JohnnyMarko 1 #151 June 30, 2015 I'll just leave this here Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #152 June 30, 2015 QuoteIf you read the Holy Bible you would see that God's Word does not teach fairness. If your Bible doesn't teach, "Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you," then you need to get a refund from the Bible store. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #154 June 30, 2015 gowlerkThe problem with assertions about the primacy of religious freedoms is that those who make them are only concerned with their own religious beliefs. My personal religion allows for gay marriage. What about my rights? This is why religion is completely irrelevant to law. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4316479#4316479 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4571041;#4571041 "Insofar as it affects my religious beliefs" is to religious people as "insofar as it affects interstate commerce" is to congress. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 1,903 #155 June 30, 2015 champu***The problem with assertions about the primacy of religious freedoms is that those who make them are only concerned with their own religious beliefs. My personal religion allows for gay marriage. What about my rights? This is why religion is completely irrelevant to law. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4316479#4316479 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4571041;#4571041 "Insofar as it affects my religious beliefs" is to religious people as "insofar as it affects interstate commerce" is to congress. Indeed. That's why I don't usually indulge in posting to this forum. Most people here have reasonable points of view that I agree with. Some others won't budge from fixed viewpoints, so what's the use. For what it's worth, my personal view of gay marriage took several years to evolve from complete rejection to complete acceptance. There is hope, even for Ron.Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #156 June 30, 2015 BIGUN Yep, my old lady supports same sex marriage, but I can't get her convinced that we need 3 more concubines!!!! And good help is so hard to find these days. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #157 June 30, 2015 Meanwhile, in Oklahoma.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Driver1 0 #158 June 30, 2015 kallend Meanwhile, in Oklahoma. It happened in Alabama first years ago. There will be no addressing the customers as "Bitches", "Morons" or "Retards"! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #159 June 30, 2015 kallendMeanwhile, in Oklahoma. The court in its decision said: "As concerns the 'historic purpose' justification, the Ten Commandments are obviously religious in nature and are an integral part of the Jewish and Christian faiths." Lawmakers have argued that the monument was not serving a religious purpose but was meant to mark a historical event. That opened the door for other groups, including Satanists and the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, to apply for permission to erect their own monuments on Capitol grounds to mark what they say are historical events. Well there goes the neighborhood, Pentagrams and noodly appendage monuments.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,381 #160 June 30, 2015 An Evangelical Minister Explains Marriage to Rick Santorum, Dr. Moore and Mike Huckabee An excerpt: But upon closer examination of the Scriptures, the very notion of "Biblical marriage" becomes a thorny mess. There's the definition of Biblical marriage in which a man must marry his deceased brother's wife. This idea of "Levirate marriage" is a strong tradition in ancient tribal family structures and makes it mark in early Jewish and even Muslim contexts. The mandate to marry one's dead brother's wife is all about promoting the family line, love be damned, and is found in Deuteronomy 25:5-6: If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel. (NIV) Then there's the Biblical marriage definition that mandates a raped woman to be wed to her rapist, but only after the rapist pays the raped woman's father 50 coins: "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." (Deuteronomy 22:28-29, NIV) Then there's the complicated story where Moses and the Israelites conquer the Midianites and divide the spoils, including property, livestock and women, marrying conquered Midianite women off to the victorious soldiers. Sound like Game of Thrones? It's in the Bible (see Numbers 31). The Bible also defines marriage and family rules when it comes to slave ownership: the married slaves may eventually go free, but the children of that union must stay enslaved. And if you are now holding your head in your hands and wondering does the Bible really say this, then I invite you, dear reader, to read the complicated, inspiring and sometimes contradictory story of the Book of Exodus, the second book of the Bible. The Bible allows for polygamy, too. Many heroes of the faith like Moses, Solomon, Jacob and David all had more than one wife. Unless they just had one wife and one concubine, like Abraham. Article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-nicholas-phillips/an-evangelical-minister-explains-marriage-to-rick-santorum-dr-moore-and-mike-huckabee_b_7678856.html"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyMarko 1 #161 June 30, 2015 Holy shit, Mr Huckabee QuoteNo man - and certainly no un-elected judge - has the right to redefine the laws of nature or of nature's God. Government is not God. The purpose of marriage is to socially and biologically unite a man and a woman to create the next generation and to train the next generation to become their replacements. Marriage is a sacred covenant, not just another social contract. Laws of nature? Someone clue me in on how that was changed. Edited for formatting Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,340 #162 June 30, 2015 RonD1120For right now I am going with the TX Attorney General, Ken Paxton. https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/oagnews/release.php?id=5142 You are aware that the EXACT SAME THINGS were said in response to the Loving vs Virginia decision, aren't you? Destruction of the institution of marriage, polygamy, incest, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria. It's been a while since then. Not much has happened. http://lawreview.vermontlaw.edu/files/2012/02/johnson1.pdf"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,380 #163 June 30, 2015 >You are aware that the EXACT SAME THINGS were said in response to the Loving vs >Virginia decision, aren't you? >Destruction of the institution of marriage, polygamy, incest, dogs and cats living >together, mass hysteria. Well, I would assume Ken Paxton will be OK with polygamy, since it has a basis in the Bible and he feels that religious freedom is our most important right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #164 June 30, 2015 ryoderAn Evangelical Minister Explains Marriage to Rick Santorum, Dr. Moore and Mike Huckabee An excerpt: But upon closer examination of the Scriptures, the very notion of "Biblical marriage" becomes a thorny mess. There's the definition of Biblical marriage in which a man must marry his deceased brother's wife. This idea of "Levirate marriage" is a strong tradition in ancient tribal family structures and makes it mark in early Jewish and even Muslim contexts. The mandate to marry one's dead brother's wife is all about promoting the family line, love be damned, and is found in Deuteronomy 25:5-6: If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel. (NIV) Then there's the Biblical marriage definition that mandates a raped woman to be wed to her rapist, but only after the rapist pays the raped woman's father 50 coins: "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." (Deuteronomy 22:28-29, NIV) Then there's the complicated story where Moses and the Israelites conquer the Midianites and divide the spoils, including property, livestock and women, marrying conquered Midianite women off to the victorious soldiers. Sound like Game of Thrones? It's in the Bible (see Numbers 31). The Bible also defines marriage and family rules when it comes to slave ownership: the married slaves may eventually go free, but the children of that union must stay enslaved. And if you are now holding your head in your hands and wondering does the Bible really say this, then I invite you, dear reader, to read the complicated, inspiring and sometimes contradictory story of the Book of Exodus, the second book of the Bible. The Bible allows for polygamy, too. Many heroes of the faith like Moses, Solomon, Jacob and David all had more than one wife. Unless they just had one wife and one concubine, like Abraham. Article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-nicholas-phillips/an-evangelical-minister-explains-marriage-to-rick-santorum-dr-moore-and-mike-huckabee_b_7678856.html Only one concubine? Slacker!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #165 July 1, 2015 Crap. The wedding I'm going to in a couple months is interracial as well as being between two gay people so my experiment to see if my wedding ring ignites and burns my finger off won't be controlled. If it doesn't, that could mean that both gay and interracial marriages are completely fine, or it could mean my marriage never counted because it too is interracial. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #166 July 1, 2015 wolfriverjoe***For right now I am going with the TX Attorney General, Ken Paxton. https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/oagnews/release.php?id=5142 You are aware that the EXACT SAME THINGS were said in response to the Loving vs Virginia decision, aren't you? Destruction of the institution of marriage, polygamy, incest, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria. It's been a while since then. Not much has happened. http://lawreview.vermontlaw.edu/files/2012/02/johnson1.pdf I just wish Tampax made some kind of product we could stuff into these asshats mouths to absorb all the stupid shit they say. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,381 #167 July 1, 2015 Jimmy Kimmel asks kids on the street about marriage (gay or straight). Some of the answers are great!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiFDY6N33aw "There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 291 #168 July 1, 2015 ryoder Jimmy Kimmel asks kids on the street about marriage (gay or straight). Some of the answers are great!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiFDY6N33aw The little girl starting at 1:18 has it nailed (as does the kid directly after her). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,340 #169 July 1, 2015 Amazon******For right now I am going with the TX Attorney General, Ken Paxton. https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/oagnews/release.php?id=5142 You are aware that the EXACT SAME THINGS were said in response to the Loving vs Virginia decision, aren't you? Destruction of the institution of marriage, polygamy, incest, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria. It's been a while since then. Not much has happened. http://lawreview.vermontlaw.edu/files/2012/02/johnson1.pdf I just wish Tampax made some kind of product we could stuff into these asshats mouths to absorb all the stupid shit they say. Meh. It makes it a lot easier to figure out who the asshats are. I have some long-time friends who are turning out to be closeted "fundamentally religious gay-hating bigots." I had no clue that these people were that strong in their beliefs. Of course, many are divorced and remarried. Or living with a significant other 'without the benefit of marriage' or have a lot of tattoos, ect. So they are "strongly religious" and "devout in their beliefs" except for the ones they don't believe in. Of course."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 620 #170 July 1, 2015 Christian? Only applies to them as they see fit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #171 July 1, 2015 champuCrap. The wedding I'm going to in a couple months is interracial as well as being between two gay people so my experiment to see if my wedding ring ignites and burns my finger off won't be controlled. If it doesn't, that could mean that both gay and interracial marriages are completely fine, or it could mean my marriage never counted because it too is interracial. I'm sure you can account for confounding variables.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreeece 2 #172 July 2, 2015 normissThe votes that were had created the unnecessary division to which you refer, hence, the supreme's discussion and decision. Which is 1000% correct. Remember this bit: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The unnecessary division was caused by asking the people to vote their opinion on something that was none of their business. Some people happily voted against gay marriage, while many others probably voted against it simply out of crisis of conscience. Yet those that believed it was none or their business may have voted against it so as not to feel as if they were condoning homosexuality, while others just declined to vote. In my professional comedic opinion, the whole thing was just a sick joke..."hey, lets ask a bunch of christians to condone homosexuality - and when they don't - let's all just get pissed off and make a big scene over it." Good thing the gay gene isn't predominantly exclusive as sickle cell disease, otherwise San Francisco would resemble the likes of Detroit.Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyMarko 1 #173 July 2, 2015 Coreeece Good thing the gay gene isn't predominantly exclusive as sickle cell disease, otherwise San Francisco would resemble the likes of Detroit. Please tell me the bolded part is a joke. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreeece 2 #174 July 2, 2015 JohnnyMarko*** Good thing the gay gene isn't predominantly exclusive as sickle cell disease, otherwise San Francisco would resemble the likes of Detroit. Please tell me the bolded part is a joke. Read the first line of the third paragraph...I placed it there deliberately for people like you.Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #175 July 2, 2015 JohnnyMarko *** Good thing the gay gene isn't predominantly exclusive as sickle cell disease, otherwise San Francisco would resemble the likes of Detroit. Please tell me the bolded part is a joke. What?You've never heard of the queen gene?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
