26 votes

TMOT exploratory for US senate Georgia




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

What percentage of Blacks...

What percentage of Blacks hate Jews? If the number is high enough, should we downgrade the holocaust to historically less significant then the civil rights movement?

Tolerating the existence of Homosexuals and affording them the same rights to the same social institutions such as Marriage is in no way forcing anything on anyone. Their marriage doesn't effect you. If it does please explain it to me in terms more consequential then telling me your feelings will get hurt or you will somehow be offended.

Your right to enforce your belief ends where other people's personal lives begin.

You may not believe in a couple living together before marriage or sex before marriage, but Me and My wife practiced both before we were married, and had you tried to interfere I would have told you the same thing: "Stay the hell out of my business!!!"

what the actual F$%k are you talking about?

"Nothing further from truth, huge numbers of blacks and hispanics and other minoritis are against homosexual marriage."

What does a person's right to marry whom they chose have to do with the personal religious preference of people who are part of a race class whose parents fought a civil rights battle before their time? That is a bass ackwrds way of using logic sir.

Second, YOU can call a gay marriage a civil union if you chose, but you do NOT have the right to force gays married under the Unitarian church to call their marriage a civil union. See how this works? LIBERTY. Have you learned nothing? or do your ridiculous religious views cloud your logic ability?

Again. This does not have to

Again. This does not have to do with religion but with natural law. Research the reaction of atheist governments (Cuba, USSR) towards homosexuality. Just want to get your logic straight. This is not a religious issue - use other arguments.

Holy Rites

Marriage is a sacrament, like baptism, first communion, confirmation, receiving holy orders, or getting married. A preist can officate for the state and provide the license for a civil union, however, a couple who intend to marry in the Catholic Church, make their vows because their job is to procreate. Marriage is not all about love, but about heirs, rites, procreating, fullfilling what is understood as a holy union with God.

Same sex relationships are unable to procreate.. there is not ned to have a wedding with sacrements to adopt children, and having partners outside the marrige to pro-create is not acceptable.

Most Catholics I know, really don't care about same sex unions. What we do care about is same sex relationships wanting a Catholic Marriage with sacraments.

Ok so...

No Gay Catholic Marriages, but you aren't advocating "NO GAY MARRIAGE" are you? Because if you are then you are overstepping your bounds.

See thats how this liberty thing works: You can have your exclusionary social club, but you can't restrict other people's personal lives.

Do we all agree on this?

Some folks

might say it's a matter of semantics in that the word "marriage", to Catholics, and some others, means, "specific religious sacrament".

I have an issue with the word "marriage", because to me marriage is a sacrament, a hold rite, an obligation with God.

I wish there was another word for homosexual domestic legal contracted unions, which gave homosexuals the dignity and respect they naturally desire, and allowed the religious to keep their sacrement in the name of marriage to mean a holy rite.

Granger is obviously a neopaul

You "religious sacrament" is YOUR sacrament. Unitarians also have a religious sacrament, and they marry gays. So your entire argument for calling a gay marriage something else because of lack of religious rite is complete bull. You are just a bigot.



"We’ve moved beyond the Mises textbook. We’re running in the open market." - Erik Voorhees

"Marriage is a

"Marriage is a sacrament"
YES, It is! To some people. TO others its a way of consecrating a feeling and a decision.
" a couple who intend to marry in the Catholic Church"
Not all couples are catholic. Catholic is one religion. there are many others. For instance, as I mentioned the Unitarian church which condones gay marriage and are willing to officiate it, as you have said is needed.Therefore, that marriage is valid according to that priest.
"Marriage is not all about love, but about heirs, rites, procreating, fullfilling what is understood as a holy union with God."
Maybe to Catholics. But to Unitarians it is ll about love. Who are YOU to tell them they are wrong? Who is anybody to?

Noone gives a F$%K about catholicism. You are a bunch of freaks that obviously condone pedophilia and child rape since you continue to practice the religion preferred by pedos and child rapists. You can call marriage whatever the F$%K you want, but you DO NOT have the right to tell people married under another church that their marriage is any less valid then yours. Nice try though.

