Stating His Beliefs

mcgal 9 months, 1 week ago

Did not Mr. Cathy also state that if a male applied for a job and was wearing an earring he would not be hired? Does he just not like males wearing earrings and if so, could he not just ask that males refrain from wearing them? I believe he was referring to males wearing them as a sign that they were gay.

AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 1 week ago

Opposition to gay marriage at all is unacceptable. The notion that society should not recognize same-sex marriage, or that there is anything at all wrong with homosexuality, is a base and backward belief, and deserves no respect. Chick-fil-A deserves to be boycotted for Cathy's comments on marriage if for nothing else.

My facts are straight. Cathy discriminates against homosexuals by opposing their right to marry and by promising not to hire "guys with earrings." It is homophobia; there's no explanation for opposition to gay marriage other than fear and ignorance.

My article was very clear: Cathy and his confederates have a right to make those comments, but the rest of us have a right (and, morally, an obligation) to boycott them for it.

greatbrit 9 months, 1 week ago

What a load of ol' squit Mr Soboeiro doth spew forth. "Opposition to gay marriage at all is unacceptable", then I suppose that promoting gay marriage is compulsory in his little world. Don't try and tell me how I should think. "or that anything is wrong with homosexuality, is a base and backward belief", so now my beliefs are in question as well. If I believe, then your insistance that I shouldn't is not going to alter that one bit. I can be persuaded by a reasonable argument with well thought out facts and solid information but when someone tells me what to think, believe and say, I shall support Mr Cathy and if Mr Soboeiro had been anywhere near the restaurant on Wednesday, he'd have seen a lot more like minded people too!

AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 1 week ago

@greatbrit The argument in favor gay marriage is so simple and intuitive that it barely warrants being repeated, but I will here since it seems to have eluded you: homosexuals are not harming anyone. If two people of the same sex choose to have a relationship, that has no bearing on anyone else.

By refusing to recognize gay marriage, the state is suppressing their activity. There are tax benefits to being married; thus by not recognizing gay marriage, the government is taxing gay couples more. This is active discrimination, and cannot be tolerated by a moral or rational society.

If you don't like gay marriages, don't get one, but you have no moral right to subject persecute gays for not agreeing with you.

smoochielarue 9 months, 1 week ago

Keep up the good articles Andrew! Cathy also donates to organizations that are homophobic and think they can "cure" one from being a homosexual.

cooldaddy 9 months, 1 week ago

He has the right to state his opinion. (Mr.Cathy) If Andrew wants to be gay, he has that right. If Andrew wants to marry Bubba, well, what does the law say? That's what we have to go by. I believe personally that they have a right to a legal union and all that comes with it...same as marraige. We screwed up years ago when we allowed the word "Marraige" to become taxed. It became not seperate at that point. Now there is such a conflict because of that. Let 2 people do what they are going to do anyway. It will never be right in the eyes of God, but neither are the sins we all commit. We have to seperate it. Now, back to Mr. Cathy...he can say what he wants. He is free to do that. If you don't like that, don't choke on his chicken, find some other.

teufelhunden 9 months, 1 week ago

"Opposition to gay marriage at all is unacceptable. The notion that society should not recognize same-sex marriage, or that there is anything at all wrong with homosexuality, is a base and backward belief, and deserves no respect."

To you, perhaps. Where is your tolerance? Do you sport of of those trendy COEXIST stickers on your car? That is his belief. Works both ways you know.

AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 1 week ago

"Works both ways you know"

Not it doesn't, actually. As I explained above, Cathy is calling to actively persecute gays. I'm not calling to actively persecute Christians; I simply want them to leave the gay community alone.

As someone with many gay friends, I feel strongly about this particular issue, but it applies to all groups. Persecution of any group by the government is morally wrong, and must be stopped. Thus I will boycott Cathy and his wretched ilk until my gay friends, and anyone else being denied their rights, are left free of government interference. I will not have my hard-earned money supporting a group that wants to persecute my friends, or anyone for that matter.

As a wise man once said, noncooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with good.

dustyrhoades 9 months, 1 week ago

Keep up the good articles Andrew! Cathy also donates to organizations that are homophobic and think they can "cure" one from being a homosexual.

And THAT is why I and my family have stopped eating there. You don't get my money to contribute to persecuting some of my friends.

RonCoffmanJr 9 months, 1 week ago

Actually, according to the recently revised North Carolina Constitution, gay marraige itself is what's unacceptable. Now if you'd like to get that changed, I encourage you to type more sentences like "homosexuals are not harming anyone. If two people of the same sex choose to have a relationship, that has no bearing on anyone else." ---- and less ones like "there's no explanation for opposition to gay marriage other than fear and ignorance."

Marraige has been around for a long time and you're the ones trying to get it changed. Insulting those that are reluctant doesn't help this cause, nor does it make people more accepting of homosexuals. It just satisfies your need to claim a intellectual higher ground. Same sex marraige is a new idea and one that a significant majority of the population has never considered prior to a few years ago. And they are neither afraid nor ignorant. They just want to keep marraige like it's always been.

Jason 9 months, 1 week ago

Andrew- Not sure I bought into all of your previous Libertarian positions, but am with you 100% on this one. Discrimination of any kind is offensive to me.

AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 1 week ago

@RonCoffmanJr: "Marraige has been around for a long time and you're the ones trying to get it changed." No one is trying to change any cultural ideas of marriage. If you want to consider marriage to be a union between a man and a woman, you have every right to. What we're trying to do is to extend the same tax benefits to same-sex couples. When the government puts a tax penalty on the unmarried, it has to accept all conceptions of marriage; otherwise, it's being actively discriminatory.

The anti-gay marriage crowd is a bigoted crowd without question. If it were simply a matter of not wanting to have to accept some new concept of marriage, they would simply avoid homosexuals. The fact that they are not content to avoid them, but want to actively discriminate against them, removes any claim they have to sympathy. Theirs is a bigoted ideology, no more legitimate than racism or sexism.

AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 1 week ago

Incidentally, same-sex marriage has been around for thousands of years, at least since the time of the Roman Empire. It's not new.

JD 9 months, 1 week ago

See a real Republican would say the government shouldn't be involved in someones personal life. That is it is not a tax or public safety concern then it is no concern to anyone else in a government role. If they get married and pay their taxes as they should who is to cast judgement?

