Marriage Denied

[Joxsjua]

Just got done watching some news
chinas winning the Olympics so far 6 golds .12 medals. total
americas second with 3 golds and 11 medals total
Italy is in 3rd ....what's this?!?!?!

A southern couple with a 6yr old daughter. in Mississippi were not allowed to marry at the church because some of the congrenates believe that black people can regularlly attend their church but they can not get married there.

The pastor was in fear that he might lose his job so he married the same couple down the street at a different chuch. WILL SOMEONE TELL ME WHAT TIME IT IS?

What do you all think about this? Do they just attempt sue them for discrimination or what?

Should they leave it alone and not look back? Should they go back to pray LIKE NOTHING HAPPENED there?

I honestly thought that we lived in a day an age where racism was intollerable 100%, OR is that only when it involves a more serrious offense.
Well we could find out if it was the majority of the congrenate felt the same.
As of now the church relays to the city "we are angered by the media trying to make this look like a spectacle"

someone needs to come out and explain to the church.. "THEY ARE EXPOSING YOU!!!"


I did not even realize stuff like this was still legaly happeningt

[Alpha]

Meanwhile most churches in most countries refuse to marry two people deeply in love who happen to be of the same gender.

That's... terrible? I mean, how else can you appraise that?

[Hobaginator]

White power!

[Clint]

By state regulations, a couple can't be denied marriage based on race. However, a church is a private institution. It can accept or deny any of it's members from doing anything. That doesn't mean that their members have to remain members. The black couple got married elsewhere, so problem solved.

Why the **** should ANYONE be able to tell ANYONE whether or not they can be married? If you do this, **** you!

Nobody tells anybody if they can or can't be married. Some places just don't marry certain people. That doesn't mean that those people can't get married somewhere else. Even gay people can get married now. Not that civil union shit, an actual marriage. Search a little and you'll find the right place to do it.

White power!

I completely agree with this statement.

[Lacquer Head]

By state regulations, a couple can't be denied marriage based on race. However, a church is a private institution. It can accept or deny any of it's members from doing anything. That doesn't mean that their members have to remain members. The black couple got married elsewhere, so problem solved.



Nobody tells anybody if they can or can't be married. Some places just don't marry certain people. That doesn't mean that those people can't get married somewhere else. Even gay people can get married now. Not that civil union shit, an actual marriage. Search a little and you'll find the right place to do it.



I completely agree with this statement.

Gay marriage is illegal in like, 46 or so states lol so yes, people ARE denied marriage. You can be married in on of those states, but it only counts there.

[Clint]

Gay marriage is illegal in like, 46 or so states lol so yes, people ARE denied marriage. You can be married in on of those states, but it only counts there.

No, nobody is denied marriage. If gay marriage is illegal in 46 states, then go to one of the remaining four states that it's legal, and get married there.

If you get married in a state where it's legal, going back to your home state, where it's illegal will not void your marriage.

Also, if a gay person is offended that his state doesn't allow him and his partner to get married, there are other states that that person can live in where gay marriage is more tolerable.

There are always loopholes, but I'm the only one who ever thinks of them. Problem solved, again. Everybody makes a big deal about absolutely nothing.

[Hobaginator]

Based on what I've seen being discussed so far about the general "**** you" idea towards people who don't support gay rights, I'm gonna take the opportunity to step in and give my opinion on the matter. I better not be accused of trolling or flaming, because that would insinuate that I'm posting only to get a rise out of people. Not true. The indignation one might feel upon reading my opinions may be the result of their inherent homosexuality. Of course, if you want people to respect your opinions, ideals and sexual orientation... then it would by hypocritical not to respect others'.

What's even the point of gay couples getting married? It's not like you're gonna have kids to continue your lineage. So you want the same last name? Get a name change.

If you're a gay couple and you adopt, then *** you. Why would you force a little kid to grow up in a household that smells like human feces 24/7 with two queer dads? You're gonna mess the kid's head up. Figuring out love when you're growing up has enough trial and error on it's own without your "parents" explaining their warped views to you.

Maybe you should just respect the fact that being gay isn't a normal choice, it's abnormal. As common as homosexuality is nowadays, it's still abnormal.

I knew I was straight before I knew what straight was. I kissed girls as early as when I was in preschool. I've never kissed a man and I've never had the desire to. You start treating gay like it's normal and kids are gonna grow up twisted in the mind, which is already happening.