Marriage = Religion Union = Secular LEGAL

Your post is a good example of why the Catholic Church believes that "same sex marriage" is not about unions.. you have civil unions to legally be at your lover's bedside and adopt kids, giving you the same LEGAL rights as hetrosexuals, catholic or not. This is an attack on the Catholic Church, which you are ignorant and vile to.. and in the name of love.

The Church has paid for it's crimes and changed it's ways.. inviting you to come and if anyone makes a sexual advance to you, or you even SUSPECT anyone.. report it.. not only will there be a cash reward for you, but NO TRIAL for the person you accuse.. they are OUT! So please, come, make your greivance, or continue to post as if you know actually know something more than MSMBS.

As far as what is valid.. I'm not saying a Catholc Wedding is more valid. I'm saying that the preist gives a Catholic couple a CIVIL UNION AND sacraments.. the Catholic couple's marriage is made LEGAL by the state, just like yours. Marriage to us is a SACRAMENT. You don't understand what a sacrament is, and neither do most people who fight us.. you have a CHOICE as a catholic.. get married or take holy orders.. becoming a preist is a SACRAMENT. The Unitarian Church does not believe in sacraments.


I don't care who or what you want a legal union.. unless it is in MY Church.. now you want to call your civil union a marriage.. (your so brilliant, come up with your own word, but marriage is not what you have because you have NO SACRAMENT.

Just to complement your argument:

For the Catholic Church, or other Apostolic-Rite Churches, Marriage has two elements: the Procreative and the Unitive. These two elements go hand in hand. The Procreative is unique to heterosexual couples because they are the relationships that in Type can procreate naturally- without the exterior factors of science. By Type I mean that their sexual organs are those in Type that when united cease to be individual sexual organs and become a reproductive system (something akin to what we have in our individual bodies of respiratory system or cardiovascular systam). Therefore even if a woman was baron or a man steril- their sexual organs would still constitute a procreative union within the sacrament of marriage because their sexual organs in type when united become a reproductive system.

The unitive aspect of marriage is uniquely unitive within heterosexual couples. That is their union is unique because their sexual organs are in type complementary to create a new life. This makes the unitive aspect of marriage unique to heterosexual couples.

The unitive and procreative go hand in hand neither is superior- both come forth from the other.

Same sex couples are neither procreative unions nor unitive unions.

"We’ve moved beyond the Mises textbook. We’re running in the open market." - Erik Voorhees

When you are a controller

When you are a controller like The Granger it is perfectly normal to tell others how to live their life!

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

Here's how you should live your life

do what YOU want.

You are such a hypocrite!

You are such a hypocrite!

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

How so?

I get the fact that you have a long list of insults and names to call me, but what you don't make clear are your arguments.

Explain, if you can, why you would call me a hypocrite. I have not told you what to do except do what you want. While I may not inderstand your name calling and insults, if that's all you have,, OK. Have at it.. but personally.. it says more about your ignorance about me than anything about me.

I'm just used to calling a

I'm just used to calling a spade a spade.

Try telling a Palestinian to do what they want. You want to cook for the people who design and drop the bombs on them!!!

For over a freaking year you have taken people to task for not getting involved in the GOP, that you were on this amazing committee of some sort and that if we don't get involved we're just part of the problem, then you forget about the Company Picnic in Socal. You could've been right there with the patriots talking with your Israel Firster buddy but Noooo you claim to not even know about it. Which might be true, you could be soooo freaking busy telling people here how to live their life that you simply forgot about it. Or, you are so broke you couldn't make the trip so you conveniently "didn't know about it". Whatever your excuse is I don't care. I just am tired of your hypocrisy.

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

Yes, I understand and absolutely belive

that you are calling a spade a spade. That is your vison of and about me. Got it. But that does not mean you are correct by by own perspective or others. While you play a game of calling spades, "spades", I call it, "hearts", which is not part of your portfolio.

