality is and always has been a human condition that PREDATES all religions and cultural establishment.
Hostility towards homosexuals and women are PURELY an invention " (edited)

Comment: What a crock. Homosexuality predates everything according to du.This is one of the most ignorant statements ever made.

"Gay people are spoken of as if a theory and consequence of negative influence, when it's actually the role of God and so on that usually is."

Comment: Another non sensical nothing.

"In our continuing evolution of scientific and socio/political discovery, gay people are a constant in human history."

Comment: So is mental illness, incest and pedophilia.


"The legacy of religious abuse, should give pause to doing it again to YET ANOTHER minority in the human population."

Comment: What legacy is that? Did someone forget that non religion countries have been responsible for eradicating more people in the last century than ALL religious conficts combined over 2000 years?



"There is no reason to accept it, let alone protect it as it ONLY pertains to gay people and no others on the list of religious reprobate behaviors and endeavors."

Comment; Pure anti religion hyperbole. Religion prohibits homosexuality, so du hammers religion.

Next part, some abusive posts from du:


have at it anderson
I can't help it if you see something sinister in every move a person who supports gay people makes.
I can't help it if you see something wrong in being honest and throw that honesty back with a different definition.
I can't help it that since I'm not genuflecting every time you said God, I must be anti Christian.

I know no one's cause is furthered by abusing anyone for it. That's why I don't do it.
that's my creed and...
That's advice for you anderson.

anderson...

The websites I visit don't allow hateful or spiteful language. They don't allow derogatory words or abuse.
The ones I have visited most recently give a lot more opportunity for differing opinions and warnings are given about unsubstantiated information.

So it's impossible for me to engage in what you're claiming and I wouldn't.

And all things considered anderson, the internet being a free place to express yourself, you're JUST as free to counter whatever opinions wherever I left mine, as I'm sure MANY other people left their opinions too, one way or the other that didn't agree with you either.

For the most part here and elsewhere I discuss equal rights and justice and why it's important. I don't attack and didn't and don't until YOU keep doing it.
And the fact remains,
You still have strange fixation and it's still weird.


A clue for du
Look, I was sent copies of your smarmy bigoted anti Christian rhetoric that YOU posted on religious sites, and about me.. Regan Ducasse has no problem calling out Christians in its homosexual echo chamber of internet thought to other supporters. You are proud to do so. All of you post as if you are a circle jerk of hand panky hopefuls among each other on those sites.

But not here.

Now Regan Ducasse is called out for EXACTLY who he/she really is. And thanks for not denying you are a gay male, pretending here to be a woman.

As is typical of activists like you when cornered, you call in a sympathy play, using a line that you were in a wheelchair.

Sorry, even if you were, and I doubt it, that does not excuse or justify your obnoxious, yet legal behavior.

Lastly, go ahead and keep posting your smarmy, nasty, hateful posts all over the internet. As if I care what you think of me or say, but be prepared to defend every word when they find their way back here. Then it is my turn.

If I chose to get "creative" every time YOU posted here I would be happy to post one of your bigoted, hateful anti religion posts and contrast it with whatever you are posting. I can do that.

They identify you for what you are here. A person who has made up a whole bushel of lies and is now caught at it.

And in my opinion another enemy of society.

and anderson...
If not being a believer like you and not attending church or being acutely mindful of the abuses that religious communities are capable of makes you think I'm SO anti Christian, well there is nothing I can do about that.

I'm one of MILLIONS...and you'll just have to handle it, won't you?

It's sad really you still aren't offering anything important or educational for the thread.
Just GOSSIP and tattles and not even accurate at that.
Must be a slow where you live to take so much time out to check up on me. You must really think I'm important to believe you're exposing something monumental.

Seriously anderson, who here gives a sh*t about it?
For you to think so, and go to the trouble is still weird.
Very.

SMyles...
If a child is born intersexed, the medical establishment wants to engage in painful and extensive surgery which has proven to often be ineffective and prohibitively expensive for the families.
Doctors have often been premature in dealing with such a condition. There is a case pending in Florida where a doctor removed the testicles of a child without the parents permission, even as the parents observed day to day that the child was presenting being a boy.
The child was born with a uterus as well, but no ovaries.
Riki Wilchens, who is intersexed, advocates AGAINST premature action on the part of doctors for surgeries on children. Preferring that the minimum age for such radical intervention be at least 18.
The transgendered are FAR more responsible about this, than the dominant straight doctors have been.
That answer your question?

your ball..
Well, your leaps of creativity aren't surprising. I attended a meeting, at the INVITE of the owner, and was at a rally in which I DIDN'T harass anyone. I was in a wheelchair and in no condition to do much.
But the rally was legal and it IS legal to boycott a business, ya know.

How is any of that harassing a waitress?
How is that thuggish? How is that anti Christian?
Indeed, I've been to said business three times in twenty years.
So how is that harassment?

And apparently you're obsessed with me and cruising the net looking for something to attack with.

And all this over my opinions expressed and perfectly legal activity.

And?


I wonder how long will it be
before we see parents approving of, and paying for sex changes for their minor children the same way they dish out boob jobs for birthday presents?

I'm thankful my son decided to join the Navy, since there was no way I was going to spend my hard earned money to support these degenerates that run our universities.

David S
I appreciate your kind words.

I have become tired and irritated at the lengths, deceptions, and fraud many of these same sex activists use.

They can call me what they want, and do they ever as you can see, it does not bother me. It does bother them when they are exposed. Never have I posted anything negative about these people anywhere. They come here and offer their opinions, then they belittle those that do not agree.

I applaud your posts, many of them I have kept, you, RichD, and a couple others have shown me much.

Please continue to post regularily. I look forward to reading them.

Hey, Anderson659, that is…
… beautiful!

I almost feel sorry for "du," you have so overwhelmingly exposed and demolished him/her/it!

Thanks, man, so much for your great work in ferreting out his/her/its devious and deceptive schemes and screeds.

And another thing: I am ENVIOUS of you, dude!!

I note how these guys have you singled out BY NAME for their special opprobrium. That means you really have them scared. Word.

Congrats! I envy you, but GOOD JOB!

Need more validation du?
du in part:

"Behind the safety and anonymity of your computers, you can make personal attacks.:

Here are some by du:

Regan DuCasse
January 10th, 2009
Hi Allen! Pleased to meet you and you’re so inspirational to me. (AkA Love Is Equal)
I want you to know that.

I wanted to ask you about anderson trolling for my real name and his abusiveness regarding my job.

He IS an outright liar, (edited for space)


Allen M (Love Is Equal)
January 10th, 2009 | LINK
Hi Regan,(du)

Thank you for the kind words. I hope you know I have always looked up to you as well.

Regarding Anderson, what can anyone say about him? (edited for space, ) He is full of hatred in my opinion and I’m always having to catch myself so I don’t fall into his trap!

Of course he is not the only one. There is Fabius with his copy/paste of meaningless and false statistics and claims of some ‘homosexual agenda’. Then there is dreadnaught and truetolife though they have been absent for some time. And then the latest one which REALLY lets his pure hatred shine through is Michael W! And notice how he gets applauded by people like Anderson! "

Now du, who is sitting behind a computer making personal attacks and accusations?