Only teahdists who want the government out of their lives except for trying to enforce bigoted religious beliefs. Some religion (i.e. humanist) have no qualms about responsible adults getting married. Only Christian conservatives who just this one time want government interference for their dogma.

fugitiveguy 9 months, 1 week ago

Was the president guilty of discrimination prior to his recent evolution on the matter? What in the world could have changed his mind? Did any of the local Obama supporters denounce (on this or any forum) him for his stance. Is the President a reformed homophobe? Is he entitled to his opinion while Mr Cathey is not? I'm just asking the questions.

fugitiveguy 9 months, 1 week ago

BTW, I pretty much stayed out of the gay marriage debate while it was ongoing. I did however indicate my defense of those with that opinion. I thought it was moronic of the guy who thought it a good idea to follow the lady to her home to turn her in to the cops. An insignificant event in the overall outcome, vindictive in nature and potentially could have turned tragic.

RonCoffmanJr 9 months, 1 week ago

You made a good point Andrew. If they had fought for Civil Unions and focus on tax benifits and other benefits, it would have long ago been a done deal. But it had to be "marraige".

And no one that voted in the recent gay marraige election - that they would have been won with any tact at all - lived in the Roman Empire.

fugitiveguy 9 months, 1 week ago

"Only teahdists who want the government out of their lives except for trying to enforce bigoted religious beliefs."

My guess is to you all religious beliefs are either laughable or bigoted. I know you will correct me if I am wrong. Lets be honest, though.

fugitiveguy 9 months, 1 week ago

Gays would get further with their wishes if they would denounce people like that guy who verbally abused those Christian children. Its not enough to be gay, many have to be "in ya face" whenever they feel they have been wronged. And they do have a hair trigger when it comes to getting offended.

AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 1 week ago

@fugitiveguy:

No one is saying that Dan Cathy doesn't have a right to his opinions. I'm not arguing that he should be arrested for saying what he said. All I'm saying is that I, as a friend of gays, will not spend money at his business if he keeps advocating for discrimination, and I encourage others to do the same.

Obama is either a "reformed homophobe" or a coward. I have little respect for the president, his challenger, or anyone else in politics.

@RonCoffmanJr:

That's exactly what gays were demanding in this controversy. They simply want to have the same tax benefits as heterosexual couples. Of course they will call these unions "marriage," and others have the right to not consider it marriage. But they demand the right to have these unions without persecution, and it is that persecution that Cathy is supporting.

RonCoffmanJr 9 months, 1 week ago

I disagree Andrew. That's what they should be demanding, but somehow they remain adamant about using the word "marraige". Sometimes it seems like they are more concerned with angering the religious right than scoring legislative victories.

AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 1 week ago

@RonCoffmanJr:

Are they not allowed to use the word "marriage?" Like, if a gay couple were to get a civil union and call it "marriage," would that be forbidden?

On the political side, gays are mainly concerned with gaining the same rights as everyone else. They will, of course, call their unions "marriage," but that's not the main focus of their protests.

fugitiveguy 9 months, 1 week ago

"All I'm saying is that I, as a friend of gays, will not spend money at his business if he keeps advocating for discrimination,"

Seems cool to me, thats what anyone should do. Either support the business as an individual or a family with your dollars or don't eat there. To attempt to harm the business in any other way just because you disagree with the CEO's religious beliefs is wrong IMO and also counterproductive in this case. Likewise elected officials who by decree ban a lawful business in this fashion is plain wrong, should be illegal and should be condemmed by supporters and detractors alike.

AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 1 week ago

@fugitiveguy:

Yes, I agree with you there. Protesting Chick-fil-A should be limited to a boycott. No one should destroy property or attempt to do legal harm to the business.

Behan 9 months, 1 week ago

I'm guessing those who make over $250K a year would "simply want to have the same tax benefits" as those who make less than $40K a year. Why no rally for the rich?

AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 1 week ago

@Behan:

Because when you factor in sales, payroll, and property taxes, the poor and middle class pay as much or more in taxes than the rich.

AFCHIEF 9 months, 1 week ago

Andrew, just because you and your left wing buddies love gay marriage ,DOES NOT mean the rest of the country has to abide by YOUR feelings.

AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 1 week ago

Not to mention all the privileges that the government gives to big businesses (land grants, subsidies, favorable regulations, etc.). These allow them to crush smaller competitors and charge above-market prices to consumers. This is essentially a tax on the poor by the rich, facilitated by the government, though the money never enters the treasury.

AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 1 week ago

"just because you and your left wing buddies love gay marriage ,DOES NOT mean the rest of the country has to abide by YOUR feelings"

No, the rest of the country is free to think what it wants. But the rest of the country does not have the right to actively persecute gays through the tax code (which is what laws against gay marriage truly are). Legally they have the power, but morally they do not have the right.

RonCoffmanJr 9 months, 1 week ago

Yes, the are allowed to. But I don't think it helps them get what they want as far as elections and legislative agenda. Do you think it helps them?

Behan 9 months, 1 week ago

What of using the tax system to punish (you prefer "persecute," although I find that a bit excessive) smokers, drinkers, gamblers, etc. Are these not simply lifestyle choices? Do these people not have rights worth defending, or is their cause not as trendy right now?

AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 1 week ago

@RonCoffmanJr:

I don't think it really makes a difference. If the anti-gay marriage crowd really only cared about the word "marriage," they would have legalized civil unions everywhere decades ago. Clearly they have an objection not to the use of the term marriage, but to the actual act of homosexuality. Thereto witness may the anti-sodomy laws that many states had until the Supreme Court declared them unconstitutional in 2003; these clearly went beyond defending the term "marriage."

Besides, we may as well call it "marriage." Calling long-term heterosexual relationships "marraige" and their homosexual counterparts "civil unions" seems a bit separate-but-equal, don't you think? It's not a big deal, but still...

AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 1 week ago

@Behan:

I don't think the government should punish/persecute gamblers, smokers, etc. As a libertarian, I obviously want taxes to be as low and simple as possible. I don't feel particularly strongly about it, since people can choose not to smoke, drink, or gamble, and because these taxes arguably save money in other areas (i.e.- if people smoke less, the healthcare system saves money), but in an ideal world I would get rid of excise taxes.