I am no more interested in directing a Palestinians' heart than I am yours. It's the Ayn Rand part of me that makes me a selfish person who cares about controlling my own liberty and choices, hopefully enabling others to control their own, as I choose.. the golden rule.

The bombs are designed for defense. When bombs are employed for atrociaou war crimes, then those who pertretrated the crimes should be held accountable.. and that is where the problem resides, in getting justice served to the satisfaction of the victims.

I am very pleased with how my GOP central committee came about, where it is now a liberty committee, and I hope to be able to help grow the rEVOLution within the GOP because it's cool.. the neocons are leaving.. there si no one, not even me, to replace them.

I never received any information at all about the pic nic.. and I would have done my best to make arrangements to go. But then, I'm ok at this time of not going because I am busy.

Sighs, looks down....

Sighs, looks down....

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

Have you even dared look at the links?

Ron paul cured my apathy. Maybe you missed something of the best response you can give is to sigh and look down? You have nothing to say but insults and name calling to voice your frustration on what you believe to be a deception from me, who you see as a spade/ hypocrite.

It seems to me you have a hard time seeing BOTH sides of a story, Palestine-Israel. And I understand from the perspective from back in 93 A.N.S.W.E.R. had huge protests I attended. It is very hard to find MSM about what good Israel is or does. Why would anyone question based on all the evidense against Israel? How can anyone do any business with Israel? How is Israel even allowed to exist except for the USA and "stupid, ignorant, neocon, zionist, warmongering SOBs who are anti-christ and creators of all deceptions?

We do not get the whole truth and nothing but the truth, that is why. Do a simple search.. Israel-Palestine.. you will get tons of articles against Israel, not for Israel. Do you ask, "Why?" Did the censorship of Ron Paul's presidential campaigns ever ask you "Why?" for the same reason?

Israel has a very complicated history, and it's problems were built in from it's secular establishment under the UN. UNDER THE U.N.. Isn't it interesting that the U.N. rarely is mentioned when it comes to Israel/Palestine?

Israel's biggest problem is people want to move there. People from all over the world LOVE Israel and want to live in Israel.. America's MSM is so negative about Israel, most Americans are put off.. but this is not the case globally. These illegal settlements are by people who will kill to live in Israel for the freedom. FREEDOM. Israel has freedom.. may be behind walls.. but there's FREEDOM behind those walls.. and from what I'm seeing on Youtubes.. seems to me, Americans whio go to Israel LOVE that freedom.. and think Americans are stupid to not KNOW Israel represents global freedom.. but most have no clue.. instead they see the conflict with Palestine.. it's not like people want to move to Palestine. Why? Because Palestine is NOT free.. one reason there are land probelms is Palestinians believe their land belongs to their families for ever.. God Knows.. Allah knowss.. everyone knows.. so when they "sell" land to foreigners who want to build.. and wind up building "illegally".. there winds up being a huge conflict, and Israel gets the bad rap, not that they don't deserve it because violence is not a solution.. so where is the UN? (I think making money off construction). None the less..

If you were to Google Israel Palestine.. Kerry is there.. but there is no "bad" news about Israel.. hasn't been for months.. and that's because Israel is doing what it believe is correct and telling the UN to go the Hell... Israel will win because FREEDOM IS POPULAR.

Just for an exercize why not look for something good about Israel and something not so good about Palestine. Name them if you can.

Sorry, I'm not looking for a

Sorry, I'm not looking for a pen pal, didn't read.... well just read the last paragraph, again not looking for a zio pen pal!

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

what a hypocrite

actions speak louder than words.

Yes, they do!

Yes, they do!

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown


finally, we agree.

I am not Catholic but can accept their Sacraments as

good and acceptable in the eyes of the Lord. I can think a gay marriage is a disgraceful thing all day long and there is absolutely nothing you can do to change it. It is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord and is not acknowledged as a union with HIM. You can try to redefine marriage all day long and all your trying to do is desecrate what people consider to be HOLY.

Guess what

You don't own the institution of Marriage. How arrogant it is to profess that you are in league the creator of the universe and know his or her mind on every subject. And how even more arrogant to claim that your point of view should apply across the board to everyone.