Since YOU also have posted on religious sites, where I came across your prattle to begin with, should I post some of your anti Christian bigotry, and condemnations for review?

Perhaps du, it is time YOU learned that throwing around personal accusations everywhere, will eventually lead to people defending themselves against them, as I have.

Last point du, you can only push around, demean, and bully Christians so long. The day is coming where your side will find itself exposed, as YOU are right now.



More du chronicles:
du in part:

Behind the safety and anonymity of your computers, you can make personal attacks.
When it's all said and done anderson, a stand up person wouldn't do that, nor make up claims to rationalize doing it"

Here is du:

Regan DuCasse, on March 24th, 2009 at 4:09 pm Said:
I live here in CA and our friend Timothy Kincaid and I attended a meeting within El Coyote restaurant to address Marj Christofferson’s contribution to Yes on 8.

That story got a LOT of traction in local media as well as a few articles in conservative journal TownHall by Bret Prelusky.

"In the initial heat after Prop. 8’s passages there were loud, although orderly and legal rallies and El Coyote was along the route, and business was compromised temporarily in the immediate aftermath"

Is anything in my last two posts made up? I do not make up anything, I let your words speak for themselves. The El Coyote is a clear example of thuggish same sex activist tactics, that you and your friends employ.

By the way Timothy Kincaid is a noted same sex activist, one you protest with on occasion. There are several other posts where YOU identify yourself as a "gay" male.



Sure can du Part I
First two points:

(1) You identified yourself as a gay male to Burt Prelutsky, do you want me to print the e-mail? Do you care to embarass yourself to that degree?

Second point, on Terry:

COPYRIGHT 2006 Liberation Publications, Inc.

Regan DuCasse first met Jamiel Terry shortly after Terry came out, making national headlines as the son of notorious homophobe and antiabortion activist Randall Terry. She had sent him a note of support after reading a gripping online account of his decision to write the 2004 article in Out magazine.

The two hit it off in an intense correspondence. DuCasse, a 48-year-old published writer and dedicated activist, was intrigued by Terry's plans to start a political action committee to do battle against his adoptive father, who had just disowned him. Jamiel found in DuCasse a nurturing supporter willing to help his cause. "We had marathon conversations--plans for working together as a team of activists, articulating the goals, and how to deal with his father's political ambitions," DuCasse says.

"But those plans didn't turn out as hoped. DuCasse filed criminal charges against Terry in August and is now claiming that he is not all that different from the antigay father who rejected him. And Terry says he is the victim of a meaningless vendetta"

Now du, your behavior at the El coyote to me is apalling. No law enforcement employee has the right to badger, harass, or demean the public they serve, and that means YOU. Read your General Orders and your unit policies. But since you claim to be a "former" employee elsewhere, that means you probably have no LAPD relationship.

In the end du, you print screeds all over the internet about various posters here,that includes me. Your intolerance of religion, and those who hold opposing view points borders on thuggish. No one has ever made the types of slanderous factually baseless screeds about you all over the internet as YOU do to others.



Hey, sedonaman from Arizona,
… VERY well stated.

Thanks!


To quote:
Reply # 272
Date: Jun 26, 2009 - 11:18 AM EST

"It's ironic ...
... that those who steadfastly maintain that they cannot change their 'orientation' are adamant that normal people must change their consciences to align with academia's latest causes celebre."

-- He really nailed it.

du writes:
"[Anderson659] and david s. are engaging in behavior I certainly haven't exacted against [them]."

-- Perhaps not, du, but you certainly have engaged in appalling and thuggish behavior against that business owner over Proposition 8, and then boasted about it in your writings. Further, you support others who engage in those tactics.

You are no humanitarian or civil libertarian. You and your fellow travelers are oppressors in victims' clothing and tyrant wanna-bes.

I am not taken in, and neither is Anderson, so you might as well quit pretending.

so...
Can you confirm and prove any of your claims against me, fellas?
Counting on planting a nasty seed and hoping it grows to proportions that can't be explained or defended?
Why do you bother?
Why. Bother?

Because that's all you know, is my opinions and not another thing more.
You've decided to interpret me in your nasty way.
What a shame I can't talk about equal rights and justice in here without such an adversarial response. As. If.

Behind the safety and anonymity of your computers, you can make personal attacks.
When it's all said and done anderson, a stand up person wouldn't do that, nor make up claims to rationalize doing it.

You don't know me. And no amount of cyber cruising and looking for something to use, won't make you.
That's really weird, man.






It's ironic ...
... that those who steadfastly maintain that they cannot change their "orientation" are adamant that normal people must change their consciences to align with academia's latest causes celebre.

personal attacks....again?
anderson, apparently you have nothing of value to offer, but do another drive by personal attack to incite the TH mob.

You and david s. are engaging in behavior I certainly haven't exacted against you.
And you've entitled yourself the license to attack and apparently expressing an opinion isn't something you want for others to have the option to do, just you.

And this is how you want respect, in showing how you're more invested in personal attacks, then simply keeping to the subject in an objective manner?


Ditto, Anderson
I read some of the stuff you dug up a month or so back about and by that "du" character.

And you are right: she/he/it is severely deranged.

Apparently, he/she/it tried to make use of Jamiel Terry's shameful betrayal of his father and family, and then "du" and Jamiel Terry had some kind of falling out -- probably because "du" is crazy, while Jamiel is cracked.

You are also right about this "du" character's involvement in those thuggish intimidation tactics against a law-abiding American citizen and business owner, merely because the latter had exercised his First Amendment and political rights.

Incredible.

These homofascists are beyond everything. They shriek and scream about "equal rights" and "violence" against "gays," when all the time they are the ones guilty of the most criminal conduct, threatenings, injustice and deception. These dirty "people" are indescribably sick, filthy and savage.

I understand why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. It is simply unacceptable to live with such beasts as these among us. Past civilizations understood this.

Word.

du The ripe smell of manure
The homosexual activist du, who claims to be a woman, and who claims to be a man to an author here, who claims to be "gay" and who claims to be straight, oozes its activism like a bad case of the runs..

Du who is standing at homosexual protests, carrying signs, who participated in the harassment of an innocent business owner over her prop8. beliefs, and then gloated about it on these threads, posts here to disparage those who believe different with its factually baseless analysis.

du dis[arages and slanders posters here on various homosexual sites. Her, or his screeds are legendary. Devoid of of fact.

Never except for Ranger 29 who probably has been arrested, has anyone been so full of it as du.

No person who works in law enforcement goes to a business and then engages in harassment of the owner because of HER financial support of a proposition. No one in law enforcement berates the citizens for their beliefs in public.

Law enforcement people serve the public, they are NOT there to espouse their beliefs as a fact, and intimidate others into following those beliefs.

This person is in need of serious mental health help. Ask du about her relationship with the son of the anti- abortion activist- Terry.

And the overwhelming revulsion du posts about Christians, and TH posters on other sites. Ask du about Timothy Kincaid.


Ah, another load of du-doo dumped on
us here. She complains about not being able to avoid edgycater's opinions like her husband forces her to read this site!

