Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Full civil rights sought by LGBT community

January 11, 2014

The 80th Legislature failed last year to pass the Employment and Housing Non-Discrimination Act (EHNDA) again....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(100)

TruthSeeker

Jan-26-14 11:30 AM

What, in reality, all your taking over is the path to your own destruction. Liberalism will die out, and sanity will return once again. People are waking up, and frankly, it's scaring the devil out of you and every other liberal in this country.

Although, I am beginning to wonder if your sexual preference isn't a bit on the gay side. I've never seen a straight guy defend gays with so much determination. Liberals are never so committed to a cause unless it affects them in some way.

Maybe there's something in this for you after all.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nelliebly

Jan-26-14 7:55 AM

6/26/13: WASHINGTON -- The Defense of Marriage Act, the law barring the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages legalized by the states, is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday by a 5-4 vote.

"The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. "By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment."

Justice Kennedy delivered the court’s opinion...

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nelliebly

Jan-25-14 6:00 PM

Let me get this straight, Maj.

Are you saying that the Roberts' court is Liberal?

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TruthSeeker

Jan-25-14 5:47 PM

Progressives are losing their support. That's why they're getting more and more insane. Anger and foul rants is all they have left; and that's not working either. They are harming themselves with their bullying tactics, arrogance and attempts to tell everyone they deserve to be the ones to tell the rest of us what we can and cannot do in this FREE nation that they hate so much. It's beyond me why the little cowards don't just leave here and choose to live in a socialist country to begin with. Why fight against this one? It's a LOSING battle for you peons; you should be realizing that by now. We stopped you drug-damaged hippies in 60's and even the 50's as the socialists keep coming back to America TRYING to destroy it from time to time. No problem Piece of cake. America ALWAYS pushes them back into their holes from whence they crawled. With God's help that is. America belongs to christians NOT commies.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nelliebly

Jan-25-14 5:31 PM

Right On, WMW, "...You are correct, we are taking over the world and it's about time. Peace man."

I'm a Baby Boomer myself and I know exactly where I was during the VietNam years. I always wonder what these anti-"Hippies" were doing when others were defending the country.

Ted Nugent comes to mind. He tells the tale of how he defecated in his pants and didn't shower or shave for weeks so that he could dodge the draft. And now, he's an NRA board member and represents the conservative movement perfectly.

I wonder where all the phony patriots and sanctimonious right wingers were during the VietNam war...

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nelliebly

Jan-25-14 8:15 AM

OK, Maj, so we are moving from same-sex marriage to gender reassignment, right?

You've decided that the hypothetical scenario which you posited of a father marrying his son just isn't getting the response from me that you want.

Just so we know ... you have moved on from same-sex marriage as it pertains to blood relatives.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nelliebly

Jan-25-14 7:56 AM

Ok, Maj, I'm following your trail of breadcrumbs. Your answer as to why you believe a father or mother would want to marry their offspring is, "...Probably perversion..."

Do you, in FACT, know of a situation where a father or mother attempted to marry their offspring? Be specific.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nelliebly

Jan-25-14 7:40 AM

Maj, you are unable to answer a very simple and specific question. Why would a father or mother want to marry his or her offspring?

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nelliebly

Jan-25-14 7:23 AM

Maj, it's a simple and specific question. Under what circumstances would a father want to marry his son or a mother want to marry her daughter.

Marriage is a civil contract. Marriage conveys over one hundred federal benefits which is one very specific reason same sex partners want to marry.

I'm asking you, Maj, what reason would a father or a mother give to marry his or her offspring?

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nelliebly

Jan-25-14 7:09 AM

Maj, under what circumstances would a father want to marry his son or a mother want to marry her daughter?

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nelliebly

Jan-25-14 6:57 AM

Maj, under what circumstances would a father want to marry his son or a mother want to marry her daughter.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nelliebly

Jan-25-14 6:51 AM

OK, Maj, under what circumstances would a father want to marry his son or a mother want to marry her daughter?

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nelliebly

Jan-25-14 6:48 AM

Proverbs 13:5

5 The righteous hate what is false, but the wicked bring shame and disgrace.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nelliebly

Jan-24-14 11:50 AM

WMW, I caught Pure in another lie and that is why he is so desperate to babble about fathers marrying sons. That really isn't the issue with Pure right now.

Let's let this play out. I hate liars more than I do sanctimonious hate mongers.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nelliebly

Jan-24-14 11:31 AM

Seek and you shall find, Puremagix:

Puremagix

Jan-21-14 2:43 PM

The word Liberal by itself when looked up in dictionaries has mostly a desirable definition. But the scripture is clear that vile people are being referred to as liberal. God said there would come a time when the vile would no more be called liberal. This shows that right now vile people are being called liberal and God says he will stop this practice some time in the future. He also said the churl (rude and stingy) are being called bountiful.

There is another scripture in Isaiah 5:20 that addresses this. It says, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!"

Look in the mirror Nellie and What.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nelliebly

Jan-24-14 11:05 AM

You are a liar, Puremagix, and I don't have discussions with liars.

