"It appears words harmed that girl a great deal, wouldn't you say? She is, after all, DEAD."
Interesting reasoning. It was my understanding that she committed suicide, meaning SHE made herself dead. That is undoubtedly a tragedy, and people may indeed have been enormous assholes to her, but those words did not cause her death. I know that because I experienced bullying myself, and verbal abuse in certain contexts, and nothing anyone said to me, including the verbage this girl had to endure, would EVER make me kill myself. I was raised to understand words have no power beyond what I give them. So, no, the words didn't kill her.
"And your attempt at dodging logic with the usual attempt at semantical misdirection is quite the epic fail."
Hey, you made the comparison, champ, not me. And when arguing against someone's semantics, you should probably spell shit correctly....
"The analogy is based on the act of harm, not the scale of its lethalness."
Oh, no, I got that part. The problem with your analogy is that anthrax directly harms. Words do not.
In unrelated news today, the FBI testified before Congress that there is need of a new law mandating webcams installed on all new and existing computer systems, phones, and toilets. Mitch McConnell sponsored the new legislation, entitled the "How's That, Anonymous Coward Act Of Two-Thousand And Go Fuck Yourself".
President Obama has promised to sign the act should Congress send it to his desk. He's also promised to sleep through the hearing tomorrow on the NSA's abuses, because accountability makes him have to go poopy....
I just want to confirm that you're suggesting words/speech harm people in the same way as anthrax. Because unless you're referring to Anthrax the band, that's really stupid....
Hey, stupid, did you actually follow through the links from your original link? If you had, you'd find this:
"Second, as great a headline as it might be to say “Google is spying on you with your own webcam!” this sensationalism would be no more true than saying that Adobe or Microsoft have been spying on you for years. They haven’t been.
Once you get past the scary headlines that are bound to pop up, like, “Google Switches On Browser Spy Cam in Chrome” (on MSNBC), you will realize that (on a security level) not much has changed. Once you have a plugin like Flash enabled in your browser, it becomes a bolted-on part of your computing environment, no more or less secure than if the same functionality were native to your browser."
Funny, the article you ultimately linked to called you an idiot. Nicely done, dumbass....
An officially atheist state like China would NOT be better, because states like China make the State their religion.
A secular state that takes no position on religion would typically be best. The problem in America is that too many people care about the faith of their representatives....
"I emphatically disagree. A huge part of the reason that the US has become tyrannical, both domestically and internationally, is that the US decided that it should be the world's policeman."
That's not even close to being correct. The world's policeman would have stepped into Rwanda, the Sudan, and a myriad of other places where we could have, and should have, helped but didn't. Remember that getting involved does not always mean militarily. To stand idly by while attrocities are committed is a horrible way to go about being a world citizen.
"That's not to say that atrocities should be ignored. But no single nation should be judge, jury and executioner."
It should if there is a threat to that nation's existence. To claim that radical Islam does not present a threat to the United States is laughable. To claim that this Saudi decision doesn't represent radical Islam is likewise laughable. Therefore, this is something in which we should be involved.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
"Neither the state nor the Church accepts marriage between minors, so that is a fallacious argument. What we're discussing is how the state intruded upon the Church's religious rights by attempting to force their redefinition of marriage on them or demand that they close. That constitutes a VIOLATION of their 1A rights. You can divert away all you want but the truth is plain as day. That the state would even attempt to force something which goes against the Church's religious beliefs says all that needs to be said about their intrusive, bullying behavior as of late."
Jesus Christ, it's not a 1A violation because the Church has no inherent right to run an adoption service. That's a regulated function. The Church still has all their 1A protection to preach their bigotry. They've lost no speech rights. Running an adoption agency isn't speech and it isn't a de facto right to practice for a religion in this country. This 1A argument is completely without merit.
The State didn't infringe on their speech, they infringed on their running an adoption service, which isn't a right.
"Strawman arguments to divert the conversation -- a far stretch from the state attempting to impose an immoral, intrusive law upon a charity service run by the Church."
Cry all you want, the Church has no inherent right to run a service that the State regulates outside of those regulations. This really shouldn't be that tough to understand.
"IOW, sex abuse is nowhere near as widespread as the mainstream media tries to portray it as being within the Church."
Sigh, you are terrible at reading. What your linked showed was that pedophilia in the Church isn't all that much different by the percentages than the rest of society. I don't dispute that. What's different about the Church is the widespread COVER UP of those actions. You link did nothing to address that.