Oh yeah - listening to the homosexual men's (sorry for the oxymoron) chorus is pure torture (listen up military interrogators - this will work) - the group used to be called The Chipmunks, right?

Not my Idea, but...
.. I paid the consequences.

Though I was legally innocent, I lost my son, 18 years of income, and 1/2 my stuff. My feminist (read: career orientated) wife divorced me in the feminist government's Family Court.

In addition, my feminnst mom divorced my dad, so I've not had a father, like me son.

Of course, most blame my dad, yet he was not even there. I expect feminized freinds and family will blame me too (some already have).

The USA is one of the worse countries in the world that an ordinary guy could start and provide and lead a family. All risk, no return.

hey edgycater
You have every right to your opinion, and this entire thread proves it.
But when it's manifest as Constitutional amendments, and public policy denying gay men and women EQUAL rights and opportunity, then it's no longer an opinion, it's civil law.

As for comparing to rapists and murderers...
as someone who works in law enforcement, I can tell you it's safer to leave a person in a room with a homosexual than a rapist and murderer, and I'm sure if you were given the choice to be put in a cell with a violent criminal, as opposed to a seat by the Gay Men's Chorus.

You might not want to be near either one IF you had a choice. But if there WERE no other choice...?

The real problem is gay people don't have a choice in avoiding YOU or those just LIKE you and your 'opinions'.
Nor challenging the outrageous micromanaging of their lives. YOU bring it by not leaving gay folks free to live AS you'd expect to. If you did to heterosexuals what you want your government to do to gay people...
heteros wouldn't just be in your face. They'd have your a** for lunch.

But then, you know that...and avoid crossing heteros who have the power to challenge you if their freedoms were compromised for the same reasons. Gay folks ARE doing what normal people would do if faced with what they are.
And they are doing it through due process of law, the courts, and legal street protest, even if a child of their number is brutally killed.

You just don't appreciate your heterosexual privilege much.
You didn't earn it, or deserve it. It happens at the expense of others and you can't even prove why that has to be, other than a choice YOU made.

Ridiculous.

The Cost of Silence
A recent Bible study that I did was on this topic. I used an article from a TH blog June 8 about the idiot Dutch journalist Joanie de Rijke who claimed that here gang-bangers "respected" her (no kidding) and just "could not control [their] testosterone." Look her up. She wrote a book of excuses.

Another was from a leadership organization that found that people were afraid to speak up even thought they knew why a company's weren't being delivered on time. It also referenced a Harvard study that focused on Enron and 9/11.

Look what it has now cost the economy because responsible lawmakers weren't blowing the whistle long and hard enough.

Look at the new -I hate to use the word "leadership" - in the WH and on down because we were silent.

Look at the disintegration of the mainline churches.

So, yelp!

Tell Your Senator "No" on S909
Dear Senator:
Re: The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (S909)
I urge you to vote "No" on this pending Act for the following main reasons:
1) It Is an Assault on Liberty of Conscience. - In free countries, criminal acts are punished—not beliefs or views. The proposed hate crimes bill would result in two convictions—one for the criminal act, and another for the beliefs or thoughts behind it. This is a road to "thought crime" tyranny that is unfolding already in Europe and Canada.
2) It Is Not Needed. - Every state legal code already protects men and women, whatever their "actual or perceived … sexual orientation," against criminal assault. There is no hate-crime "epidemic" in America. The FBI reports that so-called hate crimes, which are difficult to identify because only God can know the human heart, are a tiny fraction of all crimes.
3) It Puts Pastors At Risk For Prosecution. - Anyone, including pastors, can be accused of creating a "climate of hate" that leads to violence—merely for speaking biblical truth. Under Pennsylvania’s hate crimes law, 11 Christians were arrested and jailed in 2004 for preaching the gospel at a Philadelphia homosexual street festival. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), a former judge, said that under this federal bill, clergymen and others could be charged with encouraging or inducing a "hate crime" if they preach against homosexuality.
4) It Writes Inequality Into the Law. - The hate crimes bill before the Senate gives special legal protection to persons who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered by making crimes against them more heavily punished than the same crime against a child, a pregnant woman, or the elderly.
Therefore, I recommend that you vote "No", on S.909.

Uh-Oh. He's at it again.
"Satirizing" is a favorite of Dr. Mike. Shame he never thought of stand-up as an occupation.

Here's what's up:
When the Serpent wanted to corrupt mankind, he did not approach Adam -- perhaps fearing he would have his a#s handed to him (proof of his cowardice, as serpents do not have a#ses). Whatever his reason, he decided to aim his lies at Eve instead and got what he was after.

"Don't believe what God said," that slime-bag told her. "You will not die, but rather be as gods."

The con worked, because women tend to be more emotional and feelings-oriented, as well as easier to sell on image over substance. (Oprah is in no small way responsible for Obama, for instance.)

Nothing's changed. Women are just as stupid today. Consider what Adams writes here:

"Feminists applaud, rather than treat, trans-genders who go to the extreme of permanently mutilating their genitals. And they do so in the name of gender equality. It’s almost as bad as applauding the dismemberment of children in the name of sexual liberation."

That's right on the money. Western women are the ones who have been stupid enough to buy Satan's lies about abortion (the murder of infants) and gender "equality" (the destruction of the home). Normally, women are supposed to be fiercely protective of children and also the keepers of the home.

But men have fecklessly and lazily permitted these perversions. So here we are.

Feminism is proof that women are still idiotically buying the bill of goods they were first sold at the genesis of history, and that men are still spinelessly going along instead of saying: "Woman, don't be a moron! We're not killing our children, and I'm going to be the papa, and you're going to be the mama. End of story."

Gid Child Accommodated(2/2)
Instead of treating this eight-year-old boy for a disturbing Gender Identity Disorder, he is being permitted to live the fiction that he is actually a girl. In addition, parents and children who view this as abnormal will be offered counseling by therapists in Colorado. They will be retrained to believe that a boy thinking he's a girl is normal. Thinking otherwise will be considered bigoted, insensitive, and will create a dangerous educational environment for the child.
The pathological behavior is normalized, while those who still view this behavior as abnormal are stigmatized as uninformed and bigoted against the development of a child's gender identity.
Former NARTH President Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D. has observed:
This situation reflects the misguided notion that we can be whoever we feel we are -- (except ex-gay!). This boy would benefit from psychodynamic counseling that explores why he is rejecting his innate maleness.
Even if the cause of that rejection appears to be a biological 'wiring' problem, one fact remains: no boy can ever make himself into a girl by dressing differently and having his body surgically mutilated.
________________________________________
Additional Reading: Pediatric Academic Societies' 2006 Annual Meeting Encourages Normalization Of Gender-Variant Children; Gender Identity Disorders
(From: http://www.narth.com/docs/accommodated.html), >>>>> (2/2)

Moral Equivalency is Cowardice
Unbelievable how nutty - and more dangerous - the world's gotten, especially for our children! There's too many cowards who protect others because this gives them 'cover' for their own sins and weaknesses! The costs to society are getting unbearable.

I'll take more like YOU, Mr. Adams, in our universities any day! Continue speaking up for normalcy! Thanks.