((If you're a sensitive priss, you should probably skip this next part))

Homosexual men are the disgrace of the male gender. If you look down, and you see a penis, then be a damn man. Queers don't realize that their queer attitude and sodomistic actions impact the rest of us men negatively. It does. Queers are so damn rampant in the world nowadays that women are even losing respect for us REAL men. There was a time when they respected the authority of the male voice. Queers are killing it with their sissy slang and floppy wrists. You know the worst insult a straight woman will give to a straight man when she's a scorned ex? She'll call him gay, accuse him of being gay, tell his friends/associates that he's gay. Even straight women use gay as an insult for a man as the worst thing they can think of. I don't see how queers can honestly think that women like them. Even their female friends just like having an immasculated shell of a man around because it makes them feel empowered. Women don't respect queers. Straight men hate queers. Queers need to stop trying to change the world into a gayer place. People like me will always resist them.

I'm not sure why we are even debating gay marriage in this thread that has nothing to do with it, but there you have it.

[nix]

I dont see why everybody has to get married, why want to be part of something that hates your very being?

Sure just start up a gay catholic church, theres so many different Christian churches, may aswell make a new faction, who cares! It's all bullshit nonsense anyway..

Its like a black man moaning about not being allowed into the KKK, why wish to be part of something so narrow minded and ignorant? Make something better, or do without!

Or do what Clint said if its such a big fuss, shit i bet majority of the people wanting gay marriage dont even go to church, so go up state, make a holiday out of it! derp!

[che]

Why the **** should ANYONE be able to tell ANYONE whether or not they can be married? If you do this, **** you!

[Xanatos]

Despite being religious person this is just one of the reasons why I ****ing hate church so much and why I feel this image is appropriate at such occasions...

[RagnaToad]

On the one hand, they are a private organisation and they can do with their religious meaningless rituals what they want, can't they? On the other hand, in terms of paying taxes they are considered to be a non-profit organisation so they pay virtually no taxes, which means they get special treatment from the government, which means they should be held responsible for their actions, since they are costing the nation money.

Privately funded organisations should be able to allow or deny anyone for any reason they want. If you start a club with your friends that has some sort of bonding ritual, you're not obligated to let anyone participate in the ritual, are you? But it becomes an issue when tax money goes to your club, and people pay for it, but cannot join.

On a sidenote, I think it's bullshit that religious organisations get treated as non-profit organisations based on their spiritual nature, rather than on whether they actually do anything of value.

[Lacquer Head]

As far as I'm concerned, if gay marriage is still illegal, I don't care if other groups of people get excluded. The fact that state marriages are still preventing it is insane, but I'm not that worried that a church wont marry two people for various reasons, it's their decision to do what they want. Forcing otherwise wouldn't be fair to a religious group, same with preventing certain Native American religious practices involving peyote. If you disagree with the churches standing, it's not the church/religion for you.


From what you said though, the church wasn't AGAINST the people getting married, the minister was more or less afraid of some kind of racist backlash with the members. So in this case, it's not entirely the churches fault.

[Merlin]

All this stuff about restricting marriage to certain people is stupid. It's none of your business who people marry because you aren't invited to the wedding anyway. People like to get butthurt about things that don't even involve them.

Besides, getting into a legally binding contract based on an emotion you allegedly share is stupid in itself. The value of it is not measurable. Don't misunderstand me. I have nothing against marriage itself, what I have a problem with is the legalization of it. But that is another topic I suppose. /soapbox

[Sasquatch]

First of all, is there any credible citation for this pastor refusing to marry a black or interracial couple? And is it solely based upon the race of the couple, or the fact that they have a six-year-old out-of-wedlock child?

Marriage in and of itself is a religious institution, whether we like it or not. Religions have the right to refuse inclusion of their ceremonies and traditions to anybody who disobeys that religion's tenets. As far as the societal aspect goes, there must be a limit on what is and isn't allowed. Some time ago, many societies refused to allow interracial couples to marry, and we've (for the most part, as a whole) gotten past that. Now, the big push is for special rights for homosexuals, to be recognized as a normal, natural pair, and to force religious institutions to recognize something against their beliefs as well. What's next? There's already been a few steps toward pushing for polygamy. (And, by the same argument, who are we to say that every partner involved in a polygamous relationship doesn't share the same feelings that any normal couple does?) Why not lower the age of consent to 13, or even 9, like many Muslim countries? (Who are you to say that a man can't love his nine-year-old niece the same way you love your partner?) Why not push for "inter-species" marriages? (Who are you to say that I can't love this dolphin like you love another person?)