Sounds to me like you are endorsing a powerful central institution of MAN, and arguing that it should have the power to define the value of other people and their own personal decisions.

Remember Love thy neighbor?

When I fight for Gay Marriage it is not motivated by you, or what you consider holy. You are just not that significant.


Simply said! Thank you.

Im ambivalent about 'gay marriage'

I dont agree with the 'equal rights' argument. To me marriage is a traditional institution that functions to bind families together and provide a protective environment for children. Call me catholic (not) but the binding of families should be difficult to undo, like disowning a son. The current culture believes in divorce and gay marriage. I think these are cultural trends that emerge in times of decadence. So I think gay marriage activists are trying to legislate a decadent definition of marriage.
I think Coulter's analysis is valid: a gay man has the same rights as a straight man to marry a woman. Likewise a straight woman has the same rights as a gay woman to marry a man. That is equal rights. What activists are asking for is a change in the definition of marriage: that marriage is a public institution enshrining love. Therefore they claim a man-woman definition of marriage discriminates against homosexual love. As radical feminists say marriage puts chains on love and if its really love it doesnt need chains.
Now the raising of children by gay couples does complicate things and I would think that might be a cause for gay marriage-- to put chains on the couple, binding them together as family. But it remains a decadent, unhealthy condition; children is not the normal outcome of gay love. Maybe the wider question is does anyone who chooses to have children or bind families have a right to marry? Maybe. Does the government have the right to define every word?

You have the right...

To do what the man with a gun and badge tells you to do... (what sort of right is that?)

Coulter is fascist. That's not name calling, that's a logical assertion.

Flaw in her and your reasoning: both the gay man and the straight man are being denied the right to marry another man if they so choose.

You simply can't tell others what they can and can't do with their own minds, bodies, or with another consenting adult and call yourself a believer in liberty.

Does equal rights demand bathrooms be desegregated?

Coulter is more of a theocrat than a facist. However I think she has a point-- does equal rights demand that bathrooms be desegregated? I mean is seperate but equal really something we can put up with as a people? As for gay marriage, I guess I cant consistently support outlawing it but I dont have to like it. I see it as part of the Brave New World, technophile, futurist, man-machine integration culture. I dont trust this culture because its unproven and I therefore see it as a threat to the social institutions that created liberal democracy. I suppose once you assume gays can have children, gay marriage is probably a good way for them to prove to society they are trying to be responsible parents.

You don't have to like it.

Absolutely. If two guys kissing creeps you out, that doesn't make you a bad person, perhaps that is an honest physical reaction, fine.
EDIT: I just saw your comment about not being religious, so what I wrote doesn't directly apply to you. I'm having a difficult time understanding your interest in the issue. It sounds to me like a white guy complaining that black people might join your country club or start clubs of their own:

"Those Darkies are desecrating the sanctity of my social club"


But if you are a Christian, you should recognize them as your Brothers and Sisters, and you can let them live their lives with love and respect. Your God will shepherd those with good hearts toward good, right?

Isn't the whole gospel of Jesus about treating people with kindness and setting an example of love? I thought Christ hung out with sailors and prostitutes without attacking them for their lifestyles. he didn't say to them that their lifestyles were a threat to holy institutions and go to the Romans and plead for martial law.

Christ was actually against the Institutions of organized religion that existed in his day right?

I'm not religious, and have no problem with those who are, as long as it comes from a personal place. People can talk and reason with one another and make peace, even when they don't agree on everything. But institutions cannot compromise or live in peace with those who are different, because institutions need to grow their numbers and maintain homogeny within their ranks to remain relevant and powerful.

Homosexuals are a threat (to you) only because they are sovereign and perusing their own destiny apart from the social institutions of religion, and it sounds to me like you can't make peace with that. I would argue that its your problem not theirs.

This is not an attack, I mean you no bad will. You sound like a reasonable person whom I can live in peace with, if we can agree not to trample upon one another. What do you say?