GID Child Accommodated(1/2)
GID Child Accommodated
By Public School
By Mike Hatfield
February 22, 2008 - An eight-year-old boy in Castle Rock, Colorado, is being permitted to come to school as a girl and to have access unisex restrooms.
The child can wear girl's clothing if he wishes and will be addressed as a girl, according to news reports.
The child's Gender Identity Disorder is being treated as simply a gender identity or a gender variant identity that is a normal part of development. According to Kim Pearson, with TransYouth Family Advocates, the American Academy of Pediatrics states that a child's gender identity becomes formed between the ages of three and five.
Pearson notes: "Until a child like this gets this piece of the puzzle in place, they can't learn, they can't get an education, they can't form relationships with other people." Pearson's 15-year-old daughter believes she is really a boy.
The normalization of GID as gender variant behavior and a normal developmental process is far advanced in the U.S. A network of pediatricians and other agenda-driven physicians are promoting the idea that "gender" is a social construction that can be fluid.
What a person "feels" about himself trumps what he actually is in a biological sense. A person who "feels" trapped in an opposite sex body, is permitted to believe this falsehood about his or her identity and society is expected to accommodate to these ever-changing feelings. >>> (1/2)

I just laugh
This is from a 2006 issue of Carolina Review:

“The controversy has led to the discussion of an interesting question. Is the existence of sexed bathrooms, normal bathrooms, discriminatory towards transgender students?”

-- Here is an interesting answer: No.

How hard is that to say?

There is no “controversy” here. There is no “debate.”

These so-called transgender people are diseased mentally and spiritually. We need to tell them so, and dispense with all this nonsense about “political” “realities” that are in fact no reality at all.

And we need to laugh these worthless “intellectuals” who waste life “exploring” these “issues” right off the edge of the planet.

Laugh at them.

Clarification
I don't see a major discrepancy between the two verses.
Matthew 27:5 vs. Acts 1:18

Robert Location: AZ
"Acts says it was Judas who bought a field and that he fell down and his bowels burst out."

KJV: Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong
NAS: Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong,

From the Greek word, ektesato (obtain, possess, purchase)

Judas' money paid for the land. In that sense, Judas obtained the land.

Much the same, if the Carnegie Foundation builds a library, you can say that Andrew Carnegie built it, because it was his money that funded it.

'falling headlong' could be a colloquial term for 'hanging by the neck'.

"his bowels burst out."
I saw a movie in which Judas hanged himself from a high place, the rope broke a few seconds later and his body bounced down a steep,rocky hillside.

Also, what I know about hangings, if the drop is too far the head will be torn from the body (didn't that happen to saddam?).

I don't see a major discrepancy between the two verses.

Silence is assent.
Silence is assent. -
Professor Mike Adams says, in this article:
"Of course, the majority of the people in the university community are annoyed by this – even if they are afraid to express their annoyance."
The above statement by Professor Adams is the most important in this article. He has hit at the cause of the problem of the advancement of false ideas: the irrational fear people have in expressing their views and condemning degenerate and perverted practices and ideas.
When the weird ideas of pressure groups go unchallenged, these ideas are accepted by default. The people advancing these false ideas gain power which they should not have and their false ideas mislead troubled people into thinking that they are only different but still normal and not emotionally disoriented and psychologically sick.
The problem that must be rectified is the fear that people have in opposing those advancing false and destructive ideas and the encouragement of abnormal behavior.
These false ideas and their consequent behaviors must be “nipped in the bud” or they will grow into practices that will be ever harder to correct and eradicate.





Mellor
So tell us why transgender bathrooms should be required, Mellor. Inquiring minds want to know.

Mikey Adams

If this is not the nadir of your career, I can't imagine what it might be.

"talent scout Location: CO
Reply # 252
Date: Jun 24, 2009 - 10:38 PM EST

One of your best articles
Dr Adams
I always like to read what you have to say"

Really! How could it _possibly_ get worse?

This is ridiculous
Transgender bathrooms? This is just ridiculous! Why should they spend money on bathrooms so that someone who just wants to cause a scene can feel special. How often do you actually see someone that is transgendered? It is not worth the costs associated with it just so that the small minority of people that "feel" like they are trapped in the body of the wrong sex can have their own bathroom. I mean seriously, how many "transgenders" are there in the US? Is it just me or does it just seem like these people are lonely and want to be noticed? Maybe they should find a friend in Jesus.

One of your best articles
Dr Adams
I always like to read what you have to say

talent scout
"Looking for loop holes? Or are you sincere?" It's always hard to tell, isn't it? I always try to give a full, honest answer as if they wanted one. Whether they take it seriously or not is up to them.

Speaking of moonbats in my little desert town, I just saw two teenagers walk by. Both were wearing long-sleeved black T-shirts. One was wearing a black heavy cotton hoodie, with the hood up. It is 104 degrees now. Perhaps they're on their way to see the ambassador to the intergalactic federation.

Worst article in a series
Dr. Adams, please correct me if I am wrong, but you don't have any children. I am gay and neither do I. But I have nine nieces and nephews which I have help raise. I can attest to the fact that there is a difference between the sexes that are apparent even when they are infants. But sometimes ........ only God knows why, that is not the case.

There is help out there
for those who are confused about their gender. The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (www.narth.com) can help.

The Crucifixion
Was called a hanging


Ga 3:13 -
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Hanging on the Cross
Was another method of death.
But this was a Roman death penalty, not Jewish.

Evidently crucifixion was also a death penalty in ancient Egypt.

Genesis 40

8 And Joseph answered and said, This is the interpretation thereof: The three baskets are three days:

19 Yet within three days shall Pharaoh lift up thy head from off thee, and shall hang thee on a tree; and the birds shall eat thy flesh from off thee.

"hang thee on a tree"

Under Jewish Law, if a man was sentenced to death, he was killed first (does not say how that had to happen) and then hung on a tree.

De 21:22 -
And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:

Judas
Nu 19:11 -
He that toucheth the dead body of any man shall be unclean seven days.

I never considered it two
Different methods.
=======================

Ind Observer writes:- 7:22 PM EST
Speaking of NT contradictions
Robert you appear to be well studied in the New Testament and respect its teachings. Could you tell me how Judas died? The gospels give very different accounts of how he died. Which one is correct?
======================

Looking for loop holes?
Or are you sincere?

Hard to tell today when I see so many mockers of the Holy Book.

Anyway, here are two possibilities of why its recorded as it is.

1. Forget about hanging as done in the old west, 1st.

Not the same as was done 2000 years ago in Israel.

A sharpened spear was buried to stand upright, the suicide was then done by falling onto the sharpened end of the spear from a box, a rock or a tree.

Secondly the Jews were commanded not to touch a dead body, so Judas was left to rot until his guts fell out.

There is no contradiction, just an eager zeal by unbelievers to find a loop hope.

Not saying you are like that as I do not know you, but it is a fact of life today

Trans-gender madness
"They rightly see the trans-gendered as suffering from mental illness." The really moonbat liberals see mental illness as an artificial distinction, so why would they not celebrate other mental illnesses, such as trans-gender beliefs, or forms of emotional immaturity, such as homosexuality? If a persons believe he's an ambassador to the intergalactic federation, as an otherwise intelligent and sane man in my little town does, who are we to say otherwise? At least that's what I'll say to his face while two other guys sneak up on him with the net. And no kidding-- I'm talking about a real person here. I think it has to do with the isolation and the hot desert sun.