"Except the inconvenient fact that homosexuality literally means being attracted to members the same sex; age has nothing to do with it."
I'll take this to mean you agree that homosexuality and pedophilia are completely unrelated, which contradicts your earlier allusion....
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
"Are you calling a guy ramming his penis up another man's asshole 'natural behavior?'"
Seeing as how it happens, you know, IN NATURE, then the answer to that is obviously yes.
"Ditto for two women having intercourse."
Also happens in nature. I know, I know, it's icky and it makes your pee pee hurt, but that's nature for you.
"Once again, just because certain animals behave a certain way doesn't make it alright for people to behave likewise."
Sure, but a naturally occurring disposition that does not harm in and of itself is OF COURSE allowed in that civilized society you keep referencing. What you don't get to do as a member of a secular society is try to apply your completely allowed religious views to a public that doesn't share them. Start being a contributing citizen and stop bashing others just because they don't share your conservative religious belief.
"Also, are you suggesting that I eschew my moral character for the sake of tolerating perverse behavior?"
If that "perverse" behavior is allowed by society and its laws, yes. Of COURSE yes. That's the whole point of tolerance. You tolerate even that with which you don't agree, assuming it's not illegal.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
"The state REDEFINED marriage and then attempted to force their views on the Church. And no, that's not "ENTIRELY appropriate" anymore than it is for the state to decide what you can wear or what you can eat. They've become too invasive."
Yes, that happens from time to time. The secular State makes/changes a law and religions w/i the state have to get in line. For instance, churches should not be performing marriages between two 8 year olds. That would be child abuse. You can cry all you want about how the State shouldn't tell the Church not to marry those darling little children, but it doesn't matter. The Church has to abide by the law. After all, the religious wouldn't want to be "asking for special privileges", would they?
"Wrong. The state isn't religions' master; the state has no business regulating religious affairs."
Interesting. That must be why polygamy isn't illegal in the United States. Oh, wait, it totally is. That must also be why an employer can apply religion as a test for employment. Oh, wait, they totally can't. That must be why no state has outlawed or regulated snake-handling for religious purposes. Oh, wait, they totally have.
Sorry, but in a secular state, the State's rules come first and religion must operate within them. That's how you get many religions flourishing in a secular state. It's frankly something you should be grateful for.
"Maybe because you listen to whatever the mainstream media tells you."
I see. So you have non-mainstream media reports about how the cover up by the Church of its pedophiles was absolutely the norm in terms of how every other religion and occupation handles pedophiles? Interesting, feel free to share these reports.
"You said the most liberal estimate of pedophile of a homosexual nature is 40% and low 9%. I correlated the 9% estimate to the population (I used 2%). Therefore, if out of all pedo cases 9% are homosexual in nature: 2 / 9% = 4 & 1/2 , that means by default that the risk is much greater."
Sigh, let's try to make this simple. Something like a quarter of all pedophiles are homosexual pedophiles (not the same thing as being homosexual). Again, if you run into a pedophile, chances are they're straight, not gay.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
"Boy, you're dense, aren't you? Let's try again: "In order to be LICENSED BY THE STATE, Catholic Charities of Boston would have to obey state law barring "sexual orientation discrimination." And because MARRIAGE HAD BEEN REDEFINED in Massachusetts, Catholic Charities could NOT simply limit its placements to married couples. Catholic leaders asked the state for RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION but were REFUSED. As a result, Catholic Charities of Boston was FORCED TO SHUT DOWN its adoption services.""
And you're dense, too. The State is secular and they regulate adoption. If you can't provide a secular service as regulated by the State, you can't provide it at all. That's ENTIRELY appropriate.
"Hey, the state can keep its dirty money. We'd rather have freedom anyday."
Fair enough, assuming you abide by the laws of the secular state, I have no problem with any religious institution.
"That is a problem, certainly, but not relegated to the Catholic Church. It exists in every religion and occupation. The media chose to attack the Church precisely at the same time that they began pushing for same-sex marriages."
I'm sorry, but I must have missed how an organized cover up of pedophilia was a problem that exists in every religion and occupation.
"Even if I were to take the lowest percentage at face value, only 1-2% of the population identifies as being homosexual, so even 9% would automatically correlate to mean that pedophilia is about 4 & 1/2x more likely to happen among homosexuals."