RonCoffmanJr 9 months, 1 week ago

It's not a big deal to me, but I couldn't care any less than a already do. There is no doubt that plenty of people hate gays, but the overwhelming majority do not. I definitely think they would have more success getting their way if they didn't use the word marraige. And I don't think it's "seperate but equal". If they started having seperate schools, water fountains, etc for gay people, that would be seperate but equal. Avoiding the word marraige simply appeases those that believe marraige is unique to a man and a woman, while giving gays all the benefits we've previously discussed.

AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 1 week ago

I don't know that it's necessarily hatred of gays so much as fear, but certainly many (most?) of those who oppose gay marriage generally oppose the rights of gays to engage in homosexual practices. That's what anti-sodomy laws were about.

No, it's still separate but equal. It's not to the same extent as that of the Jim Crow South, but it's the same principle.

Anyway, this is clean kam: the reality is that gays will call their unions "marriage" whether we recognize it or not. We should focus on the main issue, tax benefits, not on the word they choose to employ.

irkim13 9 months, 1 week ago

Do you know why the tax benefit for married couples is there in the first place?

AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 1 week ago

@irkim13

Generally, yes, but I don't know the specifics. Enlighten me.

RonCoffmanJr 9 months, 1 week ago

Because married people vote. Same reason every tax benefit is there.

Behan 9 months, 1 week ago

Andrew:

(Part 1)

What if—instead of thinking it as punishing smokers—we think of it as rewarding nonsmokers?

Throughout history, successful governments use the tax system to reward behavior beneficial to its citizenry. When you strip away all the fluff and committees and entitlements, the government (the notion, not a specific administration) serves just a few basic purposes: national defense, maintaining good order, and increasing productivity.

We can skip over the first for now, as it is not really germane.

Successful societies have relied almost exclusively on what we refer to as “traditional marriage” for good order and discipline. One not need think too hard to see the potential pitfalls on 1 man/10 women, 10 men/1 woman, etc. It does not lend itself to good order and discipline. It’s just human nature. Virtually every successful society has been built on the notion of 1 man and 1 woman, actively engaged in the lives of X number of children. There are a few exceptions, but most retained good order through brute force and intimidation.

As to productivity, same-sex couples obviously cannot reproduce naturally, and even with the help of science, cannot reproduce at a rate fast enough to adequately replenish the workforce. Furthermore, a child stands the greatest chance of becoming a mature, responsible, productive member of society when raised in a traditional household—1 mother, 1 actively engaged father, and X number of siblings.

Now you can counter by citing dysfunctional traditional marriages that yield dysfunctional kids. I won’t even try to argue against it. You can also cite responsible, productive same-sex couples that yield children who excel. Again, I won’t argue against that. You can even find a few studies suggesting kids are as/more likely to succeed in a same-sex household than a traditional household. I can present as many (likely more) counter studies.

But, at the end of the day, it comes down to whether you believe a child has the best chance of becoming a productive member of society when raised in the traditional setting that the left has come to demonize. Most on the right will suggest they do not, although many have an agenda (usually religion). Most on the left will suggest they do. Of course, the left retains power by incentivizing behavior counter to the productivity of the nation, but that’s for another thread.

So, the successful government does not punish—the government offers incentives to promote behavior that will best benefit society as a whole. It offers incentives to people who do not smoke, do not drink, and those who enter into relationships that offer the most likely chances of producing orderly, productive members of the workforce.

(more to follow)

Behan 9 months, 1 week ago

Andrew: (Part 2) I believe the child stands the best chance in a traditional household. You, apparently, do not. Again, we could slap each other with studies until the sun goes down, but I’m not sure either of us will come out of it with a differing point of view. I just wanted you to be aware that there is a large segment of the population that takes an approach on this issue that has nothing to do with the Bible, homophobia, or hatred, but rather a reasoned, rational approach to what is best for society and which behaviors should be actively encouraged by its government. I am as passionate as the next guy in preserving citizen’s rights and limiting the reach of government into those lives, but I think anyone trying to paint this as persecution or discrimination is either being disingenuous or has been fortunate enough to have never witnessed true persecution. This is simply a matter of the government promoting that which best serves her citizenry. When I feel that the basic human rights of homosexuals are truly being infringed, I’ll gladly stand side-by-side with those who protest, even if it means missing out on a juicy chicken sammich..

Thatcher 9 months, 1 week ago

Great posts Behan, as always! Cheers!

JD 9 months, 1 week ago

@ fuglyguy

My guess is to you all religious beliefs are either laughable or bigoted.

I don't have religious beliefs so yes you are wrong. As always.

Laughable is when you pray to your imaginary friend fugly. Bigoted is what you usually post.

Closest I get is karma. You get what you give fugly.

I like how you cling to that one line and ignore the part about staying out of other people's personal lives. You can pray to Santa, the Easter Bunny, Holy spooks, whatever. Just keep it to yourself. I get annoyed with all the proselytizing of the zealots.

PS fugly

I have done more volunteer work in this community than you have since you moved here. So put up or shut up chump where is your Christian 'love'? Or is the computer chair to comfy to get out of to give back?

AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 1 week ago

"What if—instead of thinking it as punishing smokers—we think of it as rewarding nonsmokers?"

They aren't mutually exclusive, but it's most appropriate to think of it as punishing smokers, as they pay more in taxes. It's not as if nonsmokers get something positive; they just lose less.

"Virtually every successful society has been built on the notion of 1 man and 1 woman" This is patently false. The family and systems of marriage vary wildly among societies. Many "successful" societies have allowed polygamy, concubinage, and a whole host of other arrangements.

There is, to my knowledge, no conclusive evidence to show that heterosexual couples are better at raising children than their same-sex counterparts. But even if they were, it would be beside the point. I'm not making an argument that allowing same-sex marriage is good for productivity; I'm arguing that it's essential for liberty.

"I just wanted you to be aware that there is a large segment of the population that takes an approach on this issue that has nothing to do with the Bible, homophobia, or hatred, but rather a reasoned, rational approach to what is best for society"

Then they would be opposed to letting same-sex couples raise children, not to letting them get married. Marriage does not require that people have children, and allowing gays to marry would not require that they be allowed to adopt or engage in surrogacy. Banning gays from raising children would be wrong, but it's a separate issue from marriage. If your crowd were only concerned with what is best for society, it would have no problem with gay marriage.

The anti-gay marriage movement is bigoted; there's no getting around it.