Rich D. - Ewwwww!
"Or, he was left hanging until he got picked apart and/or rotted and then everything fell out." You had to say that just when my Mexican takeout arrived, didn't you?

Don't Think The Female Vote Did It...
I'm of a mind that we started our long slog to Marxism at the moment when Senators were elected by "The People" rather than appointed by the state governors.

Jeffrey # 153 06/24/09 - 2:28 PM EST
Here are some answers to a couple of your questions: Mark 10:2-8
2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him (Jesus).
3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
4 And they said, Moses suffered (permitted, allowed) to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man (singular) leave his father and mother, and cleave (join) to his wife (singular);
8 And they twain (two) shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain (two), but one flesh.

The Pharisees accepted divorce and wanted to entrap Jesus in their beliefs - agreed? Their defense was that Moses gave them permission to write up a divorce and put a wife away - agreed? Jesus called them hardhearted - agreed? And Jesus taught that from the creation God made mankind as male and female - agreed? Jesus taught that a man (singular) was to join with a woman (singular) and the two shall be one flesh - agreed?

(1) God, from the beginning, made a perfect mate for man when He made woman; anything else is less than perfect and definitely not what God intended. So much for one man and one man.

(2) God intended man and woman to remain one flesh. How can a man be 'One flesh" with a woman 'A' if he has intercourse with a woman 'B'? Can the two women ever be one flesh in God's plan? So much for polygamy or its reverse polyandry.

(3) Moses gave the men permission to divorce; but we learned from The Fall in Genesis 3 that, according to God, the wages of sin is death. Does that make divorce OK in God's eyes? So much for divorce.

Or, he was left hanging until he got
picked apart and/or rotted and then everything fell out.

Joel - The Respect I Owe You . . .
. . . is to take the doctrines and statements of your church seriously. I assure you that I do take them most seriously, and having done so, take my responsibility to demonstrate with full candor how damaging and false they are. What we believe has consequences, not only in this life but in the life to come. I don't only believe Mormonism is wrong-- I believe it is destructive to the life of faith.

Individuals who don't know the
difference between a male and female will probably not reproduce. This may be a problem in NC, but apprently even the governer in SC knows the difference.

It really is a shame we gave the women the vote in 1920, isn't it? Once they had the vote, things went from bad to worse. Ahhh, the tragedy of neglected children home from school eating store bought cookies and being driven to ballet lessons in a second car bought with mom's wages. The next thing you know there will be women just as incompetent as men holding public office...LOL, it's only a matter of time. Oh, wait Nancy Dear already broke that ground...never mind. 8-)

Joel - On Reason
"The commandments of God do not have to make sense. We obey by FAITH, not knowledge or understanding. Knowledge is the reward given to those that obey by faith." Quite correct. The commandments of God do not have to make sense. However, I find that they always do. The knowledge that they do make sense and are reasonable often come by obeying them, not by talking about them. I would be hard put to think of a commandment of God in the New Testament that wasn't reasonable. The polka dotted shirt command would probably fall into the irrational category, and of course isn't in the Scriptures-- though it wouldn't surprise me if something like it was commanded by some 'prophet' at some time or another.

"We MUST follow what the Holy Spirit testifies in our hearts and mind," Also true. Given the number of people who have done perfectly awful or perfectly silly things because of what they BELIEVE the Holy Spirit commands them to do, I would also 'test the spirit' by comparing it to what God has already said in the Scriptures and done through his people. God does not command the unreasonable.

Ind Observer
I forgot to add on my description of the Judas problem, that as I had said before, the New Testament does not contradict itself in matters of doctrine and faith.

Judas
"Could you tell me how Judas died?" There are two accounts which could be considered contradictory. Matthew says he hanged himself, and the authorities bought a field with the money for the burial of the dead. Acts says it was Judas who bought a field and that he fell down and his bowels burst out.

There are many explanations, none of which is completely satisfactory. One is that a violent hanging can literally burst the bowels out of the body, and that therefore the accounts are not contradictory. Another would be that either Matthew or Acts does not have the complete account because of problems with the Scriptures being passed on. Again, none of these is satisfactory-- while possible, they do not seem plausible.

The best explanation is that the Scriptures are not always accurate in matters of history, but sometimes report what was said rather than what happened. That is also an unsatisfactory explanation to me, but it is the most likely. Whatever it is, it doesn't need a whole new revelation to correct it.

Ind Observer: Truth is Truth
When inaccurate statements are made about Christian doctrine, I correct them, no matter what the original topic or source. To that I am charged.

When atheists or heretics make correct proposals for public policy, I applaud them.

Separate issues.

Odd
I find it odd that some on this thread want to attack each others religious affiliation. I would be willing to bet that a large majority of Christians, whether Baptist, Catholic, Mormon or whatever would agree with most of the points made by Mike Adams in this article. I don't know much about Mike Adams but I enjoy reading his articles. He's intelligent and articulate. I don't know or care what his religious affiliation is.

Joel- On Paul
"For example, the same God that said 'Thou shalt do no murder' when giving the Ten Commandments also ordered the genocide of several tribes living in the Promised Land." If I shoot you, that's murder. If the law then executes me, that's justice. If I shoot someone who is occupying my land and threatening my life, that's self-defense.

"Paul, an Apostle, stated that Bishops must be married, yet Paul was unmarried at that time. How can an Apostle, who outranks a Bishop be an unmarried man? He cannot. From modern revelation we know that Paul had been married, and was a widower at the time he wrote most of his epistles." Paul says he was unmarried, and advised others to remain the same if they could. He never says he was never married. Also, his prescription for church leaders to not contradict this statement would mean that they had to have only one wife, not that they had to be married. There is no need of special revelation to resolve these two statements, which are not contradictory. The Scriptures do not contradict themselves in matters of doctrine and faith.

This is not enough?
"So, you have in your possession the ORIGINAL scrolls written upon by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, and the other Apostles?"

Some 13,000 pieces with 99.5% agreement and nothing contradicting the basic articles of faith. I was looking at facsimiles the other day - you can, too. You have some made up documents, cribbing from the OT, and a unfortunately missing golden plates.


The term "bashing" seems to come up
in order to stifle debate.

Joseph Smith was a liar and false prophet.

http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/mormonism/book-abra ham-papyri-and-joseph-smith

http://www.irr.org/mit/js-failed-prophecies.html

There are more, but those will do.

---

Also, I stated that from the beginning (Genesis), marriage was defined as male and female, one flesh. Jesus confirmed that. That God was patient with the Nation of Israel is more than evident - they knew grace when they saw it. Only two of the former slave in Egypt made it to the promised land (and Moses wasn't one of them).

May I suggest a better source?
Robert wrote

"I've read about Mormonism from its own sources and rejected them on the basis of the theology, Scripture, and church history that I know. Also, I've talked with people who have left Mormonism to become Christian. "

James 1:5-7.

You can learn truth if you are willing to listen.