Uh, learn science and math. First, pedophilia and sexual preference are ENTIRELY unrelated. Second, those numbers suggest that if you come across a pedophile, they're 4x more likely to be HETEROSEXUAL, not homosexual. How the hell did you reach your conclusion?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
"It was never allowed here in the western world until just recently. Every civilization which adopted same-sex unions perished."
Ah, I see, so by longstanding you meant the short time America has been around. You really should probably be a Mormon with that kind of philosophy....
"Once again, you're ignoring the fact that the state CHANGED THE LAW in an attempt to force the Church to service homosexual couples."
No, the State changed the law in recognition of the studies that homosexual parents are every bit as capable as heterosexual parents. That science is all that matters. Religion never enters the equation, until a religion wants federal funding. Put better, why SHOULDN'T homosexuals be allowed by the secular law to adopt children, keeping in mind that morality doesn't enter into the equation and the parenting capabilities are provably equal?
"Forget about this "state funding" bullshit because the Church's adoption agencies could've been maintained just fine with public funding."
Did you mean *without public funding? If you didn't, that's my entire point. If you did, then why didn't they give up the funding and carry on as they had been?
"Then again, that seems to be their sole purpose, to shove their immoral, deviant lifestyle in everyone's faces."
Yes, the scary gays are out to get you, with their tastefully decorated pitchforks and their booga-booga devil masks. Get over yourself.
"The real issue is that the state infringed upon freedom of religion and completely shut out the public from having a say in the matter."
Okay, you say the funding question isn't important. So, other than federal funding, in what way at all did the State impact religious group adoption centers?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
"Complete BS. The state was attempting to FORCE HOMOSEXUALITY on the Church by demanding that either they service homosexual couples or close their operation altogether."
Where did they say they had to close the organization? Unless I missed something, you showed evidence that they'd remove federal funding if they didn't operate in a secular fashion. How the fuck is that not appropriate? The State cannot publicly fund religious institutions or practices? What the shit are you talking about?
"Deny it all you want, the facts speak for themselves: this constitutes a direct violation of the Church's 1A rights."
I must have missed where the First Amendment, which specifically prohibits federal funding for church organizations, required federal funding for church organizations.
"Actually, less than 1% of all priests in the US were ever accused of any form of sexual abuse, much less proven it in court."
Are you REALLY claiming there wasn't a systemic cover up of Church crimes against children? The problem, OF COURSE, isn't just the pedophile priests, but every single person in the Church that knew about the crimes and did nothing about them. This should be obvious....
"BTW, is it just a coincidence that most acts of pedophilia are homosexual in origin?"
Oh, no, it's not a coincidence, it's flatout NOT TRUE. Depending on what numbers you include, the most liberal percentage of pedophiles that are homosexual in nature is 40%, and the low estimates are 9%. Way to be completely wrong...again.
"I've already proven how certain states used the redefinition to violate the Catholic Church's religious freedom by mandating that their adoption agencies either cater to homosexual couples, which blatantly contradicts their faith, or else they wouldn't be allowed to, so they were forced to close."
Bullshit. You've proven that the Catholic Church has to abide by secular law or they don't get federal funding. The church has no claim to the freedom (i.e. right) to own and operate adoption centers. The violation of freedom would be for the Catholic Church to get public money, including from non-Catholics, when they don't abide by the public's laws. If the Church wants to operate adoption centers within the oversight of the State, fine, but don't expect to be religious AND get secular money. It don't work that way.
"This was a direct attack caused by the homosexual movement, the same people who claim that they're "not bothering anyone.""
No, this was an attack from those of us that believe in the longstanding tradition in this country of the separation of church and state. You seem to gloss over the fact that Catholic Church groups getting federal money but not operating within federal procedures. That would be the violation of EVERY OTHER religion's freedom, but you don't seem to care. You must be Catholic....
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
"In 2011, Catholic Charities affiliates in Illinois closed down instead of complying with a new requirement that they can no longer receive state money if they refuse to place children with persons in same-sex relationships as foster or adoptive parents. "In the name of tolerance, we're not being tolerated," said Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield, Illinois, a civil and canon lawyer who fought for Catholic Charities to retain religious freedom in Illinois."
Speaks for itself, really."