Thatcher 9 months, 1 week ago

Andrew (1 hour, 32 min. ago)-- "Because when you factor in sales, payroll, and property taxes, the poor and middle class pay as much or more in taxes than the rich." As I've said several times on these threads, you are a very bright young man with a great future ahead of you, and you have always remained respectful here. As to your above-quoted claim, I would urge you to research whether it is correct or incorrect. I would also urge you to research what a "payroll tax" actually is. Consider all sources, from each side, and reach your own conclusion as to whether the assertion (on a federal, state, and local level) was correct or not. After all, and as you well know, that's what college (and grad school) are all about. And yes, I am encouraging you to go to grad school after college. You have the gift, and you will succeed. Cheers!

yowhayes 9 months, 1 week ago

Andrew- There is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, or Tooth Fairy, this country is filled with racist, bigots and just down right nasty people. You must think you are the inventor of "why can't we all just get along". When you get dry behind those ears and have lived outside the bubble you must be in, then your comments may have some impact, right now you are just riding that wave of enthusiasm given to you by some who have commented on your article, you skip around like a fly at the landfill and really thats where your article belongs. Being a Pilot contributor or whatever you are has given you a forum from which you can advocate for you and your gay friends. The Pilot to may need to distance themselves from your opinions, SSM is not a subject that a media outlet should take sides on, and as their golden boy resident reporter they have showered you with praises but will also drop you like a bad habit if you create friction in their pocket book, not all they paying advertisement clients feel comfortable with some wet nosed young 'un being the spokesman for the paper they give their business. Don't trip over yourself with all these compliments, this little group that use this site as a chat room are really not an example of the real red neck world you are in.

Bentpan 9 months, 1 week ago

yowhayes 34 minutes ago To the point and eloquently stated, Young Mr. Soboeiro might want to focus on experiance and reporting news in an unbiased fashion rather than exposing the world to his ignorance and naivety, it reflects badly on The Pilot for an intern to publicly take a position that is antagonistic to the general public and to its' advertisers of which, includes me. Put your pup on a leash.

Behan 9 months, 1 week ago

Andrew: So, following that logic, the last-place finisher in the race is punished for not receiving a medal? The dummest kid in class for not being an honors grad?

The fact of the matter is we steer people toward behavior we find beneficial and away from that we find to not be beneficial.

Evidence exists that concludes SSM is a harmful arrangement. Evidence to the contrary exists. You must choose which evidence you believe most. I fall on the side of traditional marriage because I can point at successful societies founded on traditional marriage. I cannot say the same for SSM. I never once heard a person say that their lives would have been much better/less traunatic if only their parents were gay. It strikes me as folk wisdom grounded in truth.

I don't see it as an issue of liberty. There is criteria for marriage, and we all work under the same criteria. Gay people choose to operate outside that criteria, demanding instead that the criteria be changed to accomodate their choices. That's not a denial of liberty, that is choosing to snub your nose at the party, while at the same time demanding to be a guest.

Do you advocate as strongly for those wishing to marry a sibling? Is that not, to you, also an issueofliberty?

Matt_Woodruff 9 months, 1 week ago

This little group that uses this site as a chat room are the epitome of the real red neck world we live in. Intellectual honesty is obviously not a requirement to post here.

Behan 9 months, 1 week ago

And thanks, Thatcher. I don't get to post as often as I like. Busy at work. To some ofthe others, I'd caution against berating Andrew. He may be moist behind the lobes, but he is engaged and trying to put what he has learned into practice. As he strikes me as a fairly bright guy, I think many of his views may "evolve" as years pass. He doesn't seem nearly as pigheaded as one resident columnists, nor as drug-damaged as a regular poster.

I admire your zeal, Andrew, and that you care enough to stay involved. I find some of your views a tad naive (particularly the open borders issue), but a degree of naivity is to be expected from those younger than us. I have no doubt my father thinks me a bit of a clown for some of the things I've done/said over the years, and he would be right on most counts.

I don't mean that to sound condescending, although I am sure it did. I truly do applaud you for writing political pieces, regardless of how they jive with my philosophy, rather than the many pointless endeavors your peers choose to occupy their time.

Finally, I'm clacking away now on an iPad, which inreases tenfold my odds of typos--my apologies in adance.

Pappy 9 months, 1 week ago

Andrew...many "successful" societiies have allowed polygamy, concubinage and a whole host of other arrangements. What societies are these ??

fugitiveguy 9 months, 1 week ago

"Laughable is when you pray to your imaginary friend fugly. Bigoted is what you usually post."

You have proved my point. Why so nasty?

Nezumi 9 months, 1 week ago

Pappy - I'll only address the polygamy/concubinage issue: China allowed polygamy and concubinage for over centuries before outlawing it in 1949. (It has returned with a vengeance recently although still technically illegal) While Europe (Byzantium excepted) was slogging through the Dark Ages, China experienced its scientific and cultural peaks in the Tang and Song dynasties. Another example would be Genghis Khan's Mongols - from a purely military point of view, they were fantastically successful. India, Japan, Korea - I am sure secondary wives and concubines existed in these civilizations as well, although I'm not well read on the specifics.

Behan 9 months, 1 week ago

Nezumi: I refer you back to my "brute force and intimidation" qualifier.

JD 9 months, 1 week ago

You have proved my point. Why so nasty?

You have no points. Just empty comments. Why so glib?

And you never answered the question: Do you volunteer, give back, or do anything remotely beneficial to someone non familial? My bet is you just get your jollies trolling.

Pinehurst2012 9 months, 1 week ago

I dont think I have ever seen anyone beat a dead horse like Andrew Sobo.......whatever his name is.

If you don't like or don't want to eat at Chik-fil-a, then don't eat there. Same goes for Dusty Rhodes.......just quit complaining about it. I can't believe how liberal and ignorant Moore County has become with the influx of outsiders coming to roost here in what used to be a nice and pleasant place to live.

Yes, the thought of homosexuality makes my nose hair curls. I am frowned upon or basically threatened.......almost physically threatened if I do not accept it. The fact is: "gay" and "marriage" is an oxy-moron. They never were meant to go together. I have buried several friends who were gay that died from the terrible disease called AIDS. And don't even give me speech # 147 about "safe sex"..... the thought of a male member entering the behind of another male is just plain wrong. It is a one way street. The poop shoot was never meant to be an entry point.

Morally it is wrong, yet in America everyone is entitled to an opinion. However your and my opinions are like arm pits.....every one of us has one and most of them stink!