Speaking of NT contradictions
Robert you appear to be well studied in the New Testament and respect its teachings. Could you tell me how Judas died? The gospels give very different accounts of how he died. Which one is correct?

Joel
"You have written snarky comments about the doctrines of my faith, and have mocked the existence of sacred objects and have sneered at our sacred practices." Yes, I most certainly have. I heartily disapprove of the doctrines of your faith, past (and refuted) and present. I consider it a barrier to the living of a Christian life. I do not find any evidence for the existence of the sacred objects and find it hard to even name them without calling them into question. And some of your sacred practices I find socially destructive and sub-Christian. I don't apologize for that.

"you just parrot the rude, insulting, and frankly disgusting claims of the 'anti-Mormon' tracts and books sold in your average Christian bookstore.
Tell me, Robert, do you condemn those books full of lies and slander, or do you praise the men and women that earn their living by selling falsehoods about another religion?" Nope. I've never read them. I've read about Mormonism from its own sources and rejected them on the basis of the theology, Scripture, and church history that I know. Also, I've talked with people who have left Mormonism to become Christian. Frankly, most of what is sold in Christian book stores is junk. Actually, most of what is sold in any bookstore is junk.

AliveInHim, after reading
your 5:59 post, I've decided you are pretty cool. Homosexuals despise your kind because you repudiate their image of an angry, bigot Christian.

One way to get the Feminists going
is to suggest we no longer have men or women teams in the Olympics. From now on it's the men against the women.

See if they don't think there's a difference then.

Yes Anderson,
It seems to always be about the children. Homosexuals sued, and sued and then used the government to discriminate against Scouting because they wanted to go camping with the boys.
The homosexually controlled teachers union spent millions trying to have gay marriage in California.
There is a pattern.
If we connect the dots, it appears that homosexuals will devote time and treasure to acquire open access to children.

By the way, what's up with Jeffrey? I copy, then paste his own words and then ask him if he would vote for:

"Gay couples ...enjoy the rights and obligations of legal marriage, just like you and I do."
And
"the rights and obligations of legal marriage" for the homosexuals of Michigan?

But he can't seem to answer. What is he afraid of? Does he not want what he says he wants or are there 2 different Michigan Jeffreys.

Joel
"There are many, many places in both the OT and the NT that contradict one another. How do you know which to believe and follow without Revelation? " I wouldn't make that statement, Joel. I would say that the New Testament developed the ideas revealed in the Old Testament and brought them to their full realization. I don't think we need a new revelation to 'correct' the New Testament, which Mormonism does. A better question might be how you reconcile the many contradictions between Mormonism and both the Old and New Testament. The only way to do that is to posit a new prophet, which is what you do. Remember, however, when Paul said that all Scripture is valuable for teaching, admonishing, etc. he only had the Old Testament. Obviously, he thought in terms of the revelation of Christ being a fulfillment of the Old Testament, not a contradiction.

Joel
"Robert, talent scout, skulptyr/sol, and others seem to feel that I should NOT be allowed to disagree, or challenge their understanding of Christianity.

Seems rather one-sided, don't you think?"

Of course you're allowed to challenge our understanding of Christianity. In turn, you should expect a vigorous refutation of your challenge. I'm not advocating for any one denomination, but in great part post only those ideas that the majority of Christians believe in. If I post any particulars to my own denomination, I identify them as such, as do you.

Jeffrey
You are wrong. Marriage is indeed 1 + 1 = 1. That's no mere math, that is fact. If I were widowed tomorrow I would no longer be 'one' unit together with my husband, that union would be broken, but I would still be 'one' on my own. Now, I will always be myself (as I have always been myself) even as I am 'one flesh' with my husband so long as we are both alive. I can't say that about my closest female friend as painful as it would be to lose her to death; we are not one flesh even though she understands me on a level my DH never will. Nobody understands one woman like another woman, as it were. But marriage, it ain't.

Again, marriage is about the ability to become 'one flesh' in every sense of the term, while the man and his wife yet remain individuals.

Why else call it 'one flesh', if there's nothing more to it than the wish to spend a life together? On that basis, I could just as well say I'm one with my cats, and who could argue? :) And again, why draw any line at all, if feelings are all that matter? Polygamy, polyamory, and bigamy are now prosecutable crimes; no doubt someone is in love, even in these situations.

You may well contribute to societal stability by living with a partner instead of cruising the bathhouses. So too would heterosexuals who eschew marriage to simply shack up. Nobody argues that. But *married* you're not. Nor are you a victim because you and your friend's commitmemt don't fit the definition of marriage.

kevlar
Will posts in part:

Will states:
"that protect both gay and transgender kids from bullying."

Kevalr, Will as always wants special protections for homosexuals. Will values gay and transgender children, he does not value heterosexual children.

This is also why Will and ilk want homosexuality taught in public schools as normal.

This is NOt about protecting children that are different. If that was the case other children with problems would also be protected. Near sighted kids, fat kids, ugly kids, kids that smell bad and have acne.

Will and ilk need future recruits.

Joel
"Are you saying that Abraham, the Friend of God, with whom the Covenant was made, and Jacob/Israel, with whom the Covenant was renewed, stand condemned before God for having more than one wife?" Abraham also held slaves. That was the wisdom of the time. We've progressed since then. Or do you think slavery is still okay?

Now, Big MG says I'm Mormon bashing here. I'm more than willing to drop the subject, but not if you continue to post unScriptural defenses of Mormonism. I don't go out of my way to criticize religions I don't approve of, but will gladly defend my own against attack, as you do also. Do you want to stop? Fine, just drop it. If not, on we go, even if BigMG doesn't approve.

Kevlar
I was bullied in school because I was a wise guy and had a smart mouth, or as I prefer, was intelligent and was candid and frank. Fortunately, I was also large and strong.

Judging from a lot of the responses I get on TH, some things never change.

Will states:
"that protect both gay and transgender kids from bullying."

Is it still legal to bully the straights in North Carolina?

BigMG-- Mormon bashing?
Mormon bashing? I didn't bring up Mormonism. Joel did, as he always does. If he doesn't want me to speak against Mormonism, he shouldn't invite me to. I was responding to another poster who said that Christians could be polygamous, like the Mormons. I said that from New Testament times Christians have been against polygamy. Joel took umbrage at that asked me to show why I thought that, which he did. Then, he posted refutations of what he said, and vice versa. Actually, Mormonism bores me. However, if someone is going to claim that this is God's true message by the prophet, he's going to get a response.

Joel
"So, you have in your possession the ORIGINAL scrolls written upon by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, and the other Apostles? " Of course I don't. However, the Scriptures have been preserved and handed down to us by God, not by men alone, and are reliable. You seem to have a very low opinion of the New Testament. I have a very high opinion of its reliability. If not, any old thing is possible, even Mormonism.

"If you do not, then you are relying on translations and transcriptions, the same as the rest of us, other than the Prophets and Apostles who learn personally from Jesus Christ." Copies, careful copies, not mere transcriptions. And the Scriptures tell us to weigh any new revelation by the standard of what has been already revealed. By this standard, Mormonism falls short of the standard for new revelation. Also, it would be nice if there was archaeological evidence for these movements and battles of vast numbers of Semitic people in the New World. There is not.

