[Bob Seger]

God also feels you shouldn't have sex before marriage. Cuss, And many other things that im sure u have done. Like judge people. :please:

Doesn't the bible say all sins are equal? Your judgment of people is beyond belief, Funny how u could call me a fake just because i couldn't care less if someone is gay or not.

Your statements speak for themselves 23. Nobody has to judge anyone.

Again, you are the one that touts themselves as a great scholar of the scriptures. How do I know? You tell us so. You've "read way more of them than I have". You may be reading them, but are either blatantly ignoring them or you just plainly dont understand them. Just pointing out your hypocricy.

[Wildcatk23]

Your statements speak for themselves 23. Nobody has to judge anyone.



Again, you are the one that touts themselves as a great scholar of the scriptures. How do I know? You tell us so. You've "read way more of them than I have". You may be reading them, but are either blatanly ignoring them or you just plainly dont understand them. Just pointing out the hypocricy.

I wouldn't say scholar... ANd i have said many times before i dont understand and comprehend a lot of what i read.

Hypocrisy? How so?

Just because i have no problem with gay people, u said that makes me gay? If only i would have found out sooner... My girly is gonna be so upset.

[Bob Seger]

I wouldn't say scholar... ANd i have said many times before i dont understand and comprehend a lot of what i read. Hypocrisy? How so?

Just because i have no problem with gay people, u said that makes me gay? If only i would have found out sooner... My girly is gonna be so upset.

Which is very obvious.

Hypocritical in that you openly confess yourself as a follower of Christ, yet openly condone an unnatural act that God abhors.

[Wildcatk23]

Which is very obvious.

Hypocritical in that you openly confess yourself as a follower of Christ, yet openly condone an unnatural act that God abhors.

I'm not perfect and dont act to be. I don't bother gays because they dont bother me. I haven't seen in the bible where it says gays can't join the military. It say's christians shouldnt be gay. Were not bible police men.

[Wildcatk23]

Which is very obvious.

Hypocritical in that you openly confess yourself as a follower of Christ, yet openly condone an unnatural act that God abhors.

SOrry great bible scholar. Please tell us how we suppose to understand the bible....Geez.. Every church preaches different, every man understands it differently. That doesn't make your point of view correct.

[Bob Seger]

I'm not perfect and dont act to be. I don't bother gays because they dont bother me. I haven't seen in the bible where it says gays can't join the military. It say's christians shouldnt be gay. Were not bible police men.

Who said you have to bother anyone?

So you understand that part of it then? Yet, claim one thing and condone the opposite?

You have lied with your conflicting statements one way or the other 23. Exactly where is it that you stand ?

Do you also understand how God feels about lukewarmness?

[Bob Seger]

SOrry great bible scholar. Please tell us how we suppose to understand the bible....Geez.. Every church preaches different, every man understands it differently. That doesn't make your point of view correct.

That is the term you have stated that applies to yourself in that you have spent way more time reading than I have. I am more than willing to let you claim the crown for yourself. You did however state in your next post that you fully understand that Christians are not suppossed to be gay. I am not understanding how you can say one thing in one sense and twist and apply it differently in another. Do you not realize how foolish you are making yourself look in this discussion?

[Wildcatk23]

Who said you have to bother anyone?

So you understand that part of it then? Yet, claim one thing and condone the opposite?

You have lied with your conflicting statements one way or the other 23. Exactly where is it that you stand ?

Do you also understand how God feels about lukewarmness?

Who am i to tell anyone what they can and cannot do? Is the military a army for god now?

[Wildcatk23]

That is the term you have stated that applies to yourself in that you have spent way more time reading than I have. I am more than willing to let you claim the crown for yourself. You did however state in your next post that you fully understand that Christians are not suppossed to be gay. I am not understanding how you can say one thing in one sense and twist and apply it differently in another. Do you not realize how foolish you are making yourself look in this discussion?

I called myself a scholar? Hmm ?

I stated i have read the bible, and i have. I haven't claimed to be an expert.

Yes christians are not suppose to be gay. Not everyone is a christian. im saying its there choice to be gay and not to be a christian. IF that condems them to hell then so be it. Not my issue.

