[/QUOTE]


What do you think? Quick to criticize as you did before. But I guess that’s what people do best on social media.

Farewell.[/QUOTE]



When challenged, just delete the post, then criticize. [/QUOTE]


There's a few here that specialize in that...

OK, gentlemen. Manners. Is it really necessary to give a new member a hard time over trivialities?

If you wish to offer guidance, do so in a manner of which you, yourself would be receptive.

Let's move on.

quote:

Originally posted by Pavilion:
What do you think?

I didn’t know what to think after you posted a statement that “I” would be arguing a case. I have no idea what your real name is or anything else about you and therefore it was not impossible that you could have been the person whom the “I” referred to. If you had been, that would have increased my interest in the matter. You have become very active here, and it’s always good to learn what forum members do in the real world.

Cut it out

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Cut it out

If that was addressed to me, and specifically my second, now deleted paragraph from the previous post, I intended it to be a bit of humor to lighten the tone of my comments. I realized, however, that despite the wink it could be misinterpreted and therefore that’s why I deleted it.

The original question that was taken for criticism for some reason was a legitimate query for the reason I explained, and not intended as anything else.

If that was addressed to you? Who else would I be addressing? You're the only member who decided to come back for more after I interceded.

The balls on you! Everyone - including me- who read that post from you knew what you meant and what you were doing, and don't you dare try to tell me otherwise, because it was obvious.

Now, I said let's move on and you Goddamned well know exactly what that means.

Put on your big boy pants and take the admonishment.

quote:

Originally posted by Pavilion:

Thanks. I confess I’m not up to speed on editing rules.

Suggestions:

• When posting copied text, always include a link to the source.
  
  
• Don't just copy-and-paste. If it's a long article, preface it with a short summary, a sentence or three. Include your comment(s), tell us why you're posting this, or what you think about it. Humor is always appreciated.
  
  
• Consider just posting extracts from a long article, with the salient points. Anyone who is interested can follow the link that you provided, in order to see the entire article.
  
  
• Take a look at the quoting format that the forum provides, it is often useful.

If you have any questions, you could post them, or feel free to use the email address in my profile.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

Consider just posting extracts from a long article, with the salient points. Anyone who is interested can follow the link that you provided, in order to see the entire article.

I agree with this approach to posting articles from sources, along with links. At times, especially with long articles, it is easier to read from the original link than a copy and paste job. Of course preceded by a personal observation from the poster.

Reporter Andy Ngo's name should be familiar to those who have followed any reporting on Antifa and BLM. His reports have been informative, fair and lack any type of sensationalism. I would not have given much credit to this story if it was not Andy but some other independent reporter.

His report stated the 2 suspectes involved in Border Patrol Agent David Maland's murder are part of a trans cult called Ziz. Members are persons of interested in at least 3 other murders - a Penn couple and a man in CA. Links to video interview as with further links to Andy's website and court filing to deny bail with further info.

This is like a crazy, trans Charles Manson story.

Post Millennial Link 1

Post Millennial Link 2

A) Fairly large gay community in Miami Beach. As a rule, they were not pro trans, and thought they were preying on young gays.

B) The woman who refused to issue marriage licenses is almost guaranteed to lose. She took a state office, and is refusing to fulfill those obligations. Some of the confusion is, probably, because we call civil unions, marriages.

Marriage, as far as I know, is a religious rite. In the UK, where the state is also the religion, I suppose there is no difference.

The US is not a secular state, but without an official religion, I don't see how it could be held to issue marriages.

(My wife & I were married in the LCMS church. I'm sure many churches recognize our marriage, but some may not - but I am quite certain that all of them have different requirements for marriage.)

I'm not exactly a constitutional scholar so forgive my ignorance... Could gay marriage be repealed with a majority vote? I feel like that decision more than any other emboldened these people.

quote:

Originally posted by Carpentermaass84:
I'm not exactly a constitutional scholar so forgive my ignorance... Could gay marriage be repealed with a majority vote? I feel like that decision more than any other emboldened these people.

No. See Obergfell.

The majority cannot amend the Constitution. In Obergfell, a conservative Supreme Court held that the Constitution does not permit banning same-sex marriage.

Think of it like this: It would be like passing a law which required all Americans to become Muslims. It is Constitutionally impermissible.

The Constitution would have to be amended, which is a very difficult thing to do.

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:

Marriage, as far as I know, is a religious rite.

It is. I’ve always been baffled at all these people who get “married” who don’t even believe in God or religion. Yet they spend $10k+ on a rock for this “event”. Another $20k+ on a wedding. Then another $10k+ on a honeymoon and God only knows what else. You just spent $40,000 or more on something you could have done for fifty bucks, and a pen at the courthouse if doing it for legal purposes, taxes, property ownership, etc. Why do all the fake bullshit part of it when you don’t even believe in the first place? I will never understand.

If government is going to be involved in marriage and we have the 14th amendment, then all who are adults are allowed to be married. That is my secular view. Religiously, I don’t think God recognizes those marriages. That’s my speculation.

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:

Marriage, as far as I know, is a religious rite.

It is to me. It's a sacrament. It's a sacred union.

However, when the State sanctions "marriage" the State can define it. But to me, the State cannot define my marriage and that's what really pisses off the left. I can recognize a government defined "civil union" but I don't call it marriage. The Church, not the State, defines marriage for me.

quote:

Originally posted by Prefontaine:
Why do all the fake bullshit part of it when you don’t even believe in the first place? I will never understand.

Not too hard to understand. A marriage does not involve only the two people in it, there are relatives and others who have a stake in it, and their religious sensitivities are worthy of consideration. Even complete strangers have a perspective on a marriage if only to respect the bond that a man and a woman share.

Of course, there are millennia of ceremonial traditions that are expected to be observed in society as well. Would you toss these out as fake bullshit?

I don't think that any particular religious adherence is necessary for those entering a marriage, and not being Churchy doesn't mean one's life is worth any less than those who are.

quote:

Originally posted by Prefontaine:

you could have done for fifty bucks, and a pen at the courthouse if doing it for legal purposes, taxes, property ownership, etc

May 18, 1979, I knocked off work at noon. Picked my lady up at her office, went to the courthouse with a few friends, and did the deed. It has stuck pretty well, 46 years this coming May.

In news from across the pond. . .

The French have lost their minds -

“French gynaecologist suspended for refusing to treat trans woman

https://www.thetimes.com/world...rans-woman-ldtcjtsbz

Snippets from the article -

Dr Victor Acharian, who sparked a media storm after telling a patient he only treated ‘real women’, has been barred from practising for a month

A French gynaecologist has been barred from practising for a month because he refused to examine a transgender patient on the grounds that he was only qualified to treat “real women”.

“I have no skills to take care of men, even if they have shaved their beards and they come and tell my secretary that they have become women. My gynaecological examination table is not suitable for examining men,” Acharian wrote.

Too bad the sensible doctor didn’t have his ESEE 5 immediately handy to make the necessary changes first before commencing a proper exam!!

Why did this Atheist get married? Because we are one unit together. We are the core of a family. Our children and grandchildren are integrated into a larger family. Unmarried we are just 2 individuals who might walk away at any moment. Indeed the UK has developed a culture of serial unmarried partnerships which is not beneficial to society. Marriage vows mean something, and if we attempt to live up to them we are better people and a better society.

We were married by the Mayor at the ski lift. A few friends were there, we had some champagne, then got on the lift and went skiing for the day. Low key, and the only cost was a small donation to a local charity.