• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court: Christian group can't bar gays [and] get funding

Deuce said:
I'll be volunteering for the Democratic campaign in MN-6, if Texmaster wants to come with me and help me show folks just how much of a lunatic Michelle Bachmann is, he's welcome!
Click to expand...

No I'd come up with your group and scream vote for Bachmann. If you kick me out, you are descriminating against me and you will loose your funding.
 
I've been perusing this thread and I've heard a lot of things about how "arbitrary" it is. And if the court ruled that religious groups can't receive funding because they discriminate against homosexuals, then that is true.

However, I think that religious school organizations shouldn't receive public funding because they're discriminating - I think religious school organizations shouldn't receive public funding because they're religious in nature.

Therefore, I contend that religious school organizations shouldn't receive public funding even if they do allow homosexuals to join and are accepting of them.

So the court made a good ruling but for the wrong reasons.
 
Last edited:
Catz Part Deux said:
Oh, I'm pretty sure we'd see a parody of education, all right.

Sadly, I bet the irony in your post won't even be obvious to you.
Click to expand...

I wasnt following this thread...but when I saw your signature line in another thread (which almost made me miss the Boondock Saints quote) I couldnt help but laugh my ass off...I had to come here...
 
texmaster said:
No I'd come up with your group and scream vote for Bachmann. If you kick me out, you are descriminating against me and you will loose your funding.
Click to expand...

Ya might get tazed bro
 
texmaster said:
No I'd come up with your group and scream vote for Bachmann. If you kick me out, you are descriminating against me and you will loose your funding.
Click to expand...

You really don't understand the scope of this SCOTUS ruling at all.
 
Deuce said:
You really don't understand the scope of this SCOTUS ruling at all.
Click to expand...

I think I understand it very well. They have ruled you cannot descriminate against someone by barring them from your group and receive federal funding.

So please explain how my example is false.
 
ROFL...

It cracks me up how the Left is all bent out of shape that pathetic sexual devients are being excluded from membership. There seems to be absolutely NO threshold to any cultural standard that this subversive ideology isn't prepared to rip down.

It's hilarious.

But the important thing to recognize here, is that pursuing Federal funds stands counter to the principles of Americans and the religion on which America rests. Thus, no Christian group has any business accepting federal funds; as such, the ruling has no bearing on Christian groups operating within sound principle.

Naturally, the Left will demand that ANY group which operates within the scope of ANY organization which in ANY way can be tied to federal funding, falls within the ruling.

This is the foundation of Anti-thiest rant challenging the tax status of the Church; asserting the usual socialist claptrap that not being subject to income taxes is tantamount to a federal subsidy.

Nothing new here... Invalid, unsound reasoning, by a foreign, subversive ideology.
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
I think I understand it very well. They have ruled you cannot descriminate against someone by barring them from your group and receive federal funding.

So please explain how my example is false.
Click to expand...

I haven't received any federal funding, nor applied for it.
 
Texmaster: NAMBLA advocates criminal activity. Thus, they would be ineligible to receive public funds. Hope that helps.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Texmaster: NAMBLA advocates criminal activity. Thus, they would be ineligible to receive public funds. Hope that helps.
Click to expand...

Oh! It really does... 'Cause it provides for the opportunity to note that Homosexuality was 'illegal' just a generation ago...

So if being 'illegal' is all that's holding NAMBLA back, then they're as good as IN!

Let's not forget that NAMBLA was founded BY Homosexuals, FOR homosexuals... and remains comprised exclusively BY Homosexuals.
 
PubliusInfinitu said:
Oh! It really does... 'Cause it provides for the opportunity to note that Homosexuality was 'illegal' just a generation ago...

So if being 'illegal' is all that's holding NAMBLA back, then they're as good as IN!

Let's not forget that NAMBLA was founded BY Homosexuals, FOR homosexuals... and remains comprised exclusively BY Homosexuals.
Click to expand...

So you're equating homosexuality with pedophilia?
 
Deuce said:
So you're equating homosexuality with pedophilia?
Click to expand...

No, I am pointing out the incontrovertible fact that NAMBLA was founded by homosexuals, FOR homosexuals and comprised exclusively BY homosexuals.

That FACT, equates homosexuals with Pedophilia.

Those finding themselves upset by that, need to take it up with nature and the immutable reasoning inherent in such.

Are you asserting that Homosexuality is something distinct from pedophilia? If so, would you take the time to explain how it is, that the worlds most prolific advocacy group for the normalization of the abnormal sexuality of Adult/child sexual relations, was founded by and comprised PURELY of the advocates for the normalization of other such sexual abnormality?

Keep me posted on your thoughts.
 
PubliusInfinitu said:
Are you asserting that Homosexuality is something distinct from pedophilia?

Keep me posted on your thoughts.
Click to expand...

...seriously!?


You can't tell the difference between a loving relationship between two consenting adults and pedophilia?
 
OH.... I see.


I misread the thread title. I thought it said something about a Christian Gay Bar.


Nevermind.
 
Deuce said:
...seriously!?


You can't tell the difference between a loving relationship between two consenting adults and pedophilia?
Click to expand...