[Dranzer]

What's next? There's already been a few steps toward pushing for polygamy. (And, by the same argument, who are we to say that every partner involved in a polygamous relationship doesn't share the same feelings that any normal couple does?) Why not lower the age of consent to 13, or even 9, like many Muslim countries? (Who are you to say that a man can't love his nine-year-old niece the same way you love your partner?) Why not push for "inter-species" marriages? (Who are you to say that I can't love this dolphin like you love another person?)

I call bullshit, immediately. First of all, homosexual marriages in the context of which you're speaking are not related to any of what the **** you just said. America isn't a muslim country, America is a freedom of religion country. Polygamy, in itself, from a scientific standpoint can be perfectly healthy. However, I don't support the idea of polygamous marriages. Oh, and lowering the age of consent also has nothing to do with homosexual marriages, homosexuality as what we know it today (one person of the same gender marrying another) is not related to pedophilia (some priests are though). Homosexuals want to be able to get married like everyone else. You want to talk of definitions and "religious sanctity," okay let's talk about it:

Webster's Dictionary now includes LOL, and abbreviations/terms of that nature. Gay used to mean happy fifty or so ****ing years ago, that definition's changed too. I see, so all that shit can change, but marriage can't be redefined to not be "gender specific"? Forgive me, but to try and preserve any religious aspect is ridiculous. Religion has been the root of some of the most meaningless wars and other fiascos in this world. Let's totally use it as a reason to deny rights to something you may or may not understand, but nevertheless involves love.

And sorry to sound prejudice of another prejudice, but Mississippi is full of some ****ing racists. The KKK (yet another religion associated organization) is very active in that region. Sad and ridiculous, but not surprising. It is nice to know, however, that the pastor still married them; thank God for small miracles.

[Lacquer Head]

thank God for small miracles.

lol'ed

But tbh, I don't really see a reason why polygamous marriage should be illegal.

[Sasquatch]

First of all, homosexual marriages in the context of which you're speaking are not related to any of what the **** you just said.

How are they not related? It's people who love each other, who are you to tell them that they can't get married?

Polygamy, in itself, from a scientific standpoint can be perfectly healthy. However, I don't support the idea of polygamous marriages.

Why not?

Oh, and lowering the age of consent also has nothing to do with homosexual marriages, homosexuality as what we know it today (one person of the same gender marrying another) is not related to pedophilia (some priests are though).

First off, if you're trying to say that homosexuality has nothing to do with anything else, you're pushing it into its own corner to protect it. It is related, for the reasons I've already mentioned.

If people "love" each other, who are you to say that they shouldn't be married?

Secondly, children are exponentially more likely to be molested by a public school teacher than they are by a clergyman. I suppose that wouldn't fit into any stereotypical hatred of religion, though, so it's too inconvenient for you to bring up.

Webster's Dictionary now includes LOL, and abbreviations/terms of that nature. Gay used to mean happy fifty or so ****ing years ago, that definition's changed too.

"LOL" is commonly used now -- just like "google" -- so it only made sense to include it in the dictionary. "Gay" has been adopted by homosexuals because they decided that they didn't like "queer" anymore -- just like how people have changed the definition of "homophobe" from "somebody who has a fear of homosexuals" to "somebody who doesn't support special rights for homosexuals".

I see, so all that shit can change, but marriage can't be redefined to not be "gender specific"? Forgive me, but to try and preserve any religious aspect is ridiculous. Religion has been the root of some of the most meaningless wars and other fiascos in this world.

Religion has been used as motivation for some bad things, and also for many good things. The most destructive regimes of the last century were Atheistic. Look at the best and worst people in history. Some of the best: Mother Teresa, Ghandi, Dalai Lama ... all religious. Some of the worst? Hitler, Stalin, Mao ... none religious. To say that religion in general has been the "root" of evil makes about as much sense as saying that national pride is the "root" of wars. It has been used as such, but is in no way their purpose.

Let's totally use it as a reason to deny rights to something you may or may not understand, but nevertheless involves love.

