(Advertisement)

Marriage ruling a 'sign times are changing,' president of Arkansas group says

Posted: June 26, 2013 at 10:09 a.m.

The president of an Arkansas group that advocates for gay rights said Wednesday's Supreme Court ruling striking down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act is an important one, though it won't translate to changes in state policy in Arkansas.

Eric McDaniel, president of the Stonewall Democratic Caucus of Arkansas, said the ruling — which enables federal benefits for legally married same-sex couples — is a "step towards the majority of opinion in the United States."

"That's a sign that times are changing, hearts are changing, people are becoming more progressive in thought," McDaniel said shortly after the court released its decision. "Basically I just feel like it follows the opinion — it is in line with the opinion of the majority of Americans. So it may take a while to catch up in Arkansas, but I'm very optimistic that it will."

But Jerry Cox, president of the Little Rock-based Family Council, called the high court's decisions a "mixed bag."

While it struck down part of DOMA, the court didn't rule on California's same-sex marriage ban, which had been ruled unconstitutional by a lower court. Cox said a ruling on the latter could have challenged Arkansas' voter-approved constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, which the Family Council worked to pass in 2004.

"We had hoped the court would totally uphold marriage as has always been the case in Arkansas and in most places around the country," Cox said. "They didn't. They chose to, at least for federal purposes, extend benefits to same-sex couples.

"I just think most people in Arkansas would rather not have the Supreme Court telling them what a marriage is or what a marriage isn't. I think they would rather decide that for themselves. Thankfully, the Supreme Court did leave that issue to the states, where I think it ought to be."

Cox said his group isn't planning any immediate action because of the decisions, but it would work to defend the marriage amendment if another group mounts an effort to change it.

McDaniel said the ruling was in line with his expectations, but seeing it come up while he followed live updates from SCOTUSblog online brought tears to his eyes. He married his husband in New York earlier this year.

"I can't tell you happy I was," McDaniel said, his voice breaking with emotion. "It was a relief."

(Advertisement)



« Previous Story

Hastings closing Springdale store

Hastings is closing its Springdale store Aug. 9. The Fayetteville store closed earlier this month. Read »

Next Story »

UPDATE: Body found, authorities say foul play...

A body believed to be that of a missing Washington County woman was found in her vehicle near her property, according to a news release from the Washington County Sheriff's... Read »

Another step in the wrong direction.

Posted by: boyscout357

June 27, 2013 at 11:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

What a great day for our country! Unfortunately, we still have a lot further to go until all states (like Arkansas) realize that gays and lesbians deserve the same legal rights as other tax paying citizens under the eyes of the law.

In other good news (not mentioned by this paper), Exodus International is shutting down after 37 years. Exodus International was a Christian group that believed they could 'fix' gays and make them straight. Read the apology by the founder of Exodus to the gay community here: http://exodusinternational.org/2013/0...

Posted by: Dexter

June 27, 2013 at 12:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Another step in the wrong direction."
Oh, don't worry-- I'm sure you'll do fine. Somebody will get your back.

Posted by: AlphaCat

June 27, 2013 at 1:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

boyscout - Just keep praying. God is still in control. America is a rebellious country and we will pay the price of God's absence and loss of His favor and protection. We still can turn back to Him.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 27, 2013 at 1:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Thanks for your positive message, Dexter. We'll keep fighting the good fight.

Posted by: BradBailey

June 27, 2013 at 2:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I am not gay. I am married to someone of the opposite sex. I can find absolutely nothing in my life that has bee affected by this ruling or by allowing gays to be married.

Could someone please explain how two people being married as recognized by the government affects anyone else that has a religious belief that homosexuality is immoral?

There is a religious group that believes eating shellfish is immoral. Does a Christian eating shellfish become immoral because of other individuals' religious belief?

Posted by: ecsmith2

June 27, 2013 at 2:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"It is strange to be someone who has both been hurt by the Church’s treatment of the LGBTQ community, and also to be someone who must apologize for being part of the very system of ignorance that perpetuated that hurt,” said Chambers. “Today it is as if I’ve just woken up to a greater sense of how painful it is to be a sinner in the hands of an angry church.”

Well, if that church was angry, it should shut down. You can't show love through anger.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 27, 2013 at 2:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

mycentworth, would you indulge me and explain exactly what you are praying for?

Is it that everyone in America accepts your religious beliefs and acts only according to those beliefs?

Same for you, boyscout357. It is the wrong path for you, and it certainly is a different path than what your religious belief will take you, but what harm comes from other people taking the different path, if it doesn't conflict with their beliefs?

I have no problem with your belief that taking a certain path conflicts with your moral religious beliefs, but no one is forcing you to take the path. You seem to be saying that because of your moral religious beliefs that the path should not exist at all. It is not immoral for other to take the path you find immoral if their beliefs are different.

America is supposed to be setup to tolerate religious differences, not enforce anyone's particular religious beliefs. You seem to want to have your religious belief enforced by not allowing gay marriage.

Posted by: ecsmith2

June 27, 2013 at 2:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

EC - The subject of same sex marriage has become a right issue instead of a moral issue. God clearly says in His word it is sin. I don't think anyone will disagree with that. As a Christian, I have no choice but to follow God's laws. The world can take a different road, but the Christian never will.

I am praying that people will just come to the Lord and recognize Him as the loving God he is and who wants all saved, through the cross, but we cannot tell Him what is right and wrong.

Christians will obey the law, but as Daniel wouldn't stop praying to His God, which was the law, and was thrown into the lion's den, we will never say something is right, when it is wrong in God's word.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 27, 2013 at 3:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "The subject of same sex marriage has become a right issue instead of a moral issue."
And properly so. The government has no business limiting rights based on a narrow definition imposed by your religion. You are, of course free to gay-marry or not, as your morality dictates.

RE " God clearly says in His word it is sin."
Clearly? Really? Where?

RE "I am praying that people will just come to the Lord"
Good for you. If you have faith in the efficacy of prayer, then you won't need restrictive laws to force people to adopt your morality.

RE "we cannot tell Him what is right and wrong."
Our laws aren't intended to tell God anything.

RE "Christians will obey the law"
Good for you. Presumably, then, nothing changes as far as you're concerned.

RE "we will never say something is right, when it is wrong in God's word."
And you will never stop whining, either. You just can't let other people get along with God as they prefer to.

Posted by: AlphaCat

June 27, 2013 at 4:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I wonder if Time Magazine will have a Queer of the year issue soon?

Posted by: hadleyboy

June 27, 2013 at 5:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Hee! Hee!

Posted by: JailBird

June 27, 2013 at 6:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Money refers to "the laws of nature"

"1,500 animal species practice homosexuality. Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals. Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex."
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006...

Posted by: Coralie

June 27, 2013 at 6:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I would expect that you would believe I agree with AlphaCat. I do.

It is a rights issue. The First Amendment allows everyone to have beliefs and to follow those beliefs without law being created that prohibits those beliefs from being followed. There is nothing that denies you from believing God made homosexuality immoral if people that have a different belief that it is not immoral are allowed to marry. That the definition of marriage changes for the government doesn't necessarily change it for you. Allowing an activity, gay marriage, that affects no one else, does not affect you morally. It just means you are tolerating it in society, where you should tolerate it. You don't have to tolerate it in your personal life, and the law is not forcing homosexual activities into your life. The overreach of the religious is that the society they live in is their personal life. It isn't.

No one is trying to tell your God what is right or wrong. The libertarian gauge, and i recall you calling yourself a possible libertarian, is if someone else is doing something, and it affects no one else, then is should be allowed. When the effects of the activity start to impact others not involved in the activity, that is when government becomes the arbiter of what should be allowed and what should not. It is why in all of these religious/rights discussions, I would like to know what harm is coming to the religious in toleration of the actions of others. That Sodom and Gomorrah existed did not make the righteous immoral in their own eyes. Not being righteous made them immoral.

You don't have to say homosexuality is right in your religious belief. But our Constitution doesn't allow the religious to put their religious beliefs into the law. If you have some secular harm that comes to you from other people marrying people of the same sex, please bring that forward to be discussed, and the harm that is coming to you will be addressed and regulated. Until then, please simply be happy in following your religious beliefs, and being a shining example of your chosen lifestyle. If the example is truly that wonderful, the world will see it and follow you.