[TheRealVille]

Who said you have to bother anyone?

So you understand that part of it then? Yet, claim one thing and condone the opposite?

You have lied with your conflicting statements one way or the other 23. Exactly where is it that you stand ?

Do you also understand how God feels about lukewarmness?

Someone that doesn't believe in god puts a whole new spin on this whole argument. Not everyone believes in god or the bible, so it doesn't apply to them. To people that don't believe in god or the bible, the whole "abomination" thing doesn't exist.

[Bob Seger]

Who am i to tell anyone what they can and cannot do? Is the military a army for god now?

Who said you should tell anyone anything?

This went from you and RV stating that queers have a right to serve in the military. I countered and said that nobody has a right to be in the Army. I said it is a SELECTIVE entity, and then you come back with one of your republican, God fearing smart comments.

I then proceeded to remind you of your previous statements where you declared Christ as your "personal savior" and then added to where you have contradicted your previous claims and pointed out your hypocricy.

You junior, are the one that brought religion into the discussion. It wasn't me.


Also I find it interesting that you dont even have enough reverence to capitalize the name of your (self stated) Savior's father.

[Wildcatk23]

Who said you should tell anyone anything?

This went from you and RV stating that queers have a right to serve in the military. I countered and said that nobody has a right to be in the Army. I said it is a SELECTIVE entity, and then you come back with one of your republican, God fearing smart comments.

I then proceeded to remind you of your previous statements where you declared Christ as your "personal savior" and then added to where you have contradicted your previous claims and pointed out your hypocricy.

You junior, are the one that brought religion into the discussion. It wasn't me.


Also I find it interesting that you dont even have enough reverence to capitalize the name of your (self stated) Savior's father.

When your in a hurry at work, or any other time i dont pay attention to what i capitalize.

[SKINNYPIG]

Can we please get back to comparing the liberty of confessing homosexuality in the military and going to work naked? All this holier than thou stuff is nowhere near as interesting. TRV refuses to debate it. I'd say he's with me on it.

[TheRealVille]

Can we please get back to comparing the liberty of confessing homosexuality in the military and going to work naked? All this holier than thou stuff is nowhere near as interesting. TRV refuses to debate it. I'd say he's with me on it.

I'm all for you going to work naked, if your company will allow it, just Like the military now allows gays. Don't know why you would want to show that little thing to the girls at work, but oh well. You don't know me, but I know your ex- girlfriend, and she talks a lot.

[SKINNYPIG]

I'm all for you going to work naked, if your company will allow it, just Like the military now allows gays. Don't know why you would want to show that little thing to the girls at work, but oh well. You don't know me, but I know your ex- girlfriend, and she talks a lot.

She promised me she wouldn't show those darn pictures. I guess she's moved on to bigger and better things. I knew you were on my side on this issue TRV, I knew it!

[hawg laig]

I believe Homosexuality is immoral however there isn't a morality oath to be in the US military, so I think its fine.

[TheRealThing]

As someone has already mentioned gays have always served in the military and always will. Don't ask don't tell was working just fine, so why did the far left keep on insisting gays be allowed to serve openly? Same old tactic, legislate those who don't line up with the far left agenda into submission. Gays want validation, and if they can't get it any other way they will do what they always do in these matters, go to the courts and have themselves declared equals by law.

No doubt the courts can make people of moral conviction targets by passing laws that condemn intolerance but, that doesn't make immoral acts moral. Men could argue about whether or not it's ok to be homosexual from now on and not get anywhere with it. The arguement is with God. He is the One that has declared it unacceptable in His written Word. I would suggest a passage but, why not post it and save folks the trouble of looking it up?

Romans 1:19-32 (KJV)
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, [B]to [B]dishonour their own bodies between themselves[/B]:[/B]
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


Notice the parts bolded and in particular verse 32 which states that God's judgement in this matter applies not only to those guilty of the practice but those who "have pleasure in them that do them". The arguement isn't whether these folks are as good as anybody else. The arguement is that whether in the court of public opiniion or in the court of US law, what God says cannot be trumped by what men say whether legal or illegal. People are right to say that we as men don't have the right to judge others but, it is just as wrong to condone behavior that God has plainly declared unacceptable to Him. Therefore, again, the arguement is with God Himself.