Financially it is wrong........yes I said financially. For years I worked in the financial industry and I have seen the statistics of claims in health insurance that was paid due to a rise in companies accepted gay partners and they would come down with HIV then full blown AIDS and it would raise everyone's premiums.

No, I don't agree that we have to become accepting of it to the point that we called cohabitation of two males or two females a marriage. God created that term for His plan.....but yes we do have to be respectful and show the love of God to all people....no matter who they are or what they do. But for goodness sake........shut up about it!

irkim13 9 months, 1 week ago

Thanks Behan, I never had the chance to explain and could not have explained it better. I don't have much time to post but try. Thanks again.

Thatcher 9 months, 1 week ago

fugitiveguy-- "Why so nasty?" Let me tell you why. Because when you do volunteer work, your goal is to boast loudly on internet threads about how much volunteer work you do, and to denigrate those with whom you disagree by claiming they don't do as much as you. And if you really want the edge, use the term "Holy spooks" when making fun of Christians. That'll show those zealots. "Praying to your imaginary friend?" Zing! Case closed. Here's the deal fugitiveguy...you need to be open-minded enough to accept and DEAL WITH close-mindedness. Now get over it. Cheers!

Nezumi 9 months, 1 week ago

Thanks Behan - this is not my area of expertise, but I think it is safe to say the institution of polygamy and concubinage survived periods of brutal repression as well as periods of relative liberalism. It also survived the repeated dynastic cycle of overthrow, rise, peak, decline, overthrow (China example) . Except for India, I believe the endurance of the institution it is is tied more to Confucianism than repression. It would be an interesting study to see how the correlation between longer-lived totalitarian civilizations and polygamy/concubinage, but given the massive geographies and time lines involved, I think it would be a lot of work.

Behan 9 months, 1 week ago

irkim, my pleasure.

D--you seem to go well out of your way to denigrate people of faith. A wonderful priveledge of this nation you were fortunate enough to be born into (I assume) a country that places a premium on free speech, but really an ineffective technique for having a constructive discussion. Still, as a wise man once said, "just because you can doesn't mean you should." You know it is a hotbutton issue with a lot of people, yet you go there anyway with no visible objective other than to get people fired up. Isn't that pretty much the textbook definition of a troll?

Thatcher 9 months, 1 week ago

Nezumi-- You post very thoughtful comments here. Thanks for that! Please keep posting! Cheers!

Nezumi 9 months, 1 week ago

Happy to do so Thatcher, and I hope my posts help those with chronic insomnia.

skylinefirepest 9 months, 1 week ago

Pinehurst2012...best comment in the entire grouping. Gay is not normal, however much it may be accepted by Andrew and his friends. The Liberals all holler about raising health premiums on the smokers, the drinkers, and the obese but what is "gay activity" but a good way to die a really nasty death on somebody else's dollar??

Thatcher 9 months, 1 week ago

No insomnia here, Nezumi. I just like your posts! Cheers!

Pappy 9 months, 1 week ago

Thanks....Nezumi

Behan 9 months, 1 week ago

Good comments all. I have some remarks,, but morning comes early. Slainte, Behan.

Thatcher 9 months, 1 week ago

Thanks for the posts, my friend! Cheers!

Bill 9 months, 1 week ago

I would like to thank everyone that boycotts Chick-Fil-A cause now the restaurant is now a better place. I hate to say it but it is not a gay thing people, it is just another excuse that you have. If you want to boycott Chick-Fil-A then you better start boycotting UPS cause they do not allow thier drivers to have any facial hair. Oh yea, I am sure you will stop fly now also cause I do not know of any airlines that would allow their pilots to wear a earring or earrings. In fact American Airlines does not allow their pilots to have a beard. How much money have you spent at Disney World in the past fifty years. They just changed their policy this past year about having any facial hair. Since 1957 they would never allow to have any facial hair. ( although Walt did have a mustache, (now was that politically correct ) Are you a Yankee fan just look it up about their policy for the baseball players to have long hair or beards. I believe that if you own a business you can tell YOUR employees on how to dress and how the length of their hair will be. Just remember you apply for the job they did not begged you to come worked for them. If you want to work for any company you follow their rules not yours, and you are talking to a person that believes in unions. Once again with all these post that I read, everyone thinks that their beliefs are right and they believe everyone else is wrong. Well nobody is right or wrong, just don't throw your beliefs on us for the people that have common sense.

JD 9 months, 1 week ago

you need to be open-minded enough to accept and DEAL WITH close-mindedness.

That's exactly how I deal with you Thatch. I deal with you and those like you and the close mindedness you bring forth every time I visit here. But I will keep chipping away at that cinder block on your shoulders just to spite you.

I am not boasting, I am calling fugly out that he does not practice what he preaches. Like you if you want to jump in with your snide and condescending remarks (how unlike you). You are all talk and no action. So good work anon glad I can keep irritating you. Now cry some more.

fugitiveguy 9 months, 1 week ago

" I am calling fugly out that he does not practice what he preaches."

At first I started to say you are a typical liberal. But in fact you are not. Yes, you are left leaning, sure you make proclamations about others you don't know shxt about, sure you are a condescending jerk, sure you make fun of peoples faith. I havent seen anyone on here left or right flaunt their volunteer service on here such as you. It is very telling. You attack like a troll while accusing others of being a troll. For the most part I come here to coverse or dialogue. You come here to insult and incite. As others with your style, I will from this point on ignore you until such a time as you decide to moderate and act somewhat like a normal person.

AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 1 week ago

@Behan:

"So, following that logic, the last-place finisher in the race is punished for not receiving a medal? The dummest kid in class for not being an honors grad?"

Obviously not. Medals and titles like "honors grad" are rewards. They are a positive thing someone gets for an accomplishment. Taxes, on the other thing, are taken away from people. Thus a tax break means people have less of their money taken away, not more money given to them.

It's a very simple matter to distinguish giving someone something from failing to take something away. I'm astounded that you don't appear to understand even this basic distinction.

"Evidence exists that concludes SSM is a harmful arrangement." etc.

No, evidence exists for and against the idea that raising children in a same-sex household is harmful, not marriage. People can be married without raising children. If you were making the case that gay couples should not be allowed to raise children, you would have a case (I would still disagree with you, but you could still use this argument). But this has nothing to do with whether gay couples should be allowed to be married. Letting gays raise children is another issue; letting gays marry is clearly a question of bigotry.