Posted by: ecsmith2

June 27, 2013 at 6:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Moneymyst, you bring the "laws of nature" in lightly veiled as a religious belief. Would the laws of nature also dictate that man only eat as much to sustain life and no more? Wouldn't God have created the "laws of nature" that way? It seems to me that law gets broken considerably more that any law against homosexual activity.

Both probably get hit pretty hard in Alabama, along with a few others.

Posted by: ecsmith2

June 27, 2013 at 6:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie - I looked at that so-called site. It didn't impress me whatsoever. No proof at all - kindof like just take my word for it.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 27, 2013 at 7:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Coralie - I looked at that so-called site. It didn't impress me whatsoever. No proof at all - kindof like just take my word for it." - mycentworth

???!?

What do you need, pictures and video?

It, potentially, is more substantial then what you provide for the actual existence of your religious beliefs.

And my religious beliefs are very, very similar to yours, and I know how little I can provide to prove my beliefs are real to another person.

Posted by: ecsmith2

June 27, 2013 at 7:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The Bible talks about the big lie people will believe. It is just so hard to know which one, The left has turned everything from the founding of this nation, the existence of a Holy God, the salvation of man, the law of nature, the creation of the universe and man into a lie. All is covered in the Word.

The Bible is the best reference book there is.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 27, 2013 at 8:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

ecsmith - Google 'news medical'. Not much there and no reputable source backs their info that I could find. Looks and sounds bogus.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 27, 2013 at 8:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

So, as usual, the Christians line up against the atheists and agnostics on political issues. I, as a Christian, will fight for my side but I do not have to win this battle as my side wins in the end. Praise God!

Posted by: boyscout357

June 27, 2013 at 8:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

So... do you, or do you not, now have to turn gay to join the Boyscouts? This stuff is all so confusing.....

Posted by: CaptainQuint

June 27, 2013 at 8:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "please simply be happy in following your religious beliefs, and being a shining example of your chosen lifestyle. If the example is truly that wonderful, the world will see it and follow you."
According to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity, there are about 41,000 Christian denominations (counting a denomination in multiple countries multiple times). http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles... Yet even when Christians set 41,000 examples, they have to rely on the force of law, because those 41,000 examples can't inspire followers on their own. Weak examples, weak faith: sounds like a weak religion.

Posted by: AlphaCat

June 27, 2013 at 10:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

So, boyscout, do you think that because someone disagrees with you, they can't be a Christian? Do you also think that because someone is gay, they can't be a Christian? And because they are gay, they can't be a boy scout? I am all 3, gay, Christian, and a former boy scout and I disagree with you. This is not just a political issue to me, this is my life.

Posted by: Dexter

June 28, 2013 at 6:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

mycentworth, an exhibit in a natural history museum run by a fairly large university is not much of a source and not reputable?

Posted by: ecsmith2

June 28, 2013 at 7:58 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

boyscout357, I am neither atheist nor agnostic, I belong to a Christian church, yet we seem to be on the opposite side of some issue. We agree that the boy scouts should have the decision to allow or not allow gays into scouting. We agree it is the church's choice to sponsor groups or not sponsor groups.

The issue, for me, is understanding why a church, like the one involved in the article cannot sponsor a group that has nothing but ideals the church supports and allows no immoral activities that would be offensive to the church simply because the group would allow as members of the group people that self identify as people that would be immoral in the eyes of the church outside of participating in the group or inside a church facility.

And you want to know where this has more serious, real life implications, there are religious hospitals that will not allow doctors to practice in their facilities if they perform ethical, legal medical procedures elsewhere, not in the religious hospitals' facilities. It is exactly the same thing.

It is an overreach of the power of a religious organization trying to enforce its religious belief on other people not of that same belief. It is intolerance. I don't like intolerance.

And currently Texas is trying to take advantage of this to be able to shut down abortion clinics because they are trying to pass a law requiring abortion doctors to have admitting rights to a hospital know that it is legal for hospitals to deny that to doctors for ethical treatment not done at their facilities.

I have my beliefs about homosexuality and abortion, and they are very, very similar to yours. I also have my belief in he government and the Constitution, and in that we seem to differ greatly. I believe in the tolerance the Constitution is setup to enforce on us, and it is a cruel irony that the most intolerant of Americans seem to be the ones proclaiming patriotism and love of the Constitution the most, and not following what the Constitution says.

Posted by: ecsmith2

June 28, 2013 at 8:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

EC What exhibit in what university, please?

Posted by: mycentworth

June 28, 2013 at 8:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

mycentworth, we seem to be at odds most of the time, and yet our religious beliefs, to me, seem very similar. The issue between us is not about your religious belief, it is how much of that belief you need to enforce on other people that may not have your belief.

I have read the whole Bible, and it is a good reference book, for an individual. It is not so good to replace the Constitution for running a country that was built with one of the pillars being religious freedom

You say there are big lies, but without details, that just leaves you sounding right and no information to know what you have gotten wrong.

You have trouble with the subtle difference between your personal life and your life as part of society. Being a racist and discriminating against groups of people is perfectly fine, so long as you keep that within your personal life. I have tried to bring this to your attention with your dislike of renting a room to a homosexual. If you want to rent a room, and make that room available to anyone in the general public by posting an ad in the paper or on a bulletin board at the grocery store, then you should accept anyone from the general public that answers your ad. In that case, your are part of society with your life, and you don't get to use your personal discriminations as you might like. If, instead, you do no advertising at all, but instead you single out people and ask them if they would like to rent your room, you can discriminate all you like. Now remember, you can't tell the people that you choose to send people to you that fit within your discriminations, that would be advertising to society again. It would be like putting up the ad to rent a room only to a hispanic person, no others need apply.

The same goes for your religion, and mine for that matter, you need only follow your moral teaching, people that have other beliefs should not have to follow our moral teachings, and they should not be put into the law.

Posted by: ecsmith2

June 28, 2013 at 8:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

It was in the first paragraph of the link coralie posted. It is a bit disappointing that you did not see it, if you actually looked at the link.

The first paragraph:

From the middle of October until next summer the Norwegian Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo will host the first exhibition that focuses on homosexuality in the animal kingdom.

Posted by: ecsmith2

June 28, 2013 at 8:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

boyscout357, gays can only practice oral sex and sodomy. This might surprise you, but heterosexual couples can also practice oral sex and sodomy.

Did this church find oral sex and sodomy the offensive parts of being a homosexual, or did they also not allow any groups they sponsored to have members that participated in oral sex and sodomy?

Why is oral sex and sodomy between heterosexual couples okay but not okay for homosexual couples? Neither activity can result in procreation.

Posted by: ecsmith2

June 28, 2013 at 8:58 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"From the middle of October until next summer the Norwegian Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo will host the first exhibition that focuses on homosexuality in the animal kingdom."

So, it hasn't been put on display, but believe me, if it could stand the scrutiny, it would have been big news and we all would have heard about it. Usually, the left makes a claim and it proves false.

The left has taken the words out from our forefathers that reference their belief in God. One small example is the World War II Memorial in DC.
They left out "so help us God" from Roosevelt's speech

You also seem to ignore the fact that I would rent to a gay, but I do have the choice to not rent to him/her. If he is active, pushing his agenda and tries to influence my family, if I had one then, I would not rent to him. I have no problem with gay doctors, or whatever.

I do not believe being gay is innate, but a choice. You can live as you want, just let the rest of us do the same. Quit trying to change our Christian beliefs and tagging us as "intolerant". You watch, hatred of Christians is going to increase and freedom of religion and speech will be challenged.

The Bible says there will be a "falling away" and if it were possible even the elect will be deceived.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 28, 2013 at 9:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

That's exactly your problem, mycent. You base your opinions of gay people on beliefs, not scientific evidence. Researchers, sociologists and mainstream medical, psychiatric and pediatric organizations agree that sexual orientation, even yours, is immutable.

They also concur that homosexuality is a normal, natural and positive variation of the spectrum of human sexuality.

I would tell you that being gay was not a choice for me, and that would be considered as evidence. Everything you state about homosexuality is based upon nothing more than your belief. And that's fine.

Do you even understand the difference between sex and sexual orientation? One is an act, the other is an innate state of being that no one gets to decide.

When it comes to civil rights, especially in the 21st century, scientific evidence and the opinions of reputable experts in the field trump should trump irrational beliefs. That's the way any government policy should be decided.