Jan-24-14 10:37 AM

"Never been on that website that I can remember."

This is a cut and paste from that website, Puremagix:

The word Liberal by itself when looked up in dictionaries has mostly a desirable definition. But the scripture is clear that vile people are being referred to as liberal. God said there would come a time when the vile would no more be called liberal. This shows that right now vile people are being called liberal and God says he will stop this practice some time in the future. He also said the churl (rude and stingy) are being called bountiful. (end c&p)

Shall I scroll down and find the specific date and time you posted this exact same cut and paste?

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nelliebly

Jan-24-14 10:40 AM

Maj can speak for him/herself, Puremagix. I answered his/her question and if he/she wants to pursue the issue with me, fine.

You are a liar, Pureagix, and I don't have discussions with liars.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nelliebly

Jan-24-14 10:26 AM

Does this website page look familiar to you, Puremagix?

repentnow dot com / liberal

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nelliebly

Jan-24-14 10:01 AM

repost: The altered Bible passage which you posted was NOT because of a typo. The passage was deliberately distorted to fit your hateful agenda.

This is the edited passage from the KJ translation which you posted at 10:59 a.m., Puremagix:

"...Isaiah 32:5-8 5. The vile person shall be called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful."

This is the actual King James passage:

"The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful."

The punishment for taking away from the Bible is far worse than the punishment is for being homosexual.

You are the one who is squirming, Puremagix...that is if you truly believe in the words of the Bible:

(bible super search dot com) excerpt: For those who add to God's Word, He will punish with the plagues of Revelation. However, those who take away from the word are threatened with removal from the book of life, literally the loss of their salvation. (Proverbs 30:6).

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nelliebly

Jan-24-14 9:58 AM

You are lying, Puremagix. You did not type the passage. You cut and pasted it from an anti-liberal website.

This is the entire post:

Jan-21-14 10:59 AM

Here Nellie, here's what God thinks of liberals. Isaiah 32:5-8 5. The vile person shall be called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful. 6. For the vile person will speak villainy, and his heart will work iniquity, to practice hypocrisy, and to utter error against the LORD, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail 7. The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right. 8. But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.

I guess I'm in pretty good company. God has a pretty low opinion of liberals as well. I'll stand with God on this one.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nelliebly

Jan-24-14 7:22 AM

Puremagix, you altered a passage in the Bible to fit your hateful agenda. You now call it a "mistake" and a "typo". Posting a cut and pasted passage with words deleted is neither a "mistake" nor a "typo" - and you know it.

(repost) The punishment for taking away from the Bible is far worse than the punishment is for being homosexual.

You are the one who is squirming, Puremagix...that is if you truly believe in the words of the Bible:

(bible super search dot com) excerpt: For those who add to God's Word, He will punish with the plagues of Revelation. However, those who take away from the word are threatened with removal from the book of life, literally the loss of their salvation. (Proverbs 30:6).

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nelliebly

Jan-24-14 7:13 AM

Maj: Once again I notice my liberal legions cant state why homosexual so called marriage is okay for two men not related but its off limits if its a father and son.

repost from: Jan-23-14 6:54 AM

nb: You appear to be obsessed with the concept of father marrying son. Definition of "incest" (us legal dot com):

Incest is a statutory crime. Incest can be defined as marriage or sexual intercourse between persons who are related within a particular degree of consanguinity or affinity prohibited by law, or between persons so closely related that a marriage between them would be void. The laws against incest intend to protect the integrity of the family and the welfare of minor children.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nelliebly

Jan-23-14 8:53 PM

WMW, Walker puts it best:

Jan-22-14 2:34 PM Pulling a single scripture out of context and making it apply to your own weird notion is like taking an instruction from an assembly manual at random in order to justify building it the way you want. It is not only unwise, but it's a misuse of the manual. "Attach positive wire to post A" makes sense ONLY if you have read the instructions before it saying "Be sure to turn off electricity." Yet people do this with the Bible (and the Quran) all the time. That particular passage from Isaiah means nothing that PM claims it does - least of all using the 17th century inferior translation derived from an even earlier inferior translation ("liberal") and then applying the word to a narrowly-defined 21st century political descriptive is about as stupid as it gets. There really is no excuse for it and it further discredits anything else he writes. continued...

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nelliebly

Jan-23-14 8:13 PM

typo correction:

The use of the translated word, "liberal" meaning "noble", is appropriate in the passage which we are discussing.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nelliebly

Jan-23-14 8:09 PM

Maj: the information I provided about the King James translation of the word "liberal" is correct. As you may know, the IM removes all "special characters" (links), but I'm certain you can type this into your browser:

biblehub dot com / Isaiah / 32-8

There over 100 English translations of the Bible. The King James version is just one of them. The use of the translated word, "liberal" meaning "nobel", is appropriate in the passage which we are discussing. Scroll down to find the passage in question...both the one Puremagix altered and the complete KJ version.

I did respond to your comment about fathers marrying sons...you just have to scroll down and read through the comments.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 100 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web