Defense Of Marriage Act Ruled Unconstitutional By Second Federal Judge

Apparently you don't want to know what the phase even means in its original context....that means its religious context...

Thats ok....remaining ignorant won't hurt you anymore than it already has....

You obviously saw these sites and refused to acknowledge them...

http://bible.org/seriespage/sanctity-marriage-exodus-2014
http://www.openbible.info/topics/the_sanctity_of_marriage
http://mikelong.hubpages.com/hub/The-Sanctity-of-Marriage-a-Biblical-Perspective
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/sanctity-marriage/


Those links tell me NOTHING!

They merely are links to the same vague comments and biblical quotes spouted here in defense of homophobia.

Why is it that not a ONE of this board's Christians can explain in PLAIN ENGLISH how exactly gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of marriage?
 
I can't believe that we've come back to the "sanctity" argument...

Constitutional Conservatives across the nation cringe when conservatives anywhere try to throw their religion into why we should keep the laws the way they are. It is absolutely not one of the reasons that can be realistically argued while understanding that the government simply does not have the power to control your life to that level, constitutionally.
 
I am almost tempted to take granule off of IA for that winner.

You know what Granule? You're right. Once you let women go to work they can get all kinds of funny ideas in their heads. Best to just keep her home.
lol. don't flatter yourself. you've been following my posts ever since you made your idiot announcement. ;)
 
I can't believe that we've come back to the "sanctity" argument...

Constitutional Conservatives across the nation cringe when conservatives anywhere try to throw their religion into why we should keep the laws the way they are. It is absolutely not one of the reasons that can be realistically argued while understanding that the government simply does not have the power to control your life to that level, constitutionally.

You're right damo, but you miss the entire point of the thread....and Zappa mis-states it to confuse the issue.....
It has nothing to do with what is right or wrong or just or unjust or if the present law needs to be changed or remain as they are....

Thats a different issue altogether.....

The only debate here was to explain WHERE and WHY, marriage was considered BLESSED or sanctified by the religious believers......and Zappa is just being obtuse to not grasp
how or why it was thought of that way....

Its mindblowing how the lefties can succeed in spinning and confuse a simple issue with a continuous barrage of unrelated bullshit just because they were being schooled
on the original question of why marriage is considered blessed by religious people....and that is the issue in question......

The issue IS NOT if the belief is right or wrong, only why it is what it is....

Simply put....its their Bible that tells them the union between man and women (marriage) is a scared (blessed) thing. They think its the word of their God as told to them
in their Bible....and anything other than the union between a man and a woman runs counter (destroys) the sanctity of that union as revealed to them by their God.......

Why they can't grasp the simple truth of that is astounding.....

I'm certainly NOT trying to claim its right or wrong or a valid or invalid belief.....I'm just explaining the origin of that belief as its been explained to me by those believers....

its their bag, not mine.....why is that so fuckin' hard to get through their skulls ?
 
NO. Calling hetero's 'breeders' is but it isn't common for hetero to be used as a slur. Surely you know this.


Heres your IQ test....

Hetero is to heterosexual as homo is to ......................., and neither is a slur in anyway at all.

Only the utterly stupid cannot answer this simple question.....
 
Last edited:
DUH!

Just one of many examples showing why you flakes will lose this coming November.
Bingo!!! You just won a place next to Yurt on my ignore list. You have no interest in discussion just in playing your version of mind fuck. Bye bye!!
 
You're right damo, but you miss the entire point of the thread....and Zappa mis-states it to confuse the issue.....
It has nothing to do with what is right or wrong or just or unjust or if the present law needs to be changed or remain as they are....

Thats a different issue altogether.....

The only debate here was to explain WHERE and WHY, marriage was considered BLESSED or sanctified by the religious believers......and Zappa is just being obtuse to not grasp
how or why it was thought of that way....

Its mindblowing how the lefties can succeed in spinning and confuse a simple issue with a continuous barrage of unrelated bullshit just because they were being schooled
on the original question of why marriage is considered blessed by religious people....and that is the issue in question......

The issue IS NOT if the belief is right or wrong, only why it is what it is....

Simply put....its their Bible that tells them the union between man and women (marriage) is a scared (blessed) thing. They think its the word of their God as told to them
in their Bible....and anything other than the union between a man and a woman runs counter (destroys) the sanctity of that union as revealed to them by their God.......

Why they can't grasp the simple truth of that is astounding.....

I'm certainly NOT trying to claim its right or wrong or a valid or invalid belief.....I'm just explaining the origin of that belief as its been explained to me by those believers....

its their bag, not mine.....why is that so fuckin' hard to get through their skulls ?

Why should any of us care how religion defines marriages? The churches may refuse to marry anyone they please. What does it have to do with the rights of gay people to marry under the laws of the United States? The answer, not a damn thing.

You are the one who keeps spouting that marriage is being redefined. Religious marriage will be what each church defines it to be, and that has changed over time, and some churches will allow gays to marriage in the church and others will not, but civil marriages, under our laws should be legal.
 
Heres your IQ test....

Hetero is to heterosexual and homo is to ......................., and neither is a slur in anyway at all.

Only the utterly stupid cannot answer this simple question.....
So in bravoworld they are the same and neither is a slur...got it...LMAO
 
Maybe you should concern yourself with first answering the question I've asked you numerous times now.

You know,...the one you keep ducking?

How...PRECISELY...is gay marriage going to destroy the sanctity of the institute of marriage?

List some specific examples please...

gosh, I'm surprised no one's ever asked that before.....
 
Heres your IQ test....

Hetero is to heterosexual as homo is to .......................

Only the utterly stupid cannot answer this simple question.....

# 1...Haiku
2...next ?
 
Actually, It don't have much to do with Constitutional rights....but I guess, they can spin it and fudge it a little.....

Homos don't just want equal treatment ..... on taxes, adoption, healthcare, etc.......they want "marriage" ....not a civil union that gives the very
same treatment and benefits, they want it to be called MARRIAGE.....its nothing more than an attack on religion from a new direction.....
If marriage and a civil union treats everyone exactly the same it should make no difference what you call it....but it does to them....

That's because there will always be someone who will try to make a distinction between a marriage composed of a male and female and a civil union composed of two people of the same sex. Even if the civil union guaranteed the exact same treatment