Posted by: BradBailey

June 28, 2013 at 9:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Brad - I believe in civil rights for everyone, including Christians.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 28, 2013 at 10:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I must correct my post above concerning Roosevelt, I do know he was not a founding father. Excuse the error. I should have said our fore fathers.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 28, 2013 at 10:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"So, it hasn't been put on display, but believe me, if it could stand the scrutiny, it would have been big news and we all would have heard about it. "
mycent, that link was published in October 2006, so the exhibit already took place.
Since it was in Norway and not in Arkansas, there was probably not a big controversy about it.
Same-sex marriage is legal in Norway, its neighbor Sweden, and 12 other countries: : Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, and Uruguay.

Posted by: Coralie

June 28, 2013 at 1:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I do apologize that you will have to wait for the display. I thought enough that announced that it would be coming would indicate to you there is evidence.

It has been enough to you to only announce that Jesus' second coming will, in fact, happen.

Your claim about FDR's speech on the memorial appears to be false. Of the 24 sentence speech, they only used one sentence, and it is several sentence away from the one mentioning God.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/milita...

You may still be able to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, but you would not be able to on race or sex of the individual. It doesn't seem moral to do it based on orientation. I don't know if that part of the law has changed to include orientation, and not worth finding ot at the moment. No one is asking you to have gay people force their lifestyle into your personal life. you rent a room to someone, with some limitation on them, it does become their private personal space.

How does allowing gay marriage not allow you to live your life as you see fit? It always seems to come back to this question, and this question never gets answered.

Not trying to change your beliefs at all. You seem to ignore what I am really saying and want to just hear you are being forced to change your beliefs. You don't get to have the belief everyone else has to have your beliefs.

You are intolerant if you find it acceptable to make something illegal for no reason.

I don't hate myself or my religion, and for once could you, or anyone else, please explain how freedom of religion and speech will be challenged?

I understand asking the question implies you are wrong, that it is not being challenged, but if it is, I don't want that to happen either, but I can't help stop it if you cannot point out how it is happening.

Posted by: ecsmith2

June 28, 2013 at 1:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

mycentworth, do you remember having that discussion with yourself, the one that goes "do I want to be straight or do I want to be gay"?

Remember how old you were when it happened?

Posted by: ecsmith2

June 28, 2013 at 1:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

>>Cox said his group isn't planning any immediate action because of the decisions, but it would work to defend the marriage amendment if another group mounts an effort to change it.<
--Jerry Cox

There is a group planning a petition drive to overturn Arkansas' marriage amendment.

However, what will likely happen is that someone in this state will be injured by Ark's strict marriage amendment and bring suit. Then the federal bench will decide the fate of Ark's marriage amendment.

Any such injury could revolve around one of several issues: insurance for lawful spouses, inheritance for lawful survivors, surviving child benefits, discrimination for loan or other access to privileges and lawful marriage property.
Allowing a gay spouse access to a dying partner could be another path to a lawsuit which could lead to overturning Ark's marriage amendment.

It's coming. Just a matter of when.

.

Posted by: cdawg

June 28, 2013 at 2:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

mycent, here are other sources for my information about homosexual behavior being common in the animal kingdom:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexu...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...
http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/03...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/ne...

Posted by: Coralie

June 28, 2013 at 2:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The strategy of the the anti-gay marriage side has been to create laws, but laws can be overturned easier. That is why they went the route of adding amendments to state constitutions. It is much harder to be injured by an amendment, so it is harder to get it to court to get a ruling.

On the surface, the simple minded would believe that an amendment to a constitution cannot be unconstitutional. But it can be unconstitutional.

Posted by: ecsmith2

June 28, 2013 at 2:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Any such injury could revolve around one of several issues: insurance for lawful spouses, inheritance for lawful survivors, surviving child benefits, discrimination for loan or other access to privileges and lawful marriage property. "

"Allowing a gay spouse access to a dying partner could be another path to a lawsuit which could lead to overturning Ark's marriage amendment." - cdawg

OMG! Do you realize that if gays were freely allowed to do any of those things, that it would not affect straight people that are married not one bit?

Posted by: ecsmith2

June 28, 2013 at 2:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Here is some recommended reading for mycentworth and her ilk:
http://www.religiondispatches.org/arc...

Take particular note of the fifth bullet point, which addresses the question that ecsmith2 has asked repeatedly-- which so far has been dodged repeatedly.

Then try to explain how any of the points made in the article are not correct.

Posted by: AlphaCat

June 28, 2013 at 3:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie - This argument is ridiculous. Animals are not people. I've had male and female dogs hump legs. Means nothing. Animals play together and do become attached to some and not others. Means nothing. If you read all those sites, you'd go crazy. I've much better things to do.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 28, 2013 at 3:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Liberals are all like their poster boy Alec Baldwin. Lowlife foul mouth haters of homos, daughters, boys, girls, reporters, and anyone else who is not like them. Paula Deem is a saint compared to Alec (Scum) Baldwin and you liberals love him. Shame.

Posted by: JailBird

June 28, 2013 at 4:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Animals are not people."
You have argued elsewhere, and you and Moneymyst have argued here, that homosexuality is against the laws of Nature, which would include animal behavior. Don't try to move the goalpost.

RE "I've had male and female dogs hump legs."
Speaking of dogs: I won't post the link, as it would likely be removed, but there was a little nature video on last night's episode of "The Daily Show". The context begins about seven minutes into the episode, in case you care to see it. (No human legs are involved. Warning: you will not be able to unsee this video.)

Posted by: AlphaCat

June 28, 2013 at 4:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Poor Paula. She did apologize. I thought that is all you had to do. It works for everyone else.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 28, 2013 at 4:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Paula Deem is a saint compared to Alec (Scum) Baldwin and you liberals love him."
Keeping the Alec Baldwin DVDs, but no more Paula Deen products. Yes, Walmart is such a liberal corporation.

Posted by: AlphaCat

June 28, 2013 at 4:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Alpha, my suggestion is to let it troll without paying attention to it. It's been working well.

Posted by: cdawg

June 28, 2013 at 5:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Puppy, you need to change your picture and at the same time your image, like I did mine. I am now a Hollywood liberal and it has changed my life.

Posted by: JailBird

June 28, 2013 at 7:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Like most corporations, Wal-Mart tends to skew left, primarily because the left-wing, statist agenda appeals to larger entities as a way to limit competition from rising small businesses.

As far as the primary question goes, same-gender marriage may not directly affect a heterosexual married couple, but it clearly affects society in a negative fashion. Those who seek to defend a civil society are routinely trashed by thugs such as Acey and Smitty who really prefer to see our nation perish if it stands in the way of their worldview. The real irony is that these people actually claim to want a more tolerant world, but their ideas of charity only apply to those who think exactly like them. They would personally destroy anyone who does not enthusiastically sing from their songbook, even if (s)he happens to be their own child or parent.

The latest shredding of the Constitution may be a sign of the times, but does not portend a bright future. Acey and Smitty may look forward to it because they have no children whom they care about...nobody who does would celebrate this decision. However, if one is wrong and Acey and Smitty do have children, then the best advice for them is not to gloat, because their biggest regret will be if their children follow their example.

Posted by: IrishMensa

June 28, 2013 at 9:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Well said Irish, I'm just a pooper scooper compared to you.

Posted by: JailBird

June 28, 2013 at 9:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Those who seek to defend a civil society"
Says the guy who calls other people liars, and uses other epithets in the expectation that they are derogatory.

Here you go:
http://www.mensa.ie/index.html

Good luck.

Posted by: AlphaCat

June 28, 2013 at 10:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I fail to see how legalizing SSM would "impact society negitively." Those countries that have already done so over the years wonder what the big deal was all about. The sky didn't fall, no one was struck by lightning, society didn't disintegrate. Life is pretty much the same.

Posted by: BradBailey

June 29, 2013 at 9:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

You must understand Brad, when the white male patriarchy is threatened, the recoil is tense. They assume the world's end is nigh or, prefer to convince others of the same. I think IM is simply a cynic and plows thru the stuff for amusement.

Never be surprised when you discover that the religious right has paid posters to populate local blogs all across the USA.

Posted by: cdawg

June 29, 2013 at 4:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Supposedly all liberals love Alec Baldwin. Unfortunately, from the Wikipedia list of his television programs and films, I may never have seen him act. Nor have I picked him out of the pack on the Huffington Post.
Now I will look for him.

