Good night all..
Yea..for real

Redial,

I figured it out.

Redial,

Hmmm...I'll have to figure it out.

Clown,

"Prejudice towards Jews..."

That's all I read.

.

Clown,

"I'm proud to say I started that snowball."

Good for you.

Everyone should take note.

The moderator should list their posting names.

Clown,

"Conservatives will create newer battles to fight?"

You don't see it and I don't expect you ever would but, some of what you're seeing today coming from conservatives is defensive, not offensive.

Liberals have been on the offense about many worthy good causes, they fought and won.

That's a good thing.

But, I think they're running out worthy causes.

Immigration and handling the border was poorly thought out.

Transgender stuff was really botched.

And ACA, they are severely screwing the pooch.

ACA wasn't planned well and in fact was pushed through by Democrats.

Now, they're really in a mess.

They're scraping bottom and their ship is headed for the rocks.

Thankfully there are some level headed Democrats, who might be the future of the Democratic Party, grabbing hold of the wheel.

Maybe they can steer the ship back to sanity.

Pump,

So...would you like to explain how that parable prompted you to give post #1 a funny flag?

I won't challenge your opinion. I'll just read it.

Pump,

Ok...I read it.

I've read similar.

"What were you expecting? I'm a scorpion"

Ok...let's extrapolate.

My opinion about gays in society(s) goes like this.

Throughout history, cultures with no social contact, seperated by geography and time, have had similar attitudes toward same sex sexual activity. Anywhere from you're killed to ostracized. Cultures that appeared more tolerate still shunned older gays who were receptive when meeting the needs of straight men when they're younger.

My point is, it seems to me "homophobia" is the natural result of tribal instinct for survival. Just look at history. Unlike what people believe, we're not taught to dislike, distrust and even hate gay people.

In fact, the truth is a civilized society has to teach tolerance. Its instinct vs tolerance.

Going back to your parable.

Prejudice towards homosexuality is from all appearances "normal". So when discriminating against gay people, one could say, "What do you expect? I'm a straight human being".

What separates scorpions from humans today? Law and social contracts.

Law is what mostly protects gays today.

Snoofy,

"The thought of that happening by government force exists only in your head."

You underestimate how far ideology can go once the groundwork's laid. The hostility toward organized religion, Christianity in particular, and the eagerness of a well-funded, highly motivated activist couple could absolutely drive such a lawsuit out of principle.

As liberals run out of new battles to fight, don't be surprised when a church ends up in court defending its right to believe, teach and operate as its always done.

Never underestimate how far vitriol, anger, and resentment can drive people when they believe they're on a crusade or seeking revenge for perceived wrongs. There's no shortage of reasons some in the gay community harbor deep anger toward "the Church," and if they ever sense a real chance to strong-arm it through the courts, someone will eventually try.

You have Sy and Dan already building a framework.

Whoever put "funny" flags on post #1 should turn in their membership to this site.

You are a disgrace to anyone who professes to believe in gay rights.

Clown,

"You haven't explained why one person's religious beliefs should trump another's. Go for it."

It would take all night and I don't have that much energy.

Clown,

"What gives that church the right to deny the homosexual couple their religious beliefs?"

If you have to ask that question, everything I just wrote went over your head. I won't bother explaining it.

You're much denser than I thought.

Clown,

You got it.

Just not expect the church they grew up in to marry them if that church doesn't condone it.

Clown,

"Then don't indoctrinate children into Christianity"

Religious freedom means I can teach the faith to anyone willing to listen. Thats how freedom works.

I could even try to "indoctrinate" you, but you seem too smart to risk hearing the Good Word.

So just keep your kids away from places they might encounter it like churches, Christmas, or anyone who still believes in God.

Clown,

"Your main concern is making sure homosexuals aren't allowed to consider their marriage sacred based on the teachings of your religion?"

Religious freedom means you can consider your marriage sacred till the cows come home.

There's no shortage of more liberal churches that will participate in the facade.

And, some churches might even regard it blasphemy.

No one is telling you what you must believe. Just don't believe it in my church.

You went on the offensive with me so I'm making it perfectly clear lest there be any doubt what I believe.

Clown,

If you're going to accuse me of saying things, at least get it right. Understand what I mean.

What I said was in reference to the Christian bakers who did not want to participate in a gay marriage for religious reasons. Not the gays but the product and service they wanted.

What I said was, if the intent is to have a gay wedding in a religious context, it would be a mockery for some Christians. Me included.

A gay marriage in a secular setting is different.

My main concern has been insuring the word "marriage" has no religious meaning when performing the wedding for a gay couple.

Leave churches alone and not sue for discrimination or believe gay couples have any rights in churches that do not believe gays can marry with the same religious meaning.

My concern is the eventual law suit brought by a gay couple claiming those churches are discriminating against them when the issue is the type of ceremony, not gay people.

The courts got it wrong with the bakers and I am concerned the courts will get it wrong again.

How's that. Is that clearer now.

Db,

My wife is one of the most well read, educated people I've ever known.

Reads constantly smart stuff. Currents events, spent years doing all sorts of research and she's never seen "stare decisis".

Not much into legal terminology.

Snoofy,

Now you are a troll will be killfiled. Saying I run interference for child predators.

I don't like using it but the crazy talk on this site has made it necessary.

Snoofy,

"That's just dumb, and not how the world works."

Pet posted right before you, "Pelosi gaffed, telling the local elected officials assembled that Congress "[has] to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it, away from the fog of controversy."

Is that what you prefer?

Zed,

"When will you adopt that same cynical, snotty attitude to the Epstein scandal, BILL?"

It is quite a scandal. I agree.

But not the most pressing issue at this time.

John,

"You and the GOP supports a person who attempted to overthrow the US Constitution. You are all traitors."

Read my ACA summary I posted to get a better understanding of the problem with ACA.

Get up to speed and just let the past stay in the past.

Or get new material.

Snoofy,

"What have Republicans done in terms of working with Democrats?"

That's kind of immaterial right this moment.

Now's not the time to talk about the past.

Now's the time to talk about the future.

The ACA has no future and the sooner dems accept that fact, the better it will be for everyone.

Like it or not, dems need to get involved and hold Trump at his word to "fix" it.

Talk about the future....not the past.

Corky,

If Democrats would stop acting like spoiled children and work with Republicans, they could create a health care solution that meets more people's needs.

But you're just like them.

Prideful and partisan.

Only care about proving you're right but the problem is you can't.

All you can do is be stubborn and tell yourself lies about ACA.

Now the children are dealing with adults and can't get their way by throwing themselves on the ground kicking and screaming.

stare decises => stare decisis

I had to look it up...
"Stare decisis" is a Latin legal term meaning "to stand by things decided." It's the doctrine that courts should generally follow precedent " in other words, respect past rulings instead of overturning them.

I'm amazed at what I've seen in my lifetime. I honestly never thought I'd live to witness some of these changes.

To begin with, gays in the military. In the 1970s, I saw firsthand the fear gay people lived under. The risk of losing not just their careers but their dignity and even their rights as veterans.

Leonard Matlovich would be so proud today. His case didn't change a great deal, but it proved something profound. Gay people could serve honorably and be a credit to the Armed Forces.

It was during the Obama administration that Congress repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," paving the way for the Pentagon to certify open service.

And now, gay marriage. I'm overjoyed that two men can marry and build a relationship that society can no longer tear apart.

Kudos to all who made it possible. I'll admit, I still have some concern that the secular use of the word "marriage" might someday conflict with the church's definition and perhaps lead to lawsuits that test the boundaries of religious freedom.