So what's your reasoning behind denying other people the same "right"?

It isn't a choice. You do not choose your sexual preference. You can choose however, to be repressed and ignore it. But that isn't healthy is it.

There is absolutely no evidence of any physical or genetic differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Since a homosexual lifestyle prevents reproduction, it cannot be genetic, unless it is a genetic deformity like Down's Syndrome. Since it is not taught, it cannot be learned or developed. There is only one way for somebody to be attracted to those of the same sex -- choice.

Homosexuality and bisexuality is quite common in nature.

So is murder and cannibalism. I like to think that we're a bit better than simple animals.

Dwarf chimpanzees are one of the closest genetic relatives to humans and they are all bisexual. The younger ones even have oral sex with the older chimpanzees. Lions are homosexual. The male lions will have sex with each other to create a better bond in the pack.

Male lions prettymuch rape other male lions to assert their dominance.

A friend of mine used to have a dog that humped everything. Couches, legs, other dogs, stuffed animals ... cats ... the stump in his backyard ... everything. With the argument of, "well, animals do it, so it must be alright for humans to do it", morality and ethics go out the window, right along with decency. So if you happen to be walking by a park one night and see a guy givin' it to a bench, just know that it's completely natural and you shouldn't judge him.

Never underestimate the power of denial, as we can see with Sasquatch over and over and over....

Awwwww, somebody doesn't like me ... They even ignored me after I helped themselves prove to be a complete and utter moron on a different subject (and before realizing how "ignore" works) ... What am I going to do with my life, now that an anonymous child on an internet gaming forum doesn't like or agree with me? Are you referring to the thread about Obama, when you claimed ... let me find it ... "... George Bush Sr. was re-elected a second term. Like I said before, there has never been a president in history that ran for a second term and lost. The closest was Bush Jr. when it came to them having to re-count the Florida ballots."?

Watch the video coverage at least, do a bit of research for yourself and post some findings(the "entire thing" involves more than just their word. Why do you troll with extreme bias so frequently?.)

I did watch the video, genius. How many people did they interview that had any "knowledge" of the situation? The couple, and that's it. The others that commented on it heard it only from the couple. They didn't interview anybody who actually knew about it through firsthand knowledge, only people who had heard about it from the couple.

That would be like making up a story about me hitting you in a bar, and then telling all of your friends about it. Then reporting it to the media. But the media doesn't interview me, the bartenders, or anybody who was at the bar at the time the attack supposedly happened, they just ask your friends about it, even they don't know anything except what you told them.

Sassy whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? You presume this couple is lying but it's your word against theirs when it boils down to it.

You tell me -- what happened to innocent until proven guilty? This couple comes out with a story -- a story that goes against conventional knowledge, that surprises everybody with any experience in that church. A story which cannot be backed up by any evidence whatsoever, including (but not limited to) documentation of any sort or the testimony of any of the church's clergy.

It's their word against common sense. They made the accusation, and the pastor (and the church) are innocent until proven guilty.

[RagnaToad]

There is only one way for somebody to be attracted to those of the same sex -- choice.

When did you decide to become straight?

I'm actually surprised about some things of your post I agree with. What is going on.

[Sasquatch]

When did you decide to become straight?

I didn't have to decide, it's only natural. Or, you could say that I "decided" to be straight at about the same time I "decided" that I wasn't attracted to children, or animals, or car tailpipes.

I acknowledged I was wrong and in my wording and restated it adding "Presidents that have never served in cabinet" but you chose to exclude that.

Actually, you didn't, and even if you did, you would have still been wrong. Whoops.

Do at least some research on your own about the topic. Many people have been interviewed; The church admits to it happening but Sassy won't.

When did the church admit to it happening? That wasn't in the article you posted.

Your first argument is that it prevents reproduction, so it can't be genetic, because naturally, genetic traits tell us to reproduce. All of this is true, but it doesn't prove your point. Since many gay couples resort to surrogacy to have children, then it could indeed be genetic, being as they still have a natural tendency to reproduce.

Homosexual adoption is much more common than surrogacy, but the fact remains that acting solely upon homosexuality prevents the passing of genetic material. As such, the only way for it to occur naturally would be as a genetic mutation -- a genetic abnormality, a genetic defect, whatever you'd like to call it.