"I don't see it as an issue of liberty. There is criteria for marriage, and we all work under the same criteria." etc.

No, this is an issue of the government imposing a definition of marriage upon the rest of society rather than allowing people to make up their own minds. That is certainly a question of liberty. If the rest of society doesn't want to accept that same-sex couples are really married, that's their right, but they have no moral right to tax them more as a result of it. That's not "criteria for marriage;" that's stealing money from people because you don't like them.

"Do you advocate as strongly for those wishing to marry a sibling?"

I don't think there should be any tax penalties for anyone's marital arrangements, no matter how weird and unnatural. I don't condone incest, but I would never use the state to put it down.

AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 1 week ago

I love how many comments there are here about how "young" and "naive" I am. Comrades, this is not an argument. I could be the most naive person in the world and still happen to be right about this. Address my arguments, not my age and experience. Otherwise, you're just wasting space.

fugitiveguy 9 months, 1 week ago

"I love how many comments there are here about how "young" and "naive" I am. Comrades"

I would be irritated by this also if it were directed at me. I don't mean this to be insulting but sometimes the things you write seem less like you stating your opinion and more like you are presenting the facts as if to straighten out the unenlightened. I don't think anyone on here could doubt your intelligence and whether or not they agree with you they are impressed. On the other hand, many assume (perhaps incorrectly) that given your age that you have not endured many of the trials and tribulations that comes with life on your own. Of course, some on here from time to time just like to shoot arrows.

AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 1 week ago

Perhaps so, but it doesn't forward the debate in any meaningful way.

Behan 9 months, 1 week ago

"Obviously not. Medals and titles like "honors grad" are rewards..."

And the title of marriage is also a reward. It is a reward for behavior that society and its government believe to be beneficial to society. Just as homeowners are rewarded with tax credits because those who own their property are more likely to be more responsible members of the community, traditional marriage couples are rewarded for entering into a relationship that is deemed positive by members of society.

"It's a very simple matter to distinguish giving someone something from failing to take something away. I'm astounded that you don't appear to understand even this basic distinction."

I’m astounded that you are astounded. Although I’m no fan of taxes, nor the manner in which the funds collected are so grossly misused, I do understand that it is one of the few tools a civilized government can use to incentivize and steer behavior.

"No, evidence exists for and against the idea that raising children in a same-sex household is harmful, not marriage. People can be married without raising children.."

I think you are failing to see the big picture. The entire purpose of the arrangement is to raise children. I get it, not every married couple will produce children—that’s a no brainer. On a macro level, however, married couples produce children who eventually replace their parents in the workforce. A couple with 0 or 1 child diminishes the workforce. Those with 2 children break even. Those with 3 or more grow the workforce. It’s a pretty cold way of looking at things, but it is what it is.

"No, this is an issue of the government imposing a definition of marriage upon the rest of society rather than allowing people to make up their own minds..."

The government did not impose the definition of marriage on society. The exact opposite is true. Society directed its government to define marriage in a certain way. It is now the government’s responsibility to enforce the desires of society. Nobody said anything about not “liking people.” You can discourage unacceptable or deviant behavior in a number of ways—some harsher than others. I’d say rewarding those who behave in an acceptable manner by providing a modest tax incentive registers pretty low on the harshness meter.

fugitiveguy 9 months, 1 week ago

"Perhaps so, but it doesn't forward the debate in any meaningful way."

True, but then neither does a post, whether yours or mine that comes off condescending.

AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 1 week ago

@Behan: At the end of the day, gay couples are paying more of their money to the government than heterosexual couples. Thus gay couples are losing more of their own money than their heterosexual counterparts. Heterosexuals are receiving nothing; they simply don't have to lose as much. Thus defining marriage as exclusively heterosexual is a punishment to homosexuals, not a reward to heterosexuals.

The "bearing children" argument holds no water. Banning gay marriage is not a sanction against gay couples' raising children. They face the same higher taxes regardless of whether they raise children. If your lot really cared about "socially optimal" childbearing, you would fight to ban gay couples from raising children but not care whether they had the same benefits of married couples. Perhaps marriage is intended to raise children, but the reality is that there are many married couples who don't have children; you could simply relegate gay married couples to this status. It would still be wrong, but you could at least make that argument.

"The government did not impose the definition of marriage on society. The exact opposite is true. Society directed its government to define marriage in a certain way"

The government can do nothing but impose things upon society. The government is an institution of violence, and its actions are thus all violently imposed on everyone under its authority.

If it were simply a matter of the rest of society not accepting gay marriage, they would use nonviolent social and economic sanctions to discourage gay couples (ostracism, blacklisting, etc.). This would not be imposing anything on the gay couples, since no one has any obligation to befriend or do business with anyone else. Taxing them more, on the other hand, violently extracts their hard-earned money (all taxes are ultimately extracted through the threat of violence).

"I’d say rewarding those who behave in an acceptable manner by providing a modest tax incentive registers pretty low on the harshness meter." So it's a mild form of persecution, but persecution none the less. Jim Crow laws were less harsh than lynching blacks; did that make Jim Crow okay?

Behan 9 months, 1 week ago

"I don't think there should be any tax penalties for anyone's marital arrangements, no matter how weird and unnatural. I don't condone incest, but I would never use the state to put it down."

I applaud your apparent integrity—very few of your fellow protesters share it. The state does “put down” incest and bigamy with a great degree of harshness. The reason is simple—society believes these behaviors to be unnatural and unhealthy to the community as a whole, and uses the power of its government to discourage such behavior. Homosexuality is just another behavior deemed deviant by most members of society and discouraged by its government through the use of the tax system. For those seeking any credibility on the liberty issue, it must be an all-or-nothing affair. The most vocal protestors scream liberty only for homosexuals because that is the flavor of the day and they believe it makes them seem hip and progressive. Ask them to show up at a bigamy rally and they will scatter. That’s not cool enough of a cause, regardless of whether someone’s “liberty” is in jeopardy. At least you are consistent in your application of your principles, regardless of how much I may disagree with those principles.

At the end of the day, it basically comes down to this, and most SSM proponents aren’t going to like it because it robs their movement of its imagined nobility. Sexuality is entirely about physical gratification. I get mine from the opposite sex. I also get physical gratification from good German beer, I’ve been known to get physical gratification from that cursed tobacco plant, and I even get a good deal of physical gratification from a quarter-pound of bacon cooked up nice and crisp, slapped on top of a runny egg , and wedged in the middle of a nice hard roll.