First thing's first: adoptions aren't a ward of any religion. They are necessarily regulated by the state. Our state is a secular state. If a religiously affiliated adoption service can't abide by the laws of our land, they don't get money from the state (they probably shouldn't anyway). This is really simple: Catholic institutions offering Catholic-bent services don't get public money because the state isn't fucking Catholic, Christian, or even religious. This is a stupid, STUPID argument.
Second, pick a better source to quote. Bishop Paprocki is the same clown that claimed the source of the lawsuits against the Church for they SYSTEMIC pedophilia was "the devil". He refused to take responsibility for the Church's crimes and cried Satan when the Church had to pay for them. I almost wish there was a Hell for His Worship to go to.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
"Once again, I'm not the one who's trying to change the law, so I don't need to *prove* anything."
Excuse me, but precisely what law is anyone trying to change? We're arguing over the interpretation of laws, not any changes. In fact, the only ones trying to change laws in any serious way are religious factions attempting to outlaw gay marriage at the constitutional level, which is INSANE.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
"So what are you saying, that you're upset because I stand for traditional moral values? You fail to mention that the ones doing all the forcing on the rest of society are the gay activists."
Ahem, I'm not sure if anyone is still paying attention to this thread, but it's worth noting that the "tradition" argument is complete bullshit. The Catholic Church, hallmark of Christian theology for the majority of Christianity's existence, originally ALLOWED same-sex marriage, as well as married priests, female priests, and a host of other things today's religious would rail against.
Find another argument, because the tradition one isn't very good. Homosexuality has been around since long before your religion and it will exist long after your religion disappears, because it is a biological reality....
"This tactic has been criticized by people close to the intelligence community. Joel F. Brenner, a former NSA senior counsel, called it a "low dishonorable act" in a recent post at the blog Lawfare. Brenner objected to Wyden "putting Clapper in the impossible position of answering a question that he could not address truthfully and fully without breaking his oath not to divulge classified information."
What Wyden did was use the rules of the game to checkmate Clapper, except clapper then violated the rules of the game by pretending his king-piece didn't exist. The entire POINT of these rules is to keep everyone on the level. No you can't reveal classified shit, and no you can't lie to Congress. When you get cornered like that, something has to give. All this indicates is that I imagine Wyden is exceptionally good at chess.
Well, I suppose it also indicates that NSA lawyers like to upend the playing board when they lose, too....
On the post: Italian Prosecutor Wants To Bring Criminal Charges Against Facebook For Not Stopping A Suicide
Re: Re: Re:
Interesting reasoning. It was my understanding that she committed suicide, meaning SHE made herself dead. That is undoubtedly a tragedy, and people may indeed have been enormous assholes to her, but those words did not cause her death. I know that because I experienced bullying myself, and verbal abuse in certain contexts, and nothing anyone said to me, including the verbage this girl had to endure, would EVER make me kill myself. I was raised to understand words have no power beyond what I give them. So, no, the words didn't kill her.
"And your attempt at dodging logic with the usual attempt at semantical misdirection is quite the epic fail."
Hey, you made the comparison, champ, not me. And when arguing against someone's semantics, you should probably spell shit correctly....
"The analogy is based on the act of harm, not the scale of its lethalness."
Oh, no, I got that part. The problem with your analogy is that anthrax directly harms. Words do not.
On the post: FBI Increasingly Using Malware To Remotely Turn On Phone/Laptop Microphones
Re:
In unrelated news today, the FBI testified before Congress that there is need of a new law mandating webcams installed on all new and existing computer systems, phones, and toilets. Mitch McConnell sponsored the new legislation, entitled the "How's That, Anonymous Coward Act Of Two-Thousand And Go Fuck Yourself".
President Obama has promised to sign the act should Congress send it to his desk. He's also promised to sleep through the hearing tomorrow on the NSA's abuses, because accountability makes him have to go poopy....
On the post: Italian Prosecutor Wants To Bring Criminal Charges Against Facebook For Not Stopping A Suicide
Re:
On the post: FBI Increasingly Using Malware To Remotely Turn On Phone/Laptop Microphones
Re: Latest Chrome Browser Can Activate Webcams
"Second, as great a headline as it might be to say “Google is spying on you with your own webcam!” this sensationalism would be no more true than saying that Adobe or Microsoft have been spying on you for years. They haven’t been.