Your second argument is that homosexual tendencies can't be learned or developed, since it isn't taught. However, heterosexuality isn't taught either, yet I somehow developed heterosexual tendencies.

You're not taught to breathe, crawl, eat, cry, or many other activities. You don't need to be, because they're naturally imprinted on all of us, without the need to be "learned".

And naturally the church's clergy wouldn't lie about such an accusation. The fact of the matter is, whether the church is in fact innocent or not, it's still at fault at the moment. Whether they were denied because they're black or not remains to be seen, however, since the church is in racial Confederate country, and the pastor deliberately avoided making a statement, let alone show his face, I have my doubts about your doubts.

"Whether they actually did anything or not, they're still at fault"? So much for withholding judgement until facts come out, I suppose. You are believing the story of one couple, without any evidence or supporting arguments to back it up, that goes against the opinions of everybody who has had anything to do with this church.

If everyone is heterosexual, why would they WANT to start having relationships with other men? Explain this to me, for I do not understand it what so ever. The way sexual identity starts out, you have a predisposition to be homosexual or heterosexual or somewhere in between, gay and straight are hardly effective terms anymore.

Why would they want to start having sexual relationships with children, or animals, or dead people? Some people want that sort of thing.

A child lacks the ability to consent to something on their own merit, same with animals or whatever.

A century or two ago, interracial marriages weren't allowed on the grounds that anybody wanting to marry somebody of a "lesser" race is basically out of their mind, and the partner of the "lesser" race didn't have the mental capacity to choose to be married. Only a few decades ago, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder. Present day, we have plenty of people -- including some who have posted in this forum -- who believe that a child of nine or two is mature and intelligent enough to choose a partner for a sexual relationship. Hell, the age of consent in some countries is as low as nine years old. Most countries have an age of consent of between 14-16, and even some first-world countries have an age of consent at 13.

When you start declaring that some people are able/allowed to consent and some aren't, you get into a huge gray area.

Even IF in this magical world, homosexuality was a choice, what does that change anyway?

Why should a sexual perversion be treated the same as a natural relationship? Whether it's the same "status", or tax breaks, or whatever.

I'm still waiting for somebody to tell me the natural difference between homosexuality, pedophilia, and zoophilia.

[Joxsjua]

Are you referring to the thread about Obama, when you claimed ... let me find it ... "... George Bush Sr. was re-elected a second term. Like I said before, there has never been a president in history that ran for a second term and lost. The closest was Bush Jr. when it came to them having to re-count the Florida ballots."?

I acknowledged I was wrong and in my wording and restated it adding "Presidents that have never served in cabinet" but you chose to exclude that. Why are you trolling so hard?

I did watch the video, genius. How many people did they interview that had any "knowledge" of the situation? The couple, and that's it. The others that commented on it heard it only from the couple. They didn't interview anybody who actually knew about it through firsthand knowledge, only people who had heard about it from the couple.

Do at least some research on your own about the topic. Many people have been interviewed; The church admits to it happening but Sassy won't.

[Clint]

Since a homosexual lifestyle prevents reproduction, it cannot be genetic, unless it is a genetic deformity like Down's Syndrome. Since it is not taught, it cannot be learned or developed. There is only one way for somebody to be attracted to those of the same sex -- choice.

So let me get this right. You have two arguments to state that homosexuality is a choice, instead of something that's natural.

Your first argument is that it prevents reproduction, so it can't be genetic, because naturally, genetic traits tell us to reproduce. All of this is true, but it doesn't prove your point. Since many gay couples resort to surrogacy to have children, then it could indeed be genetic, being as they still have a natural tendency to reproduce.

Your second argument is that homosexual tendencies can't be learned or developed, since it isn't taught. However, heterosexuality isn't taught either, yet I somehow developed heterosexual tendencies.

So, I've pretty much proved that homosexuality is not a choice. Debate on this matter closed, Sassypants.

A story which cannot be backed up by any evidence whatsoever, including (but not limited to) documentation of any sort or the testimony of any of the church's clergy.

And naturally the church's clergy wouldn't lie about such an accusation. The fact of the matter is, whether the church is in fact innocent or not, it's still at fault at the moment. Whether they were denied because they're black or not remains to be seen, however, since the church is in racial Confederate country, and the pastor deliberately avoided making a statement, let alone show his face, I have my doubts about your doubts.