I see, so to obscure your inability to explain how it is that the Planets most prolific advocacy group for the Normalization of the Adult/Child Sex, was founded by and is wholly and solely comprised of HOMOSEXUALS, you felt more comfortable trotting out this fallacious trainwreck? Why in failing to sustain your feelings, you've combined ad verecundiam, ad hom and ad populum in ONE flaccid little rant...


And that you clearly feel so superior in doing so... ROFLMNAO! Absolutely PRECIOUS!
 
PubliusInfinitu said:
I see, so to obscure your inability to explain how it is that the Planets most prolific advocacy group for the Normalization of the Adult/Child Sex, was founded by and is wholly and solely comprised of HOMOSEXUALS, you felt more comfortable trotting out this fallacious trainwreck? Why in failing to sustain your feelings, you've combined ad verecundiam, ad hom and ad populum in ONE flaccid little rant...
Click to expand...

So are you claiming all homosexuals are pedophiles now?
 
PubliusInfinitu said:
Oh! It really does... 'Cause it provides for the opportunity to note that Homosexuality was 'illegal' just a generation ago...
Click to expand...

Really? A generation ago was the Millennial Generation, which was from 1982 to 2000.

Please, where was it in America that Homosexuality was "Illegal"? I'm eager to see your source.

PubliusInfinitu said:
Are you asserting that Homosexuality is something distinct from pedophilia?
Click to expand...

Yes.

For example, locally let me point to Jallman, No Coup For You, and Alex (I think its the one I'm thinking of) on this board. All homosexuals that have never once in any way expressed interested in underage individuals. I could also point to Inferno (RIP) for a female example of a poster who also was not in any way a pedophile. I can on the flip side point to the banned poster Agnapostate who was a rather obvious advocate for hetereosexual relations between underage individuals and older individuals.

Let us go wider shall we? How about famous gay people

Ellen Degenerous, absolutely no indication given at all of any pedophile tendancies.
Stephen Fry, ditto
Iam McKellan, ditto
Bryan Singer, nope, no pedohile ties here.
Ricky Marton? NOpe
Clay AIken? Not there
Lance Bass? Not there either.
Alan Cumming? He played a blue guy that teleports, but never boned a underage person
Neil Patrick Harris? Doogie never messed with no underage bootie
Adam Lambert, Nathan Lane, David Hyde Pierce? Nope, Nope, Nope
Roman Polanski, pedophile. Oh wait, he is straight
Wow, so so far we have:

Localized homosexuals ---> Not advocates or practitioner of pedophilia
Famous Homosexuals ---> Not advocates or practitioner of pedophilia
Localized Straight person ---> Pedophile
Famous Straight Person ---> Pedophile

Ah, but gays have NAMBLA! That proves it. I just hope there isn't scores of straight people being rounded up for something like child pornography:

The Daily World
Mayor's housemate arrested for child porn | KATU.com - Breaking News, Sports, Traffic and Weather - Portland, Oregon | News
WLS-AM 890
Homeless Sex Offender Accused of Having Child Porn on Phone wltx.com | Columbia, SC News, Weather and Sports |
Eddington Man Indicted on Child Porn Charge - WABI TV5
http://www.azcentral.com/news/artic...n-Hills-cvs-sexual-exploitation-abrk0630.html
http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100630/edm_exploit_100630/20100630/?hub=CalgaryHome
Police expect more charges in child porn case

Lets not forgot the numerous teaches of BOTH sexes having heterosexual pedo sex with students.

Sorry but pedophilia isn't a homosexual thing, its a people thing.
 
I'd like to introduce y'all to Publius Infinitum. I knew him on another forum. He's special.
 
PubliusInfinitu said:
I see, so to obscure your inability to explain how it is that the Planets most prolific advocacy group for the Normalization of the Adult/Child Sex, was founded by and is wholly and solely comprised of HOMOSEXUALS, you felt more comfortable trotting out this fallacious trainwreck? Why in failing to sustain your feelings, you've combined ad verecundiam, ad hom and ad populum in ONE flaccid little rant...


And that you clearly feel so superior in doing so... ROFLMNAO! Absolutely PRECIOUS!
Click to expand...

So your answer is no, then. You can't tell the difference between a loving relationship between two consenting adults and pedophilia.
Guess we don't have much more to talk about.
 
Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty backed the Christian group stating that it would also block gay only groups from being recognized or able to receive subsidies.

Me, I think its a step in the right direction. I wish all groups that receive funding had to follow a policy like this.

[Hastings] is committed to a policy against legally impermissible, arbitrary or unreasonable discriminatory practices. All groups, including administration, faculty, student governments, [Hastings]-owned student residence facilities and programs sponsored by [Hastings], are governed by this policy of nondiscrimination. [Hasting's] policy on nondiscriminationis to comply fully with applicable law. "[Hastings] shall not discriminate unlawfully on thebasis of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry,disability, age, sex or sexual orientation."
Click to expand...


Georgetown/On Faith: Religious freedom to exclude - Michael Kessler
 
Some of you seem oddly obsessed with NAMBLA. They're not a protected group so bringing them up over and over again is just plain creepy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom