I'd much rather spend eternity with them than with Mogill and his idiot ilk.

You win!

Like DC's shadowy far rightwing quasi-religious Cult known as "THE FAMILY."

From the article:

“He was very clear that his personal beliefs have no impact on his research or the data it produces.”

Hellology

or he's just a friggin loon

or maybe (putting on my reichwing tin foil hat), the state is trying to intentionally lose by putting this moron on the stand

at least that one roadblock is nothing to worry about.

What a dirtbag.

Yeah, they are definitely running out of ideas.

oh ya repentance and hell well maybe but definitely not for the reasons he thinks

they have lost.....

http://www.freep.com/article/20140306/NEWS06/303060088/same-sex-trial-federal-court-testimony

I call bullshit on Allen!

including your peers disagree, guess what !!!

Isn't that what "accepting Jesus Christ as your personal" is savior all about?

But then those types are never big on "personal responsibility" for themselves, just for others.

sigh.

And my transgendered BFF. Sigh.

And, oh, shit, a neighbor's sled dog who really can't decide if he likes cats or not.........

WHERE are these people coming from?

And how are they supposed to "repent" and from what?

Liar, liar, pants on fire! That heat in your britches is not hell. Have you repented for bearing false witness?

I thought the same exact thing, but you said it better. And made me laugh.

Nah.

So all those republicans will be walked on by gay people on their way to hell. Or something like that.

republicans don't believe in infrastructure

and get 20 different answers

Duh.

These people need to look no further than all the cheating Republicans to see that.

Hell isn't isn't some mythical place that people go because they don't abide by words in a book. We make our own heaven or hell right here on earth. If this guy is so imprisoned by his rigid set of religious beliefs that these beliefs have come to dictate his thoughts and feelings on matters such as same sex marriage, then he is already living in his own private hell. Imagine what the world around him must look like through his eyes. This guy is already living in the place he fears the most.

Just my own opinion. Everyone is entitled to theirs.

and we don't have a state religion, so it sucks to be them.

I guess they'll have to scream about hell fire even louder to compensate.

Fine job by Mr. Mogill.

I'll go to hell willingly then, because hell will be fabulous.

Along with its wide variety of gay-friendly businesses, the Underworld is also home to The 666, a sprawling, five-story gay nightclub that is reportedly the largest such establishment ever built. Reports confirmed The 666 is one of the most popular destinations in the Nine Circles, offering drag shows, multiple dance floors, six-headed go-go dancers, and live music.

“It’s just nice to finally live in a place where I don’t feel like an outcast or an outsider,” said Vanessa Aldridge, 38, stressing that she has faced absolutely no discrimination since she, like all homosexuals and gay sympathizers, was sentenced to an eternity in Lucifer’s Den immediately upon her death. “There’s no stigma attached to openly being who I am here. Everyone is respected and free to live the way they want to live.”

http://www.theonion.com/articles/hell-now-a-thriving-epicenter-of-gay-culture,33928/

...while JC never said a mumbling word about gayness, he had plenty to say about:
[center]
[FONT SIZE=10]NOT JUDGING OTHERS[/FONT][/center]

- And for the record he said if you do this despicable thing, that's how you're going to be judged -- by Him -- when THOSE JUDGMENTAL PEOPLE GET TO HELL.

You know, it's a karma thing and like that.

K&R

Fucking NAFTA...send this defective product back to his "country of origin".

Jesus IS my personal shopper!

Actually, the same people who claim there's an almighty gawd sure have to do a lot of shit on Earth that He should be able to do from on high, if indeed he's omnipotent, etc. So which is it, fundies? And why will Jesus™ need an automatic weapon-gun when he comes back? Can't he just shoot death-lasers out of his eyes? Why does he need a machine to do his smiting for him? does not compute!

...bolts of lightening from his arse. Oh, wait....that's William Wallace, not the son of gawd. Never mind.

Remind the speaker that "they do not speak for God, they do not decide who goes to Hell (if it exists).

Then remind the speaker that homosexuality does not have to involve them unless they are homosexual and then they seriously need to shut up and accept themselves.

..Arguments with fundys about this subject never fail to devolve into...."god say's it's wrong, so they're all going straight to hell, nyaaa!" Same with this canuck. Expert testimony? Expert in what? Illogical bullshit?

maybe the religious lunatics in the southwestern side of the state will move to South Carolina, and leave that part of the state to the saner types.

When the idiot on the stand shows what they are really all about.

Since when is it the state's business who goes to hell or heaven (for those who believe in such places)?

If it's not a theocracy, this is none of the state's concern.

Last edited Fri Mar 7, 2014, 02:20 AM - Edit history (1)

Thus this is becoming a battle of experts:

Yesterday, another state expert witness said the following:

http://www.freep.com/article/20140305/NEWS06/303050154/

The plaintiff's experts have said they is no difference is children raised by two parents of the same sex as opposed to two parents of the opposite sex

The expert of Wednesday said the research cited by the Plaintiff do not SUPPORT the finding claimed in papers and then proceeded to point out why.

The State's expert of today testified that HIS research indicate that children raised in same sex families do suffer educational losses.

Now, the Plaintiff's attorney wanted to attack the research, but ended up failing to do so for the expert point out his research included a larger number of people AND that being Canadian may be more honest then the smaller reports done in the States.

Once the research could NOT be attacked the Plaintiff's lawyer then attack the expert on the grounds that his research may be tainted by his own personal beliefs. Including that Homosexual will go to Hell. The Expert admitted he believed in Hell and that unrepentant homosexuals will go to hell. but then said that belief did not affect his research.

Thus this is a great sound bite, but I believe it is a sign of desperation. You do NOT attack the researcher if you can attack the research itself. All the Attorney showed was that this researcher MAY have a prejudice, but NOT how that prejudice affected his data. It is like someone asking a person on the stand if he hated African Americans, and that witness said yes, when the issue is did the Defendant, who is an African American do something in front of that witness. Yes, the Witness's prejudice could affect how the Witness reported and remember the incident, but does that affect the Witness's testimony as to what the Defendant did?

Think about it. In my hypothetical if the witness saw the Defendant get out of the Defendant's car and shoot someone, does the fact that the Witness hates African Americans affect the Witness's report of who shot whom and when? Yes, the witness's prejudice can be a factor in how the incident occurred, but not that the incident occurred.

The same in this case, the fact that the Expert believes all Homosexuals will go to Hell, how does that affect his research? You attack such experts through his research to show how the prejudice affected the research NOT a direct attack on the Expert. Back to my example, it is like if the Witness testified he saw the Defendant jump out of a vehicle and shoot someone else, both of whom were KNOWN to the Witness, how does asking him about his attitude to African Americans affect his testimony? The better attack would be to ask the Witness how he knew the Defendant and how did he know it was him. Then the prejudice would leak out if it affected what the Witness saw.

Thus the fact that the expert hate Homosexuals is immaterial, unless it can be shown it affected his research. People with prejudices often can do, and do papers on subjects they dislike. That by itself does not make the papers bad. If that was the case, any Jew who did any research on the Holocaust would have that paper dismissed as to prejudiced to be used (and they are some very good papers on the Holocaust done by Jews that are clearly not affected by prejudice do to who the Holocaust was aimed at).

Just a comment, that in my opinion, this question and answer is irrelevant to the issue at hand. I suspect it is so irrelevant that the State did not even bothered to object to the question (Most lawyers do NOT object to everything they can in a hearing, you have to be selective and object when something may affect your case, you do NOT object to something that has no affect on your case). It is a good line for the press, but in the court I suspect it has any value.

tell, I must be in hell there are so many Christians here.