From Feminims to Mormon Bashing
The idea of Mike's article is that the Feminist movement is acquiring more and more baggage as is scourges the landscape.

That Marxism is the totalitarian billy club they hope to beat up everyone with is a silly notion.

That simple minded Feminists continue to believe that if they ever get their Marxist utopia they won't be the first to be eradicated is, well, simple minded.

Speaking of, why don't you take your Mormon bashing somewhere else. It's off topic and detracts from a real issue.

When "Christians" don't have anything else to attack you can always count on them eating their own.

News item!
June 24, 2009

PROTECTING LGBT KIDS IN NORTH CAROLINA


The North Carolina house narrowly passed legislation on Monday that would create protections for students bullied for their perceived or actual sexual orientation or gender identity. Having already passed the senate, the bill now goes to Democratic governor Beverly Perdue, who is expected to sign it into law.

It was a contentious 59 to 57 vote that pushed the legislation through, adding North Carolina to a small list of states -- California, Iowa, Maryland, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington state -- that protect both gay and transgender kids from bullying. Oregon's legislation was signed into law just last week.

--------------------


Mike Adams is from North Carolina, so this seems the logical place to post this.

Who's have thought that N.C. would be one of the states standing up for the gay children?


Right on, N.C.! Fighting the good fight.

joel de

there is no reason to discuss religion on this thread.

You have solid views on many subjects, but defending the LDS on this thread will achieve nothing.

Your whole premise is that the history of the Church is distorted and unknown therefore whatever J. Smith claimed must be believed to right the damage done to the Church.

If history and the Scriptures disagree with your beliefs, you say they are unreliable and have been altered.

If history and the Scriptures agree with some of your beliefs, than all of your beliefs must be correct.

Jeffrey, you are confused,
You stated:
"I believe you’ve presented a false choice:
no marriage rights or
civil unions only for same-sex couples."

The choice is all of the rights of marriage
or what you've got now.
In New Jersey, "Gay couples ...enjoy the rights and obligations of legal marriage, just like you and I do." thanks to enhanced civil unions.
Yes or no Jeffrey, would you vote for "the rights and obligations of legal marriage" for the homosexuals of Michigan?

Joel
Hosea mentions his wife. The argument that just because they weren't mentioned don't mean they didn't exist is an excellent one. Remember, I've never argued that Jesus wasn't married. However, the norm for marriage at the time of Jesus was one wife. Virtually every first century Judean or Galilean that we know anything about had one wife, not several. Since the people we know the most about during the first century were also the ones most likely to be able to afford more than one wife, there should be some historical record that shows polygamy was common. It wasn't.

Polygamy, like slavery, has always existed. Polygamy, like slavery, has always been condemned as society advances and our understanding of the Christian life grows.

If you need a special revelation and a structure of inferences rather than Scripture, there is an overwhelming likelihood you are wrong.

Jeffrey, you said:
"The state representative from Ann Arbor is preparing a bill for that as we speak. It’s unlikely to go anywhere"

Michigan lacks the appropriate percentage of mainline liberal Protestants to ever have gay-marriage.
You and I both know it.
But, New Jersey homosexual couples now have "equal rights and responsibilities" as marriage.
If this new enhanced civil union were on the ballot for Michigan Jeffrey, would you vote for or against it?

I have always wondered
how a man can say he feels like a woman. How does a man know what being a woman feels like? He might guess or speculate based on what people say, but no man can possibly know what it feels like to be a woman and no woman can know what it feels like to be a man.

When I was growing up, I was the only girl in my neighborhood. I frequently played with boys and joined in their, sometimes reckless, adventures. I played cowboys, cops & robbers, and my favorite time was after Christmas when we went around gathering tossed out Christmas trees to make a tree fort. We piled up hundreds of snow balls outside our fort and then had a war with rivals in the adjoining neighborhood.

In spite of all this, I never once said I “felt like a boy”. I may have acted boyish, but I was just a girl having fun in a boys world. When I was assertive or aggressive or enjoyed boy-type activities, I recognized that emotionally healthy people have traits of both sexes and this is normal. At times, I talked my closest boy chum into playing with my dolls, and I never thought this strange. I would have thought, however, that he was nuts if he had said that doing so made him “feel like a girl”. Since he was not a girl, he could not have known what it felt like to BE a girl.

Psychologists say that multiple personality disorder is caused by a person’s inability to integrate various, sometimes opposing, personality traits into one, whole personality. It is a rejection of certain personality traits, sometimes viewed as undesirable, such as aggressiveness. I wonder if this same phenomenon could be the cause of transgender disorders. Perhaps it is an unconscious rejection of feminine or masculine qualities that a person fears embracing as part of himself.

Jerry @ 2:32 p.m.

The Tea Party Concept came directly from working, middle class Americans. To say the Democratic Party and Obama took notice would be an understatement. The Tea Party Movement has political power. The Obama people, who are on the political level of Bill and Hil, know this better than anyone.

................................................................................................................................................

Concerning a conservative running for president. The far-left now runs the country. This is America. Not some European Socialist nation. A conservative, who tells the country a weak and dangerous liberal is in the White House, can and will win in 2012.

Liberal School System full of wackos?
Is anyone really surprised by this? What they need to do is get these people some help, not shuttle them around campus like a f'n circus. People aren't intersted in what some weirdo who thinks he is a chick has to say. I don't want to learn/know how they feel or think. They are sick in the head and need help, just like a person diagnosed with Bi Poloar or sychitzfrenia (no idea how to spell that sorry). People need to stop worrying about all these fuzzy feelings and bs. These people have probelms, plain and simple. What's even worse is the school system that harbors and promotes these attitudes has even more problems and is even SICKER in the head than these folks.

They aren't, it's not, and he wasn't.
Jeffrey "I thought Mormons were Christians. I thought their basis for polygamous marriages was based on Bible teaching."

Joel: We are, and it was, along with a command from God to a modern Prophet.


Not my day-- another correction
"If they do not meet the criteria of Scripture, tradition, and reason they are false."

Joel
" Between the removal of writings from the canon, and errors in translation, the NT cannot be relied upon without revelation, " I can't think of any books that were removed from the canon so much as not allowed in the canon in the first place. Uncanonical books are generally heretical books. There are a few that aren't, but they tend to be purely historical or plainly allegorical. And there is the difference between us. I don't rely on translations-- I read Hebrew and Greek. Also, any revelation that contradicts both Scripture and two thousand years of tradition is probably false. There have been many special new "revelations" by many new "prophets." History is full of them from the very beginning. If they do not meet

"Also, considering that the wicked used the name of Jesus as a curse, the Apostles were NOT going to put His wives and children into the public eye to be mocked and scorned as well." Why not, if multiple wives were normal and children were expected? Stating their existence would have helped him, not hurt him if your thesis is correct.

jim

I bet that you were on Auto-Pilot, too!

Just for fun

One time a very pretty lady, with a very low cut dress, saw me looking at her necklace of an airplane hanging on a chain.

She said, “Do you like my airplane?”

I said “No, but I love the landing field!”

correction
"low payed" Where on earth did that come from? Low paid, of course.