Posted by: Coralie

June 29, 2013 at 4:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

IM says "Like most corporations, Wal-Mart tends to skew left."
Pretty counter-intuitive, so can you give examples? Also your special definition of "left" is "statist"?
From Wikipedia:
"In general, left-wing implies a commitment to egalitarianism, support for social policies that favor the working class, and multiculturalism. The contemporary Left usually defines itself as promoting government regulation of business, commerce and industry; protection of fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion; and government intervention on behalf of racial, ethnic, and sexual minorities and the working class."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%...

Posted by: Coralie

June 29, 2013 at 4:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Pretty counter-intuitive, so can you give examples?"
IrishDensa never gives examples. It would be the equivalent of the Emperor admitting that he has no clothes.

Posted by: AlphaCat

June 29, 2013 at 5:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Paula Deen, Kitty

Posted by: JailBird

June 29, 2013 at 7:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"As far as the primary question goes, same-gender marriage may not directly affect a heterosexual married couple, but it clearly affects society in a negative fashion." - IrishMensa

No, it doesn't.

Use of "mensa" in your username is an insult to anyone with any amount of intelligence.

Posted by: ecsmith2

June 30, 2013 at 5:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

THIS COMMENT IS THE ONLY ONE THAT MATTERS. Ahem: { So the states in the union by majority wish marriage to remain as it is! nay to strengthen. yet the bureaucrats have decided else wise!? What is this "union" concept? this idea of our nation? i look around i see no representation...The times change because media says they do? sure/ another great writer by the way. think im going to keep count. of how many red diaper doper babies the only newspaper has on staff.. fairness in media yall}

Posted by: Barefoot

June 30, 2013 at 9:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

mycent,

I respect your belief that the Bible is the "best reference book". But please realize that I think it is way down the list so don't keep pushing it as any kind of proof. Did you know that there are 30,000 different Greek manuscript versions? And it cannot possibly be interpreted "literally" due to the very nature of language itself plus it has no more objective claim to truth than any other historical book. Thank you.

Posted by: ajm

July 1, 2013 at 7:01 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

AJM There are only one or two that translated WORD for WORD from the Greek and Hebrew writings, King James version is one. There is another and is also a good source, I just don't remember which it is. (Strong, maybe)

Posted by: mycentworth

July 1, 2013 at 7:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Don't forget the apostles were inspired by God himself, which to me is very evident. Personal experience also is my source.

Posted by: mycentworth

July 1, 2013 at 7:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

red diaper doper babies on the Arkansas Democrat Gazette staff??
Thanks for the laugh, Barefoot.

Posted by: Coralie

July 1, 2013 at 1:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

mycent, do you know any other languages besides English?
I have done a little translation, when my Spanish was better than it is now (actually got paid for it once).
It is impossible to translate "WORD for WORD."
Languages aren't like that.

Posted by: Coralie

July 1, 2013 at 1:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

For instance if you were translating from German to English, you might run up against this:
"The term rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz — that's 63 letters long for those of you keeping track at home — means "the law for the delegation of monitoring beef labeling."
http://theweek.com/article/index/2452...

Posted by: Coralie

July 1, 2013 at 1:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

And how would you translate idioms such as these into languages that had no such idions?
•Rub someone the wrong way
•Jump the gun
•Pay the piper

.In English, it would be “raining cats and dogs”
•In Africa, they might say “it's raining old women with clubs”
•In Norway they say “it's raining female trolls”
•The Irish say “it's throwing cobblers knives”

Posted by: Coralie

July 1, 2013 at 1:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I realize that Coralie, but when I say word for word, I mean not to leave any word out for translation of meaning. Many things are omitted or added, I believe, especially depending on who is doing the translating.

Posted by: mycentworth

July 1, 2013 at 2:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Yes, translations are different exactly because it is a matter of interpretation.
It can't be otherwise.
And if it is hard to translate from modern languages into English, it is that much harder to translate from an ancient language that we know only from manuscripts because it is no longer spoken. (Modern Greek is quite different from ancient Greek.)..
The Bible was actually written in three different ancient languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
The OT is mostly in Hebrew., the NT in Greek.

Posted by: Coralie

July 1, 2013 at 5:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The difference in the translation could not be that much if taken word for word that would change the Bible's accuracy, I believe.
You can pick any translation you want, but the King James has long been the most recommended by Bible scholars.

Posted by: mycentworth

July 1, 2013 at 6:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Oh boy, yet another pointless excuse to interject religious dogma into the discussion.

I can always tell when there's been a Gay Pride event in Fayetteville.

Last year, a lady leaned out of her car and yelled "PEDOPHILE" at me while I was walking down the street.

This year, the whole town outside of Dickson St. was as quiet as a mausoleum, and I got more than my usual quota of bad looks and snide remarks when my partner and I went to Wally World to pick up a few items that Aldi's didn't have.

Posted by: BradBailey

July 1, 2013 at 7:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

.....really

i wouldnt buy that with government money
your really testing the its a small world effect because that did NOT HAPPEN. you are a liar.

Posted by: Barefoot

July 1, 2013 at 8:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Have any of you so-called Bible experts ever heard of the Latin Vulgate?

Posted by: JailBird

July 1, 2013 at 10:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Now I have, mm. I googled it. It is the first translation written in Latin about 200 AD in North America. It was from GotQuestions.org. Very interesting.

Posted by: mycentworth

July 2, 2013 at 9:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Wikipedia says "For over a thousand years (c. AD 400–1530), the Vulgate was the definitive edition of the most influential text in Western European society. Indeed, for most Western Christians, it was the only version of the Bible ever encountered. The Vulgate's influence throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance into the Early Modern Period is even greater than that of the King James Version in English; for Christians during these times the phraseology and wording of the Vulgate permeated all areas of the culture."
mycent, you misspoke in above comment.
Barefoot, whom are you addressing and about what in your comment above calling somebody a liar?

Confusion abounds.

Posted by: Coralie

July 2, 2013 at 2:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie - "mycent, you misspoke in above comment"

So it is only your sites that are correct. Now I get it. The site I read, I did not misspeak.

Posted by: mycentworth

July 2, 2013 at 3:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FIRST ARK CASE, filed today

"Suit filed in Pulaski County to strike down Arkansas ban on same-sex marriage

http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/...

Posted by: cdawg

July 2, 2013 at 5:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

GLBT brothers and sisters,

Be VERY careful with these people who claim to be your newfound "friends". You may have the emperor's ear now, but only as long as you're useful to the emperor.

Once the U.S. Constitution is "shredded" per the comment above, and (in their desires) American Christianity is broken, what's left will either be marxist/statist totalitarianism (see this story from the London Telegraph 2 days ago about that ex-KGB-turned-shirtless-teddy-bear Vladimir Putin and how much he appreciates GLBT people: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world... ) or islamist totalitarianism (see this film which has just won awards in New York and Los Angeles: http://www.granddeception.com/ ). Neither is kind to gay people.

Gay brothers and sisters, RUN from these so-called "friends". They're using you and your desires as a means to an end, I fear. And pray that Christianity stays strong in America...it's the only worldview that gives you have the freedom to say what you want without fear of getting your throat(s) cut.

Posted by: OTamandua

July 2, 2013 at 8:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Have you heard?! The democratic party finally adopted a gay rights plank in its platform! Guess what? The Libertarian Party (1971) has had one since 1974, the first party to ever acknowledge the issue. The LP was also the first party to run an openly gay man for president, back in 1972 it was still a crime. Proud to be a Arkansas District 3 voter. LIBERTY OR DEATH

Posted by: Barefoot

July 3, 2013 at 12:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

" And pray that Christianity stays strong in America...it's the only worldview that gives you have the freedom to say what you want without fear of getting your throat(s) cut."

Amen, OTam! I do pray for America.

Posted by: mycentworth

July 3, 2013 at 7:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Just who is stopping the voices of Christians with anything that is constitutional?

Where is the danger?

This has been just more fear of nothing, convincing the thoughtless into following un-American policies. It is the same fear of nothing against health care reform, and abortion, and the Blueways designation of the White River. No one seems to be able to support any defense against any of these things with any rational arguments.