The ONLY reason the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, was pushed to the fore was because the left wants to grant the gays respect through legislation. Sorry guys, and gals, God doesn't follow or bow to the arguements and laws of men.

[TheRealVille]

As someone has already mentioned gays have always served in the military and always will. Don't ask don't tell was working just fine, so why did the far left keep on insisting gays be allowed to serve openly? Same old tactic, legislate those who don't line up with the far left agenda into submission. Gays want validation, and if they can't get it any other way they will do what they always do in these matters, go to the courts and have themselves declared equals by law.

No doubt the courts can make people of moral conviction targets by passing laws that condemn intolerance but, that doesn't make immoral acts moral. Men could argue about whether or not it's ok to be homosexual from now on and not get anywhere with it. The arguement is with God. He is the One that has declared it unacceptable in His written Word. I would suggest a passage but, why not post it and save folks the trouble of looking it up?

Romans 1:19-32 (KJV)
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, [B]to [B]dishonour their own bodies between themselves[/B]:[/B]
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


Notice the parts bolded and in particular verse 32 which states that God's judgement in this matter applies not only to those guilty of the practice but those who "have pleasure in them that do them". The arguement isn't whether these folks are as good as anybody else. The arguement is that whether in the court of public opiniion or in the court of US law, what God says cannot be trumped by what men say whether legal or illegal. People are right to say that we as men don't have the right to judge others but, it is just as wrong to condone behavior that God has plainly declared unacceptable to Him. Therefore, again, the arguement is with God Himself.

The ONLY reason the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, was pushed to the fore was because the left wants to grant the gays respect through legislation. Sorry guys, and gals, God doesn't follow or bow to the arguements and laws of men.

Why do you keep posting Bible verses? That isn't the rules and law book for the United States, and has zero to do with gays in the military.

[Hoot Gibson]

Do you support every American's right to work for any employer they choose, RV, or do you believe in closed union shops that deny willing workers the right to negotiate independently with any employer? Do you support the right of polygamists to marry as many women who consent to accept them as husbands? Do you support the right of workers to vote secret ballots to determine whether to be represented by unions or do you support the proposed card check law? Do you believe that people should be able to open a business in any state in this country, or should the federal government dictate where companies can do business based on state labor laws? Are you paying enough federal income taxes or are only people who earn more money than you not paying their fair share?

Just trying to figure out how strongly you believe that all Americans should have the same rights under the law. You seem to apply that principle pretty selectively but if you actually believe the words that you have been typing in this thread, then there is no excuse for you supporting any liberal Democratic candidate. Liberals are all about depriving individuals of their personal liberty. They lie (pun intended) at the opposite end of the political spectrum from libertarians, who genuinely believe in maximizing individual liberty.

[Amun-Ra]

Never understood why being gay and being in the militray is so taboo. I mean they are fighting for my way of life. I don't care if they pull a dick out of their ass and pick their gun up to kill someone who wants to kill me.

[SKINNYPIG]

Never understood why being gay and being in the militray is so taboo. I mean they are fighting for my way of life. I don't care if they pull a dick out of their ass and pick their gun up to kill someone who wants to kill me.

Every man in the military may not be comfortable with an openly gay man constantly by their side. I am suspecting it has caused problems within troops in the past. Bunches of aggressive young men living together is hard enough to begin with. With man having a sinful nature, shrugging off the fact your bunkmate may make a pass at you or doing exactly what you described is not easy for everyone and cause problems within. Just as letting women sleep in close quarters with the guys would. A gay serving is no big deal, an open gay serving can cause problems.

[RunItUpTheGut]

Dont ask dont tell should have never been repealed in the first place.
It was working fine the way it was.
Why end something because a few homos are crying about it.
I just dont understand where this country is headed.
Its one thing right after another. This country has become so liberal, most people cant even think about it without getting sick.
Hopefully we can start things in the right direction by voting someone in 2012 who will put this country back on the right track, not straight to hell where its headed now with Obama at the helm.