But none of these things, to include how I prefer to get my sexual gratification, entitle me to any type of special, protected status. In fact, I am “persecuted” (your word) for engaging in activities deemed to not be beneficial (beer, cigars, etc.) to society. What does provide me with a slight edge, in the eyes of society, is the fact that I have entered into a relationship (a traditional marriage) that yields that most likely results for producing responsible members of society and productive members of the workforce (children). I am even further rewarded when this relationship delivers on future workers (child tax credit). I am rewarded for owning my own property, because that will yield the best chances of me being a responsible member of the community. You call it punishment or persecution for noncompliance, I call it an incentive for productive behavior—all semantics. It is society allowing its government to use one of its tools to shape behavior most beneficial to society.

AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 1 week ago

"True, but then neither does a post, whether yours or mine that comes off condescending."

It's not my intention to sound condescending to anyone; if I do, I apologize. But the point is that I use arguments in all my posts, however condescending those arguments may sound. "YOu are naive" is not in any capacity an argument.

AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 1 week ago

@Behan: "What does provide me with a slight edge, in the eyes of society, is the fact that I have entered into a relationship (a traditional marriage) that yields that most likely results for producing responsible members of society and productive members of the workforce (children)."

Morally, nothing entitles you to any special treatment. The fact that traditional marriage may (it probably doesn't, but I'll concede the point for the moment) yield more socially optimal benefits does not entitle you to violently take money from people who don't conform. If you think homosexuality is socially harmful, don't associate with homosexuals, but you have no right to take their money.

"You call it punishment or persecution for noncompliance, I call it an incentive for productive behavior—all semantics. It is society allowing its government to use one of its tools to shape behavior most beneficial to society."

No, it's not semantics. Violently taking money from people who don't conform to your personal definition of "socially optimal" is certainly persecution. Again, it's a mild form of persecution, but it's persecution none the less. It is not merely incentivizing people; those people do not deserve to lose their hard-earned money just because you find their behavior "socially harmful.

AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 1 week ago

@Behan: Yours is the same line of reasoning used to justify eugenics. The argument was that certain races were genetically inferior to whites, and thus could not be allowed into the gene pool. Society, they argued, would be better off by banning interracial marriage and (in extreme cases) by exiling or killing those races.

Now, the eugenicists happen to have been incorrect; biologists later discovered that race is a social construct and not based on "superior" or "inferior" genes. But this doesn't change the fact that the eugenicists thought they were working to improve society.

By your logic, those who sought to ban interracial marriage and "miscegenation" were not morally wrong; they were simply mistaken.

Behan 9 months, 1 week ago

Andrew, That's at least the second time you have referred to something as "morally wrong." You of course recognize the dangers in that approach. My morals and your morals are likely very, very different.

As to the "violently taking money from people," I get it. I miss Boortz, too, but taxes must be levied for a government to survive, so the hyperbole does us no favors. We use taxes not only to fund our government but also to shape behavior. You may not like it, and you may even choose to pretend it isn't true--but it is what it is.

If your only dog in this fight is fairness in the tax code, are we possibly having the wrong argument. Should we be focused more on progressive tax/fair tax/flat tax and less on what inappopriate scenarios a small segment of the population chooses to place their genitalia?

AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 1 week ago

Morality is objective. There is not "my morality" and "your morality;" there is only morality and immorality. It's based on the principle of universally preferable behavior: can an action be universally justified? No one can, for example, justify rape universally because it is by definition an involuntary act. I cannot say "it's okay to rape people" because if I'm being raped, I'm obviously not okay with it.

Taxation is the violent theft of money. It must thus be kept to a minimum. If we believe government is necessary for society to survive, than we can have the minimum amount of government necessary to perform this function and no more. Any taxation beyond the minimum amount necessary for government to protect society is theft, and cannot be allowed. This includes taxes to "shape our behavior."

Where have I used hyperbole? Taxation is certainly the theft of money under threat of violence. That's not hyperbole; it's a description.

I don't pretend anything is untrue. I know the government uses taxes to shape its subjects' behavior: my point is that it shouldn't. This is another one of those very simple distinctions you should easily see.

I object to excesses in the tax code in all its forms. This is a particularly egregious example because it is being used to attack a group that has not harmed anyone, but I've railed against other forms as well.

As I explained before, the American taxation system, taken as a whole, is not progressive; it's more or less flat. Thus I cannot object to the progressive income tax because it balances out regressive payroll, sales, and property taxes.

What concerns me is 1) the sheer quantity of taxation and 2) the use of taxation to target specific groups (such as gays). Both are morally wrong, and must be stopped.

fugitiveguy 9 months, 1 week ago

I think the country would be far better off if we all paid a certain percentage. Of course unemployment would go up due to the many accountants and IRS agents and lobbyists that would have to find something else to do. Maybe as a side benefit it would end the "fair share" nonsense.

JD 9 months, 1 week ago

many accountants and IRS agents and lobbyists that would have to find something else to do.

I would like to add pharmaceutical reps. They are just hookers with something else to sell.

Behan 9 months, 1 week ago

Morality is objective? I fully disagree, Andrew. It is personal, cultural, regional, and changes over time. It is perfectly subjective.

What does this objective morality say of abortion?

AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 1 week ago

You cannot disagree with universally preferable behavior; the very act of disagreeing with something means you don't think it's universally preferable to stay that thing. Universally preferable behavior, the basis of morality, is true a priori.

Think of the example of rape I just gave: it's impossible for rape to be morally acceptable. Rape is by definition an involuntary act. For someone to say "rape is okay," by extension he or she would have to be okay with being raped. But a person ipso facto cannot be okay with being raped. Thus rape is always immoral.

This is not to say that there are no moral ambiguities. They result when universal moral principles contradict each other in their specific applications. Abortion is one of those issues. You have to balance preserving the life of a (potential) human being with preserving the right of a woman to use her body as she intends. I tend to agree with Roderick T. Long that abortion is acceptable because the fetus can be considered to have invaded her body, albeit unwillingly and unwittingly. For more information on this position, I suggest you read one of Long's tracts; you can find it here: http://praxeology.net/RTL-Abortion.htm

Sherwood 9 months, 1 week ago

"Taxation is certainly the theft of money under threat of violence. That's not hyperbole; it's a description."