Posted by: ecsmith2

July 3, 2013 at 8:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

the only thing that makes sense is your statement..im sure in your head it sound like an excellent rationale but you just don't relate it that well. No. It's not superstition as you imply.. That's a rather silly argument to make isn't though? I suppose it's where we are at this point in the series of human events, sociological entities, powerhouse of will thought and deed, convinced of our superior state. Why not mock. When the truth is, the facts are, that there is nothing your leftist establishment has to deny, explain, only to obfuscate . It is your agenda, the party line. It is not a line for toes, but of marching feet. It is "progress", it is "social justice" "equality" "sex rights" "minority rights" "earth rights" ad nauseam ad infinitum and the kicker... whilst in subtle conversation, around the corner, in the car, by the bar, waiting on the cab, calling your parents, your lawyer, to your enemies deserved and those ill wronged (because we've all made mistakes) you are just a liar, a hypocrite, a sham. These small itemized legislation's that effect how people live so that life can be more fair and balanced is really just a lame attempt at a cult movement at uniformity, but then have'nt always the democratic party made people to feel out of place. As if you need the democrat party as much as you need government? And isnt it just one big family? Why, we don't even need God anymore. Certainly talk bad enough about him/deny him on message boards and news comments nationwide. No.. The democratic party is the same bigot agenda driven supremacist that ran it in Lincolns day. Now they fluff minorities. This type of liberalism is infantile and evident in maturity in the social practices of Stalinist russia. Here they were brands, in the 90's it was "GAP" "Klein" certain brands advertise to a certain audience. As the shoes make the man secret societies have never really been a to do for Americans who proudly state their desires to shred the same said constitution, as a living breathing document to be amended Ad Hominem. Well.. We will see where this new frontier takes us... Is taking us.. There's a nasty blood trail of lies deceits hatred war going all the way back to Aaron Burr. So... I just don't know who to believe... You and what you say you stand for, history all the way up until right now Demon-Rats. I can go on with the GOP and the Elephant in the room.. But we will lay the body at your door.. All the peoples doors who would change the red white and blue to blue,white and green. The social progressives without any progress. The educators who no longer educate. The leaders who no longer lead.. Hail the quisling. Mooo the sheeple. Que the cowbell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YhMwj...

Posted by: Barefoot

July 3, 2013 at 10:36 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

mycent says "The site I read, I did not misspeak."
I was trying to be tactful and give you a chance to go back and look at what you said, which was:.
"It is the first translation written in Latin about 200 AD in North America."
Either you or the site is mistaken. Nobody was writing in Latin or translating the Bible in 200AD in North America. Only Native Americans lived here then.

Posted by: Coralie

July 3, 2013 at 1:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Christianity...is the only worldview that gives you the freedom to say what you want without fear of getting your throat(s) cut."
Rubbish.
Historically, various sects of Christianity have been in conflict with each other so that many "heretics" were beheaded or burnt alive. I am currently reading a historical novel about one such period. Did you ever hear of "Bloody Mary" of England?
Also, some modern countries in Europe that are largely secular (Scandinavia, etc.) have similar freedom of speech as ours..

Posted by: Coralie

July 3, 2013 at 1:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Barefoot, I can't read you until you clean up your prose.
First, if you are answering somebody, please indicate who and what they said.
Second, in a long post please use paragraphs.
Third, could you please be a little bit less clever and employ fewer insults and put-downs.

Posted by: Coralie

July 3, 2013 at 1:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

And proof-read.
I know, we all need to do it, but you persistently ask too much of your reader.

Posted by: Coralie

July 3, 2013 at 2:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie, you do know that it was Protestant Christians (you know, like the evangelicals are today) who were burned by the Catholic Ms. Mary, don't you?

BTW, did you also believe that the "Arab Spring" was all about freedom (even freedom for GLBT people there), and that President Obama also supported freedom in the middle east? (From Tahrir Square today...a bunch of images...sorry to swear, but "Obama - your b*tch is our dictator" speaks volumes"):

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-07...

Posted by: OTamandua

July 3, 2013 at 3:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Oh boy, another egocentric hate-filled wingnut whose m.o. is to call everybody who isn't just like him a "liar." He likes to hear himself rant and has absolutely no intention of actually listening to other points of view. Let's all give a warm "sieg heil" to Barefoot, y'all.

Posted by: BradBailey

July 3, 2013 at 4:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie - My apologies. I read North America, but it was north Africa. Thanks for the correction. Below is the excerpt. Good eye. (Must be that dyslexia.)
"“The Vulgate” is the popular name given to the Latin version of the Bible, a translation usually attributed to Jerome. Before Jerome’s time, as the number of Latin-speaking Christians grew, the Bible was translated into Latin so that the Christians of the time could understand it. It is believed that the first Latin translation was completed around A.D. 200, although no manuscripts of this era exist today. The first Latin manuscripts were surely created in North Africa, for it seems that the church in North Africa was Latin-speaking from the start as compared to the predominantly Greek-speaking churches in Asia and Europe."

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Latin-Vul...

Posted by: mycentworth

July 3, 2013 at 4:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mycent, are you even capable of NOT bringing up your religion into every discussion?

Otamandua, the reason Russia has become so fascistic about gay people is because one of your own, Scott Lively, went on a speaking tour there and convinced everybody that homosexuality threatened the world.

This is the same Scott Lively who wrote "The Pink Swastika," the same Scott Lively who made it a personal mission to preach his vileness in Uganda, whereupon that country's leaders legislated the "kill-the-gays" bill.

If Russia has a problem with gay people, you can thank your own fellow Talibangicals for playing a BIG part in it.

And every bit of this monster's actions were conducted under the aegis and with the blessings of U.S. Christian leaders

Onward, Christian soldiers indeed. Hitchens was right. Religion poisons EVERYTHING!

Posted by: BradBailey

July 3, 2013 at 4:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Mycent, are you even capable of NOT bringing up your religion into every discussion?" Brad B.

No, my faith is applicable in almost all areas.

Posted by: mycentworth

July 3, 2013 at 5:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

So is my common sense. And I don't need a book of spells and mythology to justify it.

Posted by: BradBailey

July 3, 2013 at 5:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I don't come on here to have conversation or make friends. If my posts Just to prove you for liar, fool and coward because of your belief systems.. oh well it is murica! Poisoners of the water. Feel free to not address me if it's not related to the topic. No one asked you to proofread, if you can read some crap someone txts you shorthand on a cellphone you can read this. You want a more formed prose? break out the paycheck, patronage is for prostitutes know thats a hard target for those of you in yuppiedom. my unbiased realistic commentary however stinted, slanted and run-on can inspire you to educate yourselves.No doubt your heads are so full of crap. You cannot have a(2way) conversation with bigoted ignorant fools. Be a patriot save a tree.... revile the sunday school children. yall are such intellectuals with such profound and original ideas. read more. i dont think open mindedness is a great thing in your case.. look what its done to all your sense.. red ( socialistic) diaper (nanny state) doper the hypocrite traitors of the 60's are almost uniform in number and ideology whether its the republican isle or the democrat they were all inculcated and indoctrinated in a time of upheaval and have ran in power unchecked since. dependent on the ignorant masses as their major voting blocks. baby.. wah wah wah. lol obviously yo want me to let you be the "owner" of threads so you can rant inanities? It's common place for you to rant about something in no ways related to the topic. See you in a month or so when the GDP is much further down and the rates are way up. Racist obama bigot ignorant muh liberties muh freedoms muh abortion voters! full steam ahead! with your inconsistent destructive clap trap.

Posted by: Barefoot

July 3, 2013 at 6:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Barefoot, you are unique and I like. You make a lot of sense.

Posted by: mycentworth

July 3, 2013 at 7:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Thank You Mycent! Reviewing your comment history I can say I like the way you think too! You are head and shoulders above the majority, a great american, endeavor, strive for the victory of the true liberty of the state of man. For as it stands now we are man enslaved to the state in the name of liberty.

Posted by: Barefoot

July 3, 2013 at 8:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Brad the Homosexual and oft recognized pedophile by his own accounts reads Doonesbury. Two days ago Mr. Trudeau introduced in his strip the character "Mr. James Crow Ladies and Gentleman!" Typical Liberal Populist scum. Closet racists, provocateurs, libertines. Hoping to keep us in the same hell they love so much. Surrounded by hate, indignation, self righteous zealotry for their "American right" to demean, slander, harass, fundamentally transform Truth, Justice and the american culture.