[TheRealVille]

Do you support every American's right to work for any employer they choose, RV, or do you believe in closed union shops that deny willing workers the right to negotiate independently with any employer?
Yes, but I also am for union shops to not hire nonunion workers, if they so wish.
Do you support the right of polygamists to marry as many women who consent to accept them as husbands?
Yes. Marry as many women as your wallet and body can stand.
Do you support the right of workers to vote secret ballots to determine whether to be represented by unions or do you support the proposed card check law?
Yes, secret ballot. That's how my union votes.
Do you believe that people should be able to open a business in any state in this country, or should the federal government dictate where companies can do business based on state labor laws?
Yes. I would love to see a strip club open in Paintsville, or at least close by.
Are you paying enough federal income taxes or are only people who earn more money than you not paying their fair share?I pay lots of taxes, but on a percentage wise calculation, I don't think the wealthiest Americans pay as much.


Just trying to figure out how strongly you believe that all Americans should have the same rights under the law. You seem to apply that principle pretty selectively but if you actually believe the words that you have been typing in this thread, then there is no excuse for you supporting any liberal Democratic candidate. Liberals are all about depriving individuals of their personal liberty. They lie (pun intended) at the opposite end of the political spectrum from libertarians, who genuinely believe in maximizing individual liberty.

You always try to play the union card(pun intended), even when it's off topic. Unions allow gays to work, btw. I will work side by side with a gay on a construction site if it ever comes about.

[TheRealVille]

To add to #1 Hoot, No I'm not for workers going into a union environment and work independently from the union. I just noticed you ANY word. If they want to work, they can go to a nonunion shop, unless they want to join that particular union. And no, I am not for KY being a "right to work" state. There are about 11% percent union nationwide, that leaves 89% of other non union places to work, let them go to one of those shops, or join the union.

[TheRealThing]

Why do you keep posting Bible verses? That isn't the rules and law book for the United States, and has zero to do with gays in the military.

Just as when one is arguing law at some point the US Constitution is cited or quoted, when one argues a moral issue the source of all things moral must be consulted. Morality originated and is defined, administered and regulated by the Holy Scriptures. And as I said, gays want respect and the far left is willing to go to the courts to try to legislate everyone that won't comply with their wishes into submission via legislation. You can bang your head against the wall by way of argument all you want but, if you are trying to validate the homosexual lifestyle as merely an alternative that should be respected and honored by those that are straight your argument is with God.

Don't ask Don't tell was working to perfection. Gays were allowed to serve, just not openly. If truly all they wanted was to serve they had the oportunity. But, that's not all they want. This action (repeal of DADT) was intended to force people to accept gays as normal and honorable through law. This tactic mirrors the modus operandi pro choice activists employed when they finally got a ruling by the courts in Roe vs Wade that in essence leagalized abortion on demand. Now when they talk about abortion, they say women's rights and the notion that something is wrong with the practice is pooh-poohed and, people are laughed to scorn for suggesting otherwise. Just like rioting is now called civil unrest. Women's right to choose just sounds better than infanticide.

It isn't and never has been about gays being allowed to serve. It's been about circumventing God's law with man's law.

[TheRealVille]

Just as when one is arguing law at some point the US Constitution is cited or quoted, when one argues a moral issue the source of all things moral must be consulted. Morality originated and is defined, administered and regulated by the Holy Scriptures. And as I said, gays want respect and the far left is willing to go to the courts to try to legislate everyone that won't comply with their wishes into submission via legislation. You can bang your head against the wall by way of argument all you want but, if you are trying to validate the homosexual lifestyle as merely an alternative that should be respected and honored by those that are straight your argument is with God.