[Lacquer Head]

Since a homosexual lifestyle prevents reproduction, it cannot be genetic, unless it is a genetic deformity like Down's Syndrome. Since it is not taught, it cannot be learned or developed. There is only one way for somebody to be attracted to those of the same sex -- choice.

If everyone is heterosexual, why would they WANT to start having relationships with other men? Explain this to me, for I do not understand it what so ever. The way sexual identity starts out, you have a predisposition to be homosexual or heterosexual or somewhere in between, gay and straight are hardly effective terms anymore. There are some people that are COMPLETELY heterosexual, and some homosexual. Everyone falls somewhere between the two. But as we grow up, certain things in life affect our sexuality. Be it minor fetishes to changing stuff big time, it doesn't matter. What does matter is that there is no reason NOT to allow these marriages. As for polygamy, I haven't done any research on this subject, as for something like marriage with children, the issue is consent. A child lacks the ability to consent to something on their own merit, same with animals or whatever.

Even IF in this magical world, homosexuality was a choice, what does that change anyway?

[Kyrel]

That is quite deplorable. Then again, they are a private organization and are allowed to do so without any legal questioning, as far as I am concerned.

[che]

"What's next?" is the very fear I choose to live my life by from now on. What's next after we land on Mars? Gonna try to land on Jupiter now?! Can't just settle for Mars? Jupiter doesn't even have a place to land, it's gas. What's next? Legalize AR-15s, next we're gonna have AR-16's?! What's next? I post a reply to this thread, someone else has to post a reply to this thread? I mean what the **** is next, really?

I mean, I'm just saying. Fund stem cell research; what's next? Soon we're gonna be funding seed cell research and core cell research, that's like the whole god damned apple, what's next?

[Alpha]

While I do think churches should be able to decide for themselves, I do have this to say about the slippery slope argument: it's silly.

Hypothetically, if marriage between a woman and a man were not permissible in law either, would you decree that we couldn't possibly allow heterosexual marriage because next homosexuals would want it too? No, you wouldn't. It's a terrible argument.

[Alpha]

Homophobia is far more traumatising. Which is why suicide among homosexual teens is much higher than for heterosexual teens. And you're a homophobe, contributing to that. I hope you can still live with yourself.

[Hobaginator]

Homophobia is far more traumatising. Which is why suicide among homosexual teens is much higher than for heterosexual teens. And you're a homophobe, contributing to that. I hope you can still live with yourself.

Homosexual teens kill themselves because they hate themselves. That's why people kill themselves (shame). If people feared me, it wouldn't make me commit suicide. Also, queers are some of the weakest willed human beings on the planet -- that also might contribute to the rate of suicide. Truth is, queers tend to commit suicide because they're so ashamed of their homosexual tendencies that when word gets out, they commit ritualistic seppuku -- that is, they take their own life in shame. I'm all for weak-willed prissies committing seppuku; at least they're tough enough to do that. But at least they could salute the flag and yell "U.S.A.!" right before they do it instead of crying like most of them do.

[Sheechiibii]

Based on what I've seen (...) there you have it.

All I can see from your words is you are a twisted, angry, bigoted individual. Behaviour like this disgusts me, we are not neanderthals anymore, though evidently some still think like we are. People who believe repression and death to their own mankind are vile and an abomination. You are seriously sick, as are other homophobic human beings, I really do believe you have to have something wrong with you inside to hold such hatred for love.

[RagnaToad]

Is this Hobaginator guy for real?

Also, Nix said what I wanted to say, only with fewer words.

[Joxsjua]

I know all organizations have the right to do with and treat whom ever how-ever they want to.
My problem with the story was that these people that grew up locally attending a church for many years making many donations(at the customary 10% of their paycheck) had made their wedding reservations in advance and at the last moment were told that "this church is unwilling to accept blacks as equals." A lil bit shady ehh?

As Nelson Mandela quotes "no one is born hating another person because of the color of their skin."

The direction this community chose to take this topic is a completely different issue on its own.

Quick question: can a person I ignored, view the conversations I type?? I've had Sasquatch on my ignore list from the first time I tried to communicate an Intelligent Discussion he continually spammed: unstable emotional, judgmental, hate-filled responses. Why is he trolling this thread when/if he hasn't viewed the original context?

Thank you Mr. Che for making light of a typical extremist counter argument.