Posted by: Barefoot

July 3, 2013 at 8:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

" Surrounded by hate, indignation, self righteous zealotry for their "American right" to demean, slander, harass, fundamentally transform Truth, Justice and the american culture"

Hate-mongering wing-nuts are classical Freudian projectionists, accusing their enemies of the very qualities they themselves possess.

As for coward, I use my real name. You use a moniker. Real brave of ya, "barefoot."

And I'm flattered that you chose to describe my sexual orientation with a capital "H."

And your calling me a pedophile only highlights the hatred I've lived with for years from wingnut fascists in NWA. Water off my back, son.

And speaking of pedophiles, why does the Southern Baptist denomination have so many of them within its ranks?

http://www.salon.com/2007/02/22/churc...

http://stopbaptistpredators.org/index...

Ad hominem attacks are the defense of those who have no defense. It only shows one's lack of character. And those who rely on this tactic exclusively have little if any character.

And that you, mycent, subscribe to this infantile behavior is an indictment of very belief system that you say you ascribe to.

Posted by: BradBailey

July 3, 2013 at 10:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Line by line shall we.
A.) Libs possess the selfsame Freudian socio -psycho attribute. Mine are now void? No.
B.)It's just a name. The KKK was started by the leaders of the Democratic Parties all across the country. There is just as much bigotry today even more. Gays bash straights. Are you another one of these sickening "oldheads" who thinks things are EXACTLY THE SAME WAY AS THEY WERE WHEN YOU SMOKED THAT FIRST JOINT? ITS NOT!
C.) Your animalistic nature implies you would/could be flattered by a wide variety of subjects. We know you glory in your sexuality hole.
D.)Further proving you are incapable of teaching anyone anything. Ad hominem attacks are the defense of those who have no defense. It only shows one's lack of character. And those who rely on this tactic exclusively have little if any character.

Ad hominem suggests an attack on the person's character, or belittling them in order to discredit their claim or argument.
ex. A man argues that he's seen his next door neighbour's dog destroying his garden. The neighbour denies the claim. "How can anyone believe you, John? You can't even get out of bed."

Ad antiquitam arguments appeal to tradition.
A lemon grower suggests a new way of harvesting lemons. It is shot down immediately by his superior:"We have always done it by hand and it works out just fine. No reason to fix something that isn't broken."

Ad crumenam is a logical fallacy of concluding that a statement is correct because the speaker is affluent, or incorrect because they are not. (But in cases when you "Social Progressives" want to toe. I'll remind you it doesn't apply Ad crumenam (logic and facts defeat you.)
I sorted you from the rabble as a rouser.. You and other harassing every page with anti religion smears and defamatory sentiment at every turn. How do you like it with bigger implications? Hypocrite.

Posted by: Barefoot

July 3, 2013 at 11:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I was at the rally because I work on the square you said you were at the same large, local popular annual pride rally. that you were verbally harassed and called a pedophile (that would have caused a sensational scene surely as everyone I know and I know a few stand up for their rights quite vehemently) and you take this story and nail it to a stick an start calling every christian a sick child raping cannibalistic fanatic and worse. It's a hobby of your ilk to troll these pages and present this non-factual information whether personal experience (which Im telling you is BS) or concerning current events.
It's your blatant narcissism.
Without further waste I'll advise anyone to do as I. Walk like an Egyptian ignoring you and yours. The real fanatics, ramrods, cultic personality figures, and the ideals of subservience to a government in exchange for all manner of lude, rude acceptances and perverted reality. Perversion of natural order. Christians understand the meaning of perversion I can give them that. It's not hard to see through.
I believe the behavior you subscribe to causes death in the most severe, even cases of red sock tail. Behavior you subscribe to doesn't really make you happy. You know it and envy others their happiness. Liberalism is a mental disorder and the victimization process is self evident as a psychosis in the progressive socialist.

Posted by: Barefoot

July 3, 2013 at 11:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Wow. Two big ol' posts directed at me. I'm honored. Never thought I was that important.

Nope. Never said I was assailed at the rally. But then, fascists never have to rely on facts, do they? And I really don't care if you believe me or not. I spoke the truth and my conscience is at ease. Most of your rant is basically incoherent. The usual name-calling and empty wing-nut jargon, bla bla bla.

Funny that you accuse me of blatant narcissism when you've virtually dominated all the discussion threads. Again, a classic Freudian projection. Wing-nuts are true masters of this.

Rant all you want. It's music to my ears. I love nothing more than enraging hate-mongers and religious fascists.

Posted by: BradBailey

July 4, 2013 at 1:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Not ranting bro it takes like 5 minutes to type this. I'm a fan of the true harangue I'd give a dispensation like the soap box and straw polls back in the day. Truth is infinite. So ya. ill keep it waxed. if you keep showing up.

Posted by: Barefoot

July 4, 2013 at 4:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Barefoot is upset with this nation, as are many. I do believe the Dems have done nothing but increase the hatred and racism in this nation. Instead of healing this land, they have kept "racism" alive, all for the black vote. Since Obama, the first black President, racism has even gotten worse. What do you want?! You demonize the republicans, conservatives instead of looking for answers, just to stay in power. To the economy, foreign relations and civil unrest in this country, all have gotten worse since Obama.

Posted by: mycentworth

July 4, 2013 at 7:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mycent: "the economy, foreign relations and civil unrest in this country, all have gotten worse since Obama.">>

For a person who publicly claims to be a Christian, you sure do lie a lot, and quite shamelessly. I say this because I really can't believe even you could possibly be this misinformed.

Again, here are 16 specific referenced examples showing how the economy has improved since Obama:

http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

Where are your referenced, verifiable examples supporting your claim the economy has gotten worse "since Obama?"

D.
------------
Six examples in one chart: http://tinyurl.com/c49trtb

Posted by: fayfreethinker

July 4, 2013 at 9:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Barefoot and mycentworth, have either of you participated in acts of sodomy or oral sex? If you have, are you not as guilty as homosexuals, and should not be allowed to marry? There are plenty of heterosexual married couples that do practice sodomy and oral sex, so should they not be allowed to be married?

mycentworth, you say the Democrats are keeping racism alive, but I don't see that happening, I see the Republicans doing it. What do you see that allows you to say the Democrats are doing it?

Posted by: ecsmith2

July 4, 2013 at 9:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

One example, is Biden, when he was in the south and said 'they want to keep ya'll in chains." They use the call "racism' every time a black doesn't get a job, loses a race, gets in trouble - it is all because we are racists. Ridiculous.

Posted by: mycentworth

July 4, 2013 at 10:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Darrell,

I'd be a lot more willing to look at the links from your website if they weren't all hidden behind a "tiny" and I knew what I was about to look at before following the link. There is no need to mask URLs as they are automatically abbreviated in most modern forums. Your continual URL masking is total malarkey.

On another note. There are references that show the other end of the argument you love to champion. Personally, I know I am paying a lot more for a lot of different things, but I'm not going throw complete blame at the CinC.

Here is what Forbes had to say as recent as last month:

"Economically, Could Obama Be America's Worst President?"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferr...

On foreign relations I say I like the CinC's policies and that all I'm gonna say.

Civil unrest: hmm... our country is polarized like never before and there is plenty of blame to go around.

Happy Independence Day. I'm happy we are free to have this discussion. God Bless you and yours.

Posted by: Tankersley101

July 4, 2013 at 11:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I hope you're still here, FayettevilleFreeThinker. I recently read a post on a major media website claiming that Ronald Reagan's veto of the Fairness Doctrine paved the road for our severely polarized culture. By eliminating the need to be fair and balanced in reporting the news, major media groups were freed up to present their own political agenda.

I respect your opinions, FFT. Do you have any thoughts on this? I'd like to be more informed on the subject.

Posted by: BradBailey

July 4, 2013 at 12:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Brad,

You should look into the popular media surrounding current affairs circa 1800. You'll see some pretty nasty polarization.

Posted by: Tankersley101

July 4, 2013 at 12:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

mycentworth--
RE "One example, is Biden, when he was in the south and said 'they want to keep ya'll in chains.'"
What he actually said was "They're going to put y'all back in chains". If you're going to misrepresent something that somebody else said, at least get the quote right. You're bearing false witness. There's a commandment against that, and you make Baby Jesus cry salty tears.