I'm sorry, but that's not a description. That's a narrative that suits a particular ideology and frames the conversation in a non-productive way. Yes, the government has the monopoly use of force in order to enforce laws which have been passed by a democratically elected congress. But it's not quite the justification for your argument that you think it is. There's plenty wrong with the current tax code, but you don't contribute much to the understanding of why the current tax code is a mess by simply equating taxing with theft.

Sherwood 9 months, 1 week ago

Andrew,

"Thus I cannot object to the progressive income tax because it balances out regressive payroll, sales, and property taxes."

This statement is more reasonable than the "Taxes = THeft" narrative. Though I would disagree that property taxes are regressive. See Veblen’s Institutionalist Elaboration of Rent Theory http://michael-hudson.com/2012/07/veblens-institutionalist-elaboration-of-rent-theory/ (I realize I already recommended this to you in a separate comment thread :))

AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 1 week ago

Well, the property tax bit is disputed. Some studies show that property taxes are ultimately borne by renters (and are thus regressive); others show that they are borne by property owners themselves (and are thus somewhat progressive). So I admit I was jumping the gun by saying they are regressive; rather, they might be. But my broader point about how the tax rate is on the whole flat or regressive holds true.

If I threaten someone with violence unless he or she pays me money, that’s theft; no one will dispute that. Well, how does the government get people to pay taxes? If I don’t pay taxes, I will be physically seized and arrested, and if I resist or try to escape, I will be beaten and possibly shot.

Taxation is certainly theft.

Now, that doesn’t mean that taxation shouldn’t occur. You could argue that the government needs to protect us from terrorists or homosexuals or whatever, and won’t be able to do so without taxation. But even if we accept taxation as a necessary evil, there should be no ambiguities about what it is. It clearly fits the definition of theft, and should thus be kept to a minimum. Any taxation above what is absolutely necessary is a crime.

Sherwood 9 months, 1 week ago

Andrew,

"If I threaten someone with violence unless he or she pays me money, that’s theft"

You are using a false analogy.

A more equivalent analogy would be: you threatening legal action against an individual because he or she did not make a payment to you in the amount which was previously agreed upon. This most certainly does not constitute theft.

Sure, as individuals we did not agree to every single tax that is currently in the tax code. But we, as a society, did elect individuals into office that shape the tax code. Like it or not, we must pay taxes. Categorizing taxes, above and beyond your arbitrary definition of what is necessary, as theft is a silly rhetorical technique that does nothing to contribute meaningfully to the discussion of whether or not taxes, or certain taxes, are equitable.

AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 1 week ago

No, no one agreed to pay taxes. The fact that we get to choose our leaders does not mean that we have voluntarily agreed to everything those leaders do. We cannot consent to any particular leaders' policy unless we have the option not just of choosing another leader, but of choosing to have no leaders.

Even if we ignore this, there's also the issue that not everyone votes for the people who get elected. About 53% of American voters voted for Obama, but 100% of Americans have to submit to him as president. The same holds true for any elected office.

Again, you can argue that we need a government, but that doesn't change what the government is. Necessary or not, it is something imposed upon us by violence.

"arbitrary definition of what is necessary" It's not arbitrary. If we believe that the state is necessary for society to not fall apart into chaos (which is what most people in the modern world assume, though it's not proven) we can then easily ask how much government is necessary to keep society from falling apart. Say, for example, that for society to function, the government must provide police, courts, an army, and some minimal welfare programs; if that's the case, anything beyond those programs is unnecessary and, because government is based on violence, is immoral.

"is a silly rhetorical technique that does nothing to contribute meaningfully to the discussion"

On the contrary, determining what taxes are, and what moral authority (if any) the state has to levy them is at the very heart of the debate. We can't just argue consequentially over whether this tax or that is good for society; at some point, we have to know on what basis, if any, taxes can be levied. Without this understanding, there can be no meaningful debate.

AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 1 week ago

I see the argument that taxes are some sort of socially-contracted obligation as an extension of the notion that the government is "us" or "our collective will." I've already written against this notion, and don't feel the need to repeat those arguments here. You can find my treatise on the subject here: http://www.thepilot.com/news/2012/jun...

JD 9 months, 1 week ago

Isn't that pretty much the textbook definition of a troll?

Nope this is.

ex. Someone with nothing worthwhile to add to a certain conversation, but rather continually threadjacks or changes the subject, as well as thinks every member of the forum is talking about them and only them. Trolls often go by multiple names to circumvent getting banned.

ex. Any post by fugly

Calling someone a hypocrite isn't trolling when it is true. Fugly does nothing that is not self serving yet he gets mad when someone points out how very few, if any thing, he does is anything but Christian in name only.

Basically like most Christians. They are name only. Going to church on Sunday then sitting around being selfish does not a Christian make. Just makes a label.

Clear that one up for you Behan?

fugitiveguy 9 months, 1 week ago

"Some studies show that property taxes are ultimately borne by renters (and are thus regressive);"

?

buskwon 9 months, 1 week ago

@jd ,Isn't that pretty much the textbook definition of a troll?

Nope this is.

ex. Someone with nothing worthwhile to add to a certain conversation, but rather continually threadjacks or changes the subject, as well as thinks every member of the forum is talking about them and only them. Trolls often go by multiple names to circumvent getting banned.

ex. Any post by fugly .

Calling someone a hypocrite isn't trolling when it is true. Fugly does nothing that is not self serving yet he gets mad when someone points out how very few, if any thing, he does is anything but Christian in name only.

Basically like most Christians. They are name only. Going to church on Sunday then sitting around being selfish does not a Christian make. Just makes a label.

Clear that one up for you Behan?

(And just what does your last post add to the conversation jd ? By your own definition you are the epitome of a troll)

JD 9 months, 1 week ago

@buskwon I answered his question.

Also I have only had one post removed. How about you? 3 this week alone? Stop projecting.

Jason 9 months, 1 week ago

What happened to the "one way street" guy? He was funny! I vote that if you are not going to have children you get stripped of the marriage label. God didn't intend on marriage to be about economic convenience or physical pleasure, it is about making babies!! (LOL, all married men know that you get more action pre-marriage anyhow!) And that, um... one-way street thing, all heterosexuals need to cease and desist immediately, even more so if it is your form of birth control. Make more babies; brainwash them, our congregation needs to expand. He need believers or the funding will shrink, oy!

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
28	29	30	1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31	1

Stating His Beliefs

More like this story

Comments

May events