Don't ask Don't tell was working to perfection. Gays were allowed to serve, just not openly. If truly all they wanted was to serve they had the oportunity. But, that's not all they want. This action (repeal of DADT) was intended to force people to accept gays as normal and honorable through law. This tactic mirrors the modus operandi pro choice activists employed when they finally got a ruling by the courts in Roe vs Wade that in essence leagalized abortion on demand. Now when they talk about abortion, they say women's rights and the notion that something is wrong with the practice is pooh-poohed and, people are laughed to scorn for suggesting otherwise. Just like rioting is now called civil unrest. Women's right to choose just sounds better than infanticide.

It isn't and never has been about gays being allowed to serve. It's been about circumventing God's law with man's law.

That's what I'm saying, the US is not regulated by the Bible. I don't have an argument with god, because there is none. At least not a christian god. The bible isn't a US law book. Again, god's law doesn't apply to the US, as far as our laws go. You will find nowhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, or any other US papers that the bible is where our rules and laws come from.

[jetpilot]

Why even have a discussion with a Godless person? They are poisonous to the spirit and should be avioded.

[TheRealVille]

Why even have a discussion with a Godless person? They are poisonous to the spirit and should be avioded.

That's the beauty of America, it's set up so there is no "state" religion, so godless americans and god fearing americans can all live in this country with the same rights. This discussion wasn't about religion, until one of you post scriptures and bring religion into the mix. America isn't a religious state, but it is full of all different mixes of religious and non religious people living together under the same blanket of rights.

[TheRealVille]

Just as when one is arguing law at some point the US Constitution is cited or quoted, when one argues a moral issue the source of all things moral must be consulted. Morality originated and is defined, administered and regulated by the Holy Scriptures. And as I said, gays want respect and the far left is willing to go to the courts to try to legislate everyone that won't comply with their wishes into submission via legislation. You can bang your head against the wall by way of argument all you want but, if you are trying to validate the homosexual lifestyle as merely an alternative that should be respected and honored by those that are straight your argument is with God.

Don't ask Don't tell was working to perfection. Gays were allowed to serve, just not openly. If truly all they wanted was to serve they had the oportunity. But, that's not all they want. This action (repeal of DADT) was intended to force people to accept gays as normal and honorable through law. This tactic mirrors the modus operandi pro choice activists employed when they finally got a ruling by the courts in Roe vs Wade that in essence leagalized abortion on demand. Now when they talk about abortion, they say women's rights and the notion that something is wrong with the practice is pooh-poohed and, people are laughed to scorn for suggesting otherwise. Just like rioting is now called civil unrest. Women's right to choose just sounds better than infanticide.

It isn't and never has been about gays being allowed to serve. It's been about circumventing God's law with man's law.

BTW, there were colonies of men all around the world way before the Bible was written, and they lived in harmony and with moral rules also, so they must have been morality before the Bible. Of course, unless you actually believe the earth is about 6000 years old.

[Hoot Gibson]

You always try to play the union card(pun intended), even when it's off topic. Unions allow gays to work, btw. I will work side by side with a gay on a construction site if it ever comes about.

Unions have use coercion, threats of violence, and actual violence to gain monopoly positions with employers. A person who does not believe in paying dues to help socialists like Obama into office often is given no choice but to join a union or look for work elsewhere. Where is such a person's right to earn a living? That is one of the most basic human rights and it is a right that most unions undermine through collective bargaining, often to the detriment of their own members.

BTW, I support the right of unions to enter into mutually beneficial agreements with employers, provided the agreements are entered into by all parties voluntarily and without the threat of violence. Too often, that is not the case. I learned that on my very first job as a UMWA miner in the 1970s. Armed roving pickets wearing ski masks and engaged in illegal wildcat strikes prevented me from working on average every other day in Martin County. Don't bother telling me that the threat of violence is not a tool that big labor employs in organizing because I know better.

Monopolies of markets and labor both infringe upon peoples' right to earn the best living that they can. Liberals see the dangers of companies practising monopolistic tactics but turn a blind eye to the unions doing the same.

Here is another question for you RV - an easy one for anybody who truly believes in equal rights for everyone. Do you support federal hate crimes legislation? Should a person guilty of attacking a member of a minority or a gay person pay a higher price than for attacking you or me? In other words, should criminals be punished based on their thoughts or their actions?