Once you get past the scary headlines that are bound to pop up, like, “Google Switches On Browser Spy Cam in Chrome” (on MSNBC), you will realize that (on a security level) not much has changed. Once you have a plugin like Flash enabled in your browser, it becomes a bolted-on part of your computing environment, no more or less secure than if the same functionality were native to your browser."
Funny, the article you ultimately linked to called you an idiot. Nicely done, dumbass....
On the post: Saudi Arabian Court Sentences Blogger To 7 Years, 600 Lashes Under Cybercrime Law
Re: Re: Re:
A secular state that takes no position on religion would typically be best. The problem in America is that too many people care about the faith of their representatives....
On the post: Saudi Arabian Court Sentences Blogger To 7 Years, 600 Lashes Under Cybercrime Law
Re: Re: Re:
That's not even close to being correct. The world's policeman would have stepped into Rwanda, the Sudan, and a myriad of other places where we could have, and should have, helped but didn't. Remember that getting involved does not always mean militarily. To stand idly by while attrocities are committed is a horrible way to go about being a world citizen.
"That's not to say that atrocities should be ignored. But no single nation should be judge, jury and executioner."
It should if there is a threat to that nation's existence. To claim that radical Islam does not present a threat to the United States is laughable. To claim that this Saudi decision doesn't represent radical Islam is likewise laughable. Therefore, this is something in which we should be involved.
On the post: Student's Free Speech Victory Is A Victory For Everyone Even If You Disagree With His Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Jesus Christ, it's not a 1A violation because the Church has no inherent right to run an adoption service. That's a regulated function. The Church still has all their 1A protection to preach their bigotry. They've lost no speech rights. Running an adoption agency isn't speech and it isn't a de facto right to practice for a religion in this country. This 1A argument is completely without merit.
The State didn't infringe on their speech, they infringed on their running an adoption service, which isn't a right.
"Strawman arguments to divert the conversation -- a far stretch from the state attempting to impose an immoral, intrusive law upon a charity service run by the Church."
Cry all you want, the Church has no inherent right to run a service that the State regulates outside of those regulations. This really shouldn't be that tough to understand.
"IOW, sex abuse is nowhere near as widespread as the mainstream media tries to portray it as being within the Church."
Sigh, you are terrible at reading. What your linked showed was that pedophilia in the Church isn't all that much different by the percentages than the rest of society. I don't dispute that. What's different about the Church is the widespread COVER UP of those actions. You link did nothing to address that.
"Except the inconvenient fact that homosexuality literally means being attracted to members the same sex; age has nothing to do with it."
I'll take this to mean you agree that homosexuality and pedophilia are completely unrelated, which contradicts your earlier allusion....
On the post: Student's Free Speech Victory Is A Victory For Everyone Even If You Disagree With His Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Seeing as how it happens, you know, IN NATURE, then the answer to that is obviously yes.
"Ditto for two women having intercourse."
Also happens in nature. I know, I know, it's icky and it makes your pee pee hurt, but that's nature for you.
"Once again, just because certain animals behave a certain way doesn't make it alright for people to behave likewise."
Sure, but a naturally occurring disposition that does not harm in and of itself is OF COURSE allowed in that civilized society you keep referencing. What you don't get to do as a member of a secular society is try to apply your completely allowed religious views to a public that doesn't share them. Start being a contributing citizen and stop bashing others just because they don't share your conservative religious belief.
"Also, are you suggesting that I eschew my moral character for the sake of tolerating perverse behavior?"
If that "perverse" behavior is allowed by society and its laws, yes. Of COURSE yes. That's the whole point of tolerance. You tolerate even that with which you don't agree, assuming it's not illegal.
On the post: Student's Free Speech Victory Is A Victory For Everyone Even If You Disagree With His Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Yes, that happens from time to time. The secular State makes/changes a law and religions w/i the state have to get in line. For instance, churches should not be performing marriages between two 8 year olds. That would be child abuse. You can cry all you want about how the State shouldn't tell the Church not to marry those darling little children, but it doesn't matter. The Church has to abide by the law. After all, the religious wouldn't want to be "asking for special privileges", would they?
"Wrong. The state isn't religions' master; the state has no business regulating religious affairs."
Interesting. That must be why polygamy isn't illegal in the United States. Oh, wait, it totally is. That must also be why an employer can apply religion as a test for employment. Oh, wait, they totally can't. That must be why no state has outlawed or regulated snake-handling for religious purposes. Oh, wait, they totally have.