Wanting to
condemn immigrants to a life of (menial labor inspired) poverty is cruel. Allowing anyone to not learn to talk, read or write is wrong and immoral.
What would we do with parents that purposely kept their children illiterate and unable to communicate?
The individual that Promotes bilingual anything should be punished.

Kevlar
I believe you’ve presented a false choice: no marriage rights or civil unions only for same-sex couples. There’s another choice: full marriage rights for opposite-sex and same-sex couples equally. I can’t come up with any reason why the state would permit an opposite-sex couple to enjoy, say, freedom from having to testify against each other in court that wouldn’t be as valid for a same-sex couple. That right comes from the intimacy of the relationship, not from the gender composition. In fact, I don’t think there’s any legal right or obligation of marriage that depends on the couple being composed of one man and one woman.

I favor full marriage rights for consenting adults in Michigan. The state representative from Ann Arbor is preparing a bill for that as we speak. It’s unlikely to go anywhere but it gives the issue some visibility.

What is his name?

Boss.

Language?
Joke:

5 Mexicans on a job site in California.

1 is bilingual.

What is his name?

In New Jersey,
"Gay couples ...enjoy the rights and obligations of legal marriage, just like you and I do." thanks to enhanced civil unions.

Is this a good thing? or not?

Jeffrey,
would you be in favor of New Jerseys' civil unions for Michigan, or will the homosexuals in your state have to live without "equal rights".

Jeffrey
I grew up in a German-speaking enclave. Why not print the ballots in German? "So what’s the harm in, say, printing voting ballots in both English and Spanish? It doesn’t diminish the English speakers to accommodate the Spanish speakers." No, but it does diminish the Spanish speakers. Without English skills, they must remain low payed and marginal members of society. They can't participate meaningfully in politics because they aren't exposed to the whole spectrum of thought, but only the narrow view of a monolithic ethnic media.

Pennsylvania was mostly German in 1790. The legislature was conducted in German, as were most of the courts. They voted to make English the official language, even though most of them didn't speak it. They realized that for the United States to be truly united, there had to be a common language. They maintained German in many educational and social institutions for more than a century, and some still do. But they recognized reality-- one language is necessary for a truly united people.

Jeffrey @ 3:21
Please forgive me as I will try to respond tonight when I get home from work. My work computer/accounting system will be back up in 5 minutes and I will need to do other things here rather than just monitor the progress of the rebuilding of the damaged files. (Like ACTUAL work.)

Later

Why is the state in it?

On the marriage controversy, why did the state get involved in this otherwise religious institution?

It was children. Something had to be done to curtail the number of orphans the state was saddled with due to willful illegitimacy.

The idea was to give state incentive to promote the nuclear family, and reward people for being responsible for their own children.

In a society where we have birth control, are lawfully allowed to kill our pre-born children, and again burden the state with our responsibility to our children, this issue becomes moot from a states interest perspective.

Why are gays concerned about this institution anyway? From the view of state involvements original intent, gays are by nature exempt from burdening the state with its unwanted children.

Gays, I believe this is a trap to allow lawyers to profit from your failing relationships like they do hetero relationships now. You guys may not like the color of the grass once you get over here.

MN Duck
And I appreciate your kind thought.

But I must take issue with the notion that anything is being imposed on opponents of same-sex marriage. No one will be forced to marry someone of the same sex, if and when same-sex marriage becomes widely available. Adults will have the choice of marrying someone of the same sex, or the opposite sex. I have a brother who’s tried both LOL. No, not at the same time. That would be bigamy.

Opponents are acting as if the choice is “either or” when it’s actually “both.” It’s the difference between arguing whether English or Spanish should be the country’s only official language, or whether both can be official. Sure, English speakers can easily take the position that only English should be the official, legally recognized language, because that’s what they speak. But the reality is, this country has a lot of Spanish-speaking citizens, many of whom speak poor English for whatever reason. So what’s the harm in, say, printing voting ballots in both English and Spanish? It doesn’t diminish the English speakers to accommodate the Spanish speakers. Like marriage, language isn’t some “team sport” and you want your team to win. There’s no need to have any winners or losers, if you make both kinds of marriage (or languages) legal.

Jeffrey

why should homosexuals and non-christians not be expected to conform to christian teachings about murder, theft, etc.?

What kind of society would it be if we did not enforce the christian teachings against murder, theft, etc.

The same-sex sodomites

want to participate in marriage because of greed, nothing more and nothing less.

These perverts say marriage has nothing to do with procreation. They say it is only about government benefits.

If you agree that marriage has nothing to do with procreation, you are on the perverts' side in this argument.

The Iowa Supreme Court agrees that state sanctioned marriage has nothing to do with children and procreation.

That is it folks. Either you believe marriage exists because of its relationship to procreation and children or you do not.

If the government declares that marriage has nothing to do with procreation and children, than I vote for eliminating civil marriage in its entirety.

After eliminating this perverted institution that supports the idea that marriage is only about getting government benefits for people who engage in anal and oral sex, we the people need to figure out an institution that supports and encourages people who have the courage to procreate and take responsibility for the next generation.

Joel
"People may build huge edifices on inference and theory, but the Scriptures are silent on the subject" The idea that Jesus was married to multiple wives is unique to the Mormon faith. The Scriptures do not say so. If it was important, it would have appeared in the Scriptures, and also in early Christian tradition. No such tradition and no such Scripture appears. The idea that he must have been married or they would have thought he was homosexual is also incorrect, as he could well have been a Nazirite, as John the Baptist was.

I don't discard every new idea, such as the multiple wives theory just because it is new. I measure it against Scripture, the history and tradition of the Church, and reason. The multiple marriage theory falls down on all three counts. In the building of an edifice of absurdity on inference, it is an exact corollary of the theory I hear from 'progressive' theologians that Jesus and all his apostles were gay. After all, they kissed, hung around together a lot, and only one was married for sure. Also, Jesus never discussed homosexuality (or a lot of other things) Ergo, he must have been gay. That, of course, is also an absurd argument, another edifice built on inference and theory rather than Scripture and reason.

Later, I'll use the same tools you do to prove Jesus was a Rosicrucian.

adams
so adams does not have any kids....he must be radical as well (or low sperm count?). he also judges people (mainly women) that have been divorced, yet his wife left him. that's the thing about hypocrites...do as I say rule.

Jeffrey, you said:
"Gay couples aren’t insecure. They just want the right to marry and enjoy the rights and obligations of legal marriage, just like you and I do."

Jeffrey, you and the homosexuals demand equal rights. They march, petition and sue in a frantic attempt to gain the few equal rights that separate civil unions from marriage.
Their decision to target the redefinition of the word marriage has been a mistake.
In the US the state score is 39 (gay marriage now illegal) vs 6 (new marriage), comparable to the 85' Bears in the Superbowl.
Internationally the prospects for gay marriage are even bleaker.
The homosexuals of New Jersey kept their eye on the target of "equal rights and responsibilities" and achieved it.
Yes or No Jeffrey, would you be in favor of New Jerseys' solution for Michigan, or will the Wolverine homosexuals continue to live without equal rights.