RE "They use the call 'racism' every time a black doesn't get a job...."
What does that have to do with what Mr. Biden said?

Mr. Biden was talking to a mixed-race group at a campaign rally, and referred to Romney's economic and banking policies and their effect on the middle class. What does that have to do with racism?

Sounds like you use the call of "racism" to try to make irrelevant points.

Tankersley101--
RE "I'd be a lot more willing to look at the links from your website if they weren't all hidden behind a "tiny" and I knew what I was about to look at before following the link."
Why does that matter, if you really want to read something? Why would the owner of a public forum post a dangerous link on his own forum?

RE "Your continual URL masking is total malarkey."
Short URLs work more dependably than long ones. Your excuse for not following links is malarkey.

BradBailey--
RE "I hope you're still here, FayettevilleFreeThinker."
fft is on vacation. I believe he will be back among us in mid-July. I have cut back on my own posting because there is so much trolling here lately that there is little of any substance to respond to; he might feel the same way, as he knows better than to feed the trolls.

Posted by: AlphaCat

July 4, 2013 at 2:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Alpha,

There is a deceptive purpose to URL masking. I don't buy the line linking reliability to length of URLs. Have a nice holiday. I'm taking my family to see Skynyrd. 'Merica.

http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2156889/f/Freedo...

Posted by: Tankersley101

July 4, 2013 at 2:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Precisely.

http://www.divediscovery.com/images/w...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

July 4, 2013 at 3 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

TNK: "There is a deceptive purpose to URL masking.">>

No. There isn't. And you bring it up again is just an excuse to avoid the actual information at the link. It's a variation of smearing the source, you smear the actual link to the source instead. When you aren't complaining about who wrote a letter, your complaining about the color of the envelope. It's beyond idiotic and has been explained to you about a dozen times.

The only reason I ever go to tinyurl.com and shrink a link from about 350 characters to 25 characters is because it is part of a long post and I want to fit in the 3,000 character limit. Had you been paying attention you might have noticed that the unmasked link I gave in the above post went to a post that had the tinyurl link in it already. That is a comment I've posted a couple times and it happens to fit nicely in the 3k limit because I shrank that link. As soon as you click on a tinyurl link, it takes you to the full size link, so nothing is hidden. What's the problem? Why do you keep distracting with such childish stupidity?

Anyone can become a commentator on Forbes. It doesn't mean what it used to. Peter F, is an idiot. When you tire of your article, try this one:
http://www.theprogressivesinfluence.c...

Would love to chat but it's important I make a sand castle right now.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

July 4, 2013 at 3:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Hope you had a good holiday, Fay. I know I have.

'Merica.

Posted by: Tankersley101

July 4, 2013 at 10:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

H.L. Mencken (born 1880 - died 1956) was a journalist, satirist, critic, and a Democrat. He wrote this editorial while working for the Baltimore Evening Sun, which appeared in the July 26, 1920, edition:

"As democracy is perfected, the office of the President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be occupied by a downright fool and complete narcissistic moron."
H.L. Mencken, The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

Posted by: Barefoot

July 5, 2013 at 1:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mencken prophecy fulfilled, January 20, 2001.

D.
-------------
"IRS "scandal" evaporates into nothing"
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/201...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

July 5, 2013 at 10:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Speaking of trolls--I certainly hope that these threads do not represent a microcosm of American society, and that there are not really that many cranks and crackpots among us,

Posted by: Coralie

July 5, 2013 at 1:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie - You mean like the attackers in Seattle?

Seattle's gay "pridefest" turned ugly when two religious protesters showed up. There is a video and now the attackers will be charged.

Posted by: mycentworth

July 5, 2013 at 1:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Try the link below to see the video:

http://bit.ly/15kkeaz

Posted by: mycentworth

July 5, 2013 at 1:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Sorry, I don't watch videos because I use the public computers at the library and it is a hassle to use the earplugs, which often leak noise to bother other people.
How does this incident relate?

Posted by: Coralie

July 5, 2013 at 1:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"I recently read a post on a major media website claiming that Ronald Reagan's veto of the Fairness Doctrine paved the road for our severely polarized culture. By eliminating the need to be fair and balanced in reporting the news, major media groups were freed up to present their own political agenda.

I respect your opinions, FFT. Do you have any thoughts on this? I'd like to be more informed on the subject." - BradBailey

I am not FFT, but partisanship is not caused by a lack of a fairness doctrine. The two major parties would use any "fairness doctrine" law to limit the points of view presented to just the views of the two parties.

Our partisanship problem happens because the media is driven by ratings, and they get ratings by showing confrontation, not by showing reasonable discussion of issues. The two parties spend little time giving us rational solutions to issues, but they do spend a lot of time with ad hominem attacks that are meaningless for voters to make good decisions.

Look at the Blueway issue that just surfaced. Republicans/conservatives are using fear and misinformation to trash the government doing something potential useful for Arkansas. There can be no motivation to do such a thing, except a partisan attempt to make the Democratic administration look poorly in the eyes of people that are easily impressionable about our political choices.

We don't need a fairness doctrine, we need a filter for political speech that points out the personal attacks on opponents that does nothing to educate voters combined with fact checking so that we are all working with the same set of facts concerning any issue.

Posted by: ecsmith2

July 5, 2013 at 1:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The last two things I mentioned are supposed to be the job of the media, like the newspaper, instead of just sitting on their duffs and printing the latest back and forth arguments between political opponents that is meaningless to the ordinary citizen.

Posted by: ecsmith2

July 5, 2013 at 5:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Thanks, ecsmith2.

Posted by: BradBailey

July 5, 2013 at 6:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

http://usdebtclock.org/

Posted by: Barefoot

July 5, 2013 at 7:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

When you do it in the bung hole that's just not right. That was intended for something else.

Posted by: Dogpatch

July 5, 2013 at 7:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Best tattoo I ever seem was right above the ole bung hole on a beautiful female.. Said "Exit only"

Posted by: JailBird

July 5, 2013 at 10:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE " That was intended for something else."
Indeed. The conservatives on these threads use their bungholes to store and dispense their opinions.

Posted by: AlphaCat

July 5, 2013 at 10:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

ec -" Look at the Blueway issue that just surfaced. Republicans/conservatives are using fear and misinformation to trash the government doing something potential useful for Arkansas. There can be no motivation to do such a thing, except a partisan attempt to make the Democratic administration look poorly in the eyes of people that are easily impressionable about our political choices."

That sounds as partisan as you can get. Until then, I was listening.

Posted by: mycentworth

July 6, 2013 at 8:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Howdy Brad, sorry for the delay.

Brad: "read a... website claiming... Reagan's veto of the Fairness Doctrine [leading to] severely polarized culture.">>

Yep, sure did. Polarized is one thing but as we see on this forum, it has caused a large group to be aggressively misinformed and arrogantly ignorant. They're proud of it. Thanks Rush et al.

It would be nice if a capitalist media freemarket led to an informed populace, but as AM radio has especially shown us, it doesn't. Freemarkets can't be beat for providing us snazzy things we want at the best prices but sometimes they suck at delivering things we actually need like care for the sick, poor and a creating a well informed population. The robber baron Koch bro. class need a base that is angry, dumb and scared and nothing can deliver that better than owning the media. The notion of fairness in discussion of ideas (basically, that greedheads can't buy up the media and use it to shovel wingnuttery with no counter argument) scares the pants off these conservatives because their beliefs don't hold up in a level intellectual playing field. About 90% of AM talk was all rightwing all the time. Limbaugh, and his clones were gifted rhetoricians when it came to monologues and chatting with fawning butt kissers, but Rush always sucked when dealing with informed dissent.

Perhaps a Fairness Doctrine is too nanny state for 'Merica (gawd, if there ever was a state that needed a nanny) and we need to do it the long hard way. Rush has basically self-emploded and become pure farce and hate all the time while FOX is a joke and has spawned a contrary industry that is more like them than different. So they duke it out in an unending war and constant national divorce court. The American way. The Excited States of America. It is what it is. Sometimes I tune in the CBC on my satellite radio. It's a little boring. Adults, talking like adults, solving problems, dealing with issues. No tantrums, no hissy fit rants based on childish whoppers. It's healthy food for a democracy but can come across as a little boring after the junk food american media.