Sorry, but in a secular state, the State's rules come first and religion must operate within them. That's how you get many religions flourishing in a secular state. It's frankly something you should be grateful for.
"Maybe because you listen to whatever the mainstream media tells you."
I see. So you have non-mainstream media reports about how the cover up by the Church of its pedophiles was absolutely the norm in terms of how every other religion and occupation handles pedophiles? Interesting, feel free to share these reports.
"You said the most liberal estimate of pedophile of a homosexual nature is 40% and low 9%. I correlated the 9% estimate to the population (I used 2%). Therefore, if out of all pedo cases 9% are homosexual in nature: 2 / 9% = 4 & 1/2 , that means by default that the risk is much greater."
Sigh, let's try to make this simple. Something like a quarter of all pedophiles are homosexual pedophiles (not the same thing as being homosexual). Again, if you run into a pedophile, chances are they're straight, not gay.
On the post: Student's Free Speech Victory Is A Victory For Everyone Even If You Disagree With His Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
And you're dense, too. The State is secular and they regulate adoption. If you can't provide a secular service as regulated by the State, you can't provide it at all. That's ENTIRELY appropriate.
"Hey, the state can keep its dirty money. We'd rather have freedom anyday."
Fair enough, assuming you abide by the laws of the secular state, I have no problem with any religious institution.
"That is a problem, certainly, but not relegated to the Catholic Church. It exists in every religion and occupation. The media chose to attack the Church precisely at the same time that they began pushing for same-sex marriages."
I'm sorry, but I must have missed how an organized cover up of pedophilia was a problem that exists in every religion and occupation.
"Even if I were to take the lowest percentage at face value, only 1-2% of the population identifies as being homosexual, so even 9% would automatically correlate to mean that pedophilia is about 4 & 1/2x more likely to happen among homosexuals."
Uh, learn science and math. First, pedophilia and sexual preference are ENTIRELY unrelated. Second, those numbers suggest that if you come across a pedophile, they're 4x more likely to be HETEROSEXUAL, not homosexual. How the hell did you reach your conclusion?
On the post: Student's Free Speech Victory Is A Victory For Everyone Even If You Disagree With His Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Ah, I see, so by longstanding you meant the short time America has been around. You really should probably be a Mormon with that kind of philosophy....
"Once again, you're ignoring the fact that the state CHANGED THE LAW in an attempt to force the Church to service homosexual couples."
No, the State changed the law in recognition of the studies that homosexual parents are every bit as capable as heterosexual parents. That science is all that matters. Religion never enters the equation, until a religion wants federal funding. Put better, why SHOULDN'T homosexuals be allowed by the secular law to adopt children, keeping in mind that morality doesn't enter into the equation and the parenting capabilities are provably equal?
"Forget about this "state funding" bullshit because the Church's adoption agencies could've been maintained just fine with public funding."
Did you mean *without public funding? If you didn't, that's my entire point. If you did, then why didn't they give up the funding and carry on as they had been?
"Then again, that seems to be their sole purpose, to shove their immoral, deviant lifestyle in everyone's faces."
Yes, the scary gays are out to get you, with their tastefully decorated pitchforks and their booga-booga devil masks. Get over yourself.
"The real issue is that the state infringed upon freedom of religion and completely shut out the public from having a say in the matter."
Okay, you say the funding question isn't important. So, other than federal funding, in what way at all did the State impact religious group adoption centers?
On the post: Student's Free Speech Victory Is A Victory For Everyone Even If You Disagree With His Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Bzzzzt, wrong again.
http://www.themonastery.org/blog/2011/06/did-the-early-church-perform-same-sex-weddings/
"God is eternal; homosexuality will perish."
Nobody cares about your bigot God and, if homosexuality is going to perish, it's sure taking its sweet time....
On the post: Student's Free Speech Victory Is A Victory For Everyone Even If You Disagree With His Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Where did they say they had to close the organization? Unless I missed something, you showed evidence that they'd remove federal funding if they didn't operate in a secular fashion. How the fuck is that not appropriate? The State cannot publicly fund religious institutions or practices? What the shit are you talking about?
"Deny it all you want, the facts speak for themselves: this constitutes a direct violation of the Church's 1A rights."
I must have missed where the First Amendment, which specifically prohibits federal funding for church organizations, required federal funding for church organizations.
"Actually, less than 1% of all priests in the US were ever accused of any form of sexual abuse, much less proven it in court."
Are you REALLY claiming there wasn't a systemic cover up of Church crimes against children? The problem, OF COURSE, isn't just the pedophile priests, but every single person in the Church that knew about the crimes and did nothing about them. This should be obvious....
"BTW, is it just a coincidence that most acts of pedophilia are homosexual in origin?"
Oh, no, it's not a coincidence, it's flatout NOT TRUE. Depending on what numbers you include, the most liberal percentage of pedophiles that are homosexual in nature is 40%, and the low estimates are 9%. Way to be completely wrong...again.
http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mental_Health_Letter/2010/July/p essimism-about-pedophilia
On the post: Student's Free Speech Victory Is A Victory For Everyone Even If You Disagree With His Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
That longstanding definition of marriage you keep referring to is neither long nor standing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
Try again.
"I've already proven how certain states used the redefinition to violate the Catholic Church's religious freedom by mandating that their adoption agencies either cater to homosexual couples, which blatantly contradicts their faith, or else they wouldn't be allowed to, so they were forced to close."
Bullshit. You've proven that the Catholic Church has to abide by secular law or they don't get federal funding. The church has no claim to the freedom (i.e. right) to own and operate adoption centers. The violation of freedom would be for the Catholic Church to get public money, including from non-Catholics, when they don't abide by the public's laws. If the Church wants to operate adoption centers within the oversight of the State, fine, but don't expect to be religious AND get secular money. It don't work that way.
"This was a direct attack caused by the homosexual movement, the same people who claim that they're "not bothering anyone.""
No, this was an attack from those of us that believe in the longstanding tradition in this country of the separation of church and state. You seem to gloss over the fact that Catholic Church groups getting federal money but not operating within federal procedures. That would be the violation of EVERY OTHER religion's freedom, but you don't seem to care. You must be Catholic....
On the post: Student's Free Speech Victory Is A Victory For Everyone Even If You Disagree With His Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Speaks for itself, really."
First thing's first: adoptions aren't a ward of any religion. They are necessarily regulated by the state. Our state is a secular state. If a religiously affiliated adoption service can't abide by the laws of our land, they don't get money from the state (they probably shouldn't anyway). This is really simple: Catholic institutions offering Catholic-bent services don't get public money because the state isn't fucking Catholic, Christian, or even religious. This is a stupid, STUPID argument.
Second, pick a better source to quote. Bishop Paprocki is the same clown that claimed the source of the lawsuits against the Church for they SYSTEMIC pedophilia was "the devil". He refused to take responsibility for the Church's crimes and cried Satan when the Church had to pay for them. I almost wish there was a Hell for His Worship to go to.
On the post: Student's Free Speech Victory Is A Victory For Everyone Even If You Disagree With His Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Excuse me, but precisely what law is anyone trying to change? We're arguing over the interpretation of laws, not any changes. In fact, the only ones trying to change laws in any serious way are religious factions attempting to outlaw gay marriage at the constitutional level, which is INSANE.
On the post: Student's Free Speech Victory Is A Victory For Everyone Even If You Disagree With His Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Ahem, I'm not sure if anyone is still paying attention to this thread, but it's worth noting that the "tradition" argument is complete bullshit. The Catholic Church, hallmark of Christian theology for the majority of Christianity's existence, originally ALLOWED same-sex marriage, as well as married priests, female priests, and a host of other things today's religious would rail against.
Find another argument, because the tradition one isn't very good. Homosexuality has been around since long before your religion and it will exist long after your religion disappears, because it is a biological reality....
On the post: Staffers For Rep. Mike Rogers Apparently Claim They Could Sue Me For Defamation
Re: Suggested response:
On the post: Former NSA Lawyers Attack Senator Wyden For Hinting At NSA Surveillance Excesses That Are Now Confirmed
Re: 9/11
On the post: Former NSA Lawyers Attack Senator Wyden For Hinting At NSA Surveillance Excesses That Are Now Confirmed
Stupid lawyer....
What Wyden did was use the rules of the game to checkmate Clapper, except clapper then violated the rules of the game by pretending his king-piece didn't exist. The entire POINT of these rules is to keep everyone on the level. No you can't reveal classified shit, and no you can't lie to Congress. When you get cornered like that, something has to give. All this indicates is that I imagine Wyden is exceptionally good at chess.
Well, I suppose it also indicates that NSA lawyers like to upend the playing board when they lose, too....
Next >>