D.
------------
"...it's especially irritating when the mainstream media writes about Limbaugh conservatives and Franken liberals as if there's an equivalence. I do the opposite of what he does. We tell the truth on the show. Months ago Limbaugh talked about the minimum wage, and he said 75 percent of all Americans earning minimum wage are teenagers in their first job. My researcher called the Bureau of Labor Statistics and found that 60 percent of Americans earning minimum wage are the age of 20 and older. Limbaugh gets his labor statistics from the Bureau of Limbaugh's Ass. He pulled that stat out of his ass. It went out his ass and into his mouth, then into the microphone, over the airwaves and into the brains of dittoheads, and they believed it." --Al Franken, Playboy interview, http://egncraft.gaming.multiplay.co.u...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

July 6, 2013 at 12:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

" (gawd, if there ever was a state that needed a nanny) and we need to do it the long hard way."

FFT,

You never fail to write like your hero, Lenin.

If you want some pretty impartial news, look to the BBC.

Posted by: Tankersley101

July 6, 2013 at 2:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Right about the BBC. But I can't get it on my cable contract.

Posted by: Coralie

July 6, 2013 at 4:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

LOL "the popularity of am radio is so alarming"... they dont even hear themselves.. giggling uncontrollably.. lmao

Posted by: Barefoot

July 6, 2013 at 5:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

TNK: "You never fail to write like your hero, Lenin.">>

I wouldn't know, I've never read anything he's written. Which should certainly disqualify him from being a hero of mine. But I'm glad you're reading enough of him to think you're in a position to make such a judgement. Maybe you'll learn something. Maybe you'll even learn to hone your insults so someday they can become a little more intelligent then always calling someone a Leninist or communist because they don't agree with your politics. That one gets a little boring.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

July 6, 2013 at 5:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

every time i hear the word koch i warm a little inside. clan shaw! stamme koch! for the uneducated.
David H. Koch
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Born David Hamilton Koch
May 3, 1940 (age 73)
Wichita, Kansas[1]
Residence Manhattan, New York
Citizenship United States
Education M.S. in Chemical Engineering
Alma mater Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Occupation Executive vice president Koch Industries
Known for Philanthropy to cultural and medical institutions;
Political advocacy in support of libertarian and conservative causes[2][3]
Net worth US$ 31 billion (2012)[4]
Political party Libertarian (before 1984), Republican
Opponent(s) Ran on Libertarian ticket for Vice President in 1980 election against Carter–Mondale, and Reagan–Bush
Board member of Aspen Institute, Cato Institute, Reason Foundation
Spouse(s) Julia M. Flesher Koch[5][6]
Children David Koch Jr.
Mary Julia Koch
John Mark Koch
Parents Fred C. Koch
Mary Robinson
Relatives siblings Frederick R. Koch, Charles G. Koch and William I. Koch
Awards Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters - Cambridge College;
Corporate Citizens Award - Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars[1]
David Hamilton Koch (/ˈkoʊk/; born May 3, 1940) is an American businessman, philanthropist, political activist, and chemical engineer. He is a co-owner (with older brother Charles) and an executive vice president of Koch Industries, a conglomerate that is the second-largest privately held company in the United States.[7]
Koch is a major patron of the arts and has contributed to several charities including Lincoln Center, Sloan Kettering, a fertility clinic at New York-Presbyterian Hospital and the American Museum of Natural History's David H. Koch Dinosaur Wing.[8] The New York State Theater at Lincoln Center, home of the New York City Ballet was renamed the David H. Koch Theater in 2008 following a gift of 100 million dollars for the renovation of the theater. Condé Nast Portfolio described him as "one of the most generous but low-key philanthropists in America".[9] He and his brother Charles have also donated to political advocacy groups, including Americans for Prosperity, and to political campaigns, mainly Republican.He is a survivor of the USAir Flight 1493 crash in 1991. Koch is the fourth richest person in America as of 2012,[11] and the second-richest resident of New York City as of 2010.

Posted by: Barefoot

July 6, 2013 at 6:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

It's not about disagreement with my views, D. It's about how your views are similar to your anti-American ideals heros. Steer clear of that second hand dope smoke down there on Dixon.

Posted by: Tankersley101

July 7, 2013 at 2:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Barefoot, please edit yoursellf.
We don't have time to read a bunch of Wikipedia info that isn't relevant.

Posted by: Coralie

July 7, 2013 at 3:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

2ndhand dope smoke on Dickson Street? I think you're living back in the '70s.
It's mostly alcohol fumes now.

Posted by: Coralie

July 7, 2013 at 3:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Well Coralie, at least you didn't call me an idiot. It's a pleasure sharing a disagreement with a classy lady like you.

Posted by: Tankersley101

July 7, 2013 at 4:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Sorry, mycentworth, but because I don't trash both big parties equally does not make me a partisan. The Republicans/conservatives currently are heads and shoulders above the Democrats in misinformation and fear mongering for support. The parties may be good for allowing like minded people to get a candidate they like elected, but the parties should go away until 6 months before the next election.

I say something that seems sensible to you until I attack the party/side you like, and then all of a sudden nothing I said makes sense anymore? That is more of a partisan attitude than mine.

I like the Blueway honor, because it was better for America and Arkansas to have it than not have it. That a conservative group and Republican elected legislators just come along with misinformation and fear about it to get rid of it makes us worse off. I like better off, not worse off. Has nothing to do with parties for me.

Posted by: ecsmith2

July 7, 2013 at 6:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Ec,

You might feel differently about the Blueway business if you owned property along the river. Or perhaps you do and I was thought wrongly.

Posted by: Tankersley101

July 7, 2013 at 7:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Part of my property is in the flood plain of the White River. I don't have river-front property, but it is close enough to be affected by things done to the river.

What might make me feel different is any actual information that land would be taken away from property owners would be published before the fear mongering opponents of the program said it like it was the truth.

You care to run your personal life based on beliefs that have nothing in actual facts backing up those beliefs, that is fine. When it is used to change what the state and county governments decide to do it is an abuse of power. And elected and appointed government officials that make policy based on fear and nothing else are harmful to our government.

Posted by: ecsmith2

July 8, 2013 at 7:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Sometimes the ignorant and less informed build in the middle of a pine forest or in a flood plain. I'm sorry, so sorry that you were such a fool, but life is made up of marks. Without them there would be no need for games of little chance.

Posted by: JailBird

July 8, 2013 at 5:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Part of my property is in the flood plain of the White River"
Did you intend to write "floodplain", or did you intend to write "watershed"?

Posted by: AlphaCat

July 8, 2013 at 5:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

A majority of Americans live in areas that are prone to hurricanes, tornados, floods, or wildfires, or they live on the coasts which are threatened by rising seas as the glaciers and ice mass melt.
We're all fools, I guess.

Posted by: Coralie

July 8, 2013 at 6:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

if you've a good indication you're a fool.. do not trust your own judgement....

Posted by: Barefoot

July 9, 2013 at 12:02 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I am in both the floodplain and the watershed. The house is not in the floodplain. It appears that Moneymyst doesn't understand the word "part", or he just likes to make assumptions that suit his point of view being correct. I built nothing in the floodplain.

Much as Moneymyst loves to paint others with broad stokes as being ignorant, his postings just reveal his ignorance.

Posted by: ecsmith2

July 9, 2013 at 8:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Fayetteville Free Thinker, thanks for your post.

Posted by: BradBailey

July 9, 2013 at 7:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

ec, "Stupid is as stupid does, that's what my Manna says."---Forest Gump

Posted by: JailBird

July 11, 2013 at 9:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

It is stupid to build in the floodplain, I believe, if what you build cannot stand the flood.

I didn't build in the floodplain, Moneymyst. I only mentioned the floodplain to indicate how close to the river I am.

"Stupid is as what stupid doesn't understand from the discussion." - ecsmith2

Posted by: ecsmith2

July 12, 2013 at 1:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Well, I don't live in any floodplain, but I thought this thread was about the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage laws?
I have noticed in letters to the editor lately that many people seem to think that marriage began with the Bible and/or Christianity.
However it is much older.
"While the institution of marriage pre-dates recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage...
By the way, recorded history goes back several millenia before the Bible.
"the earliest written history starts around the 4th millennium BC with the invention of writing."
The oldest known fragment of Biblical writing dates from the 1st millenium BC.
http://www.newser.com/story/78357/new...

Posted by: Coralie

July 20, 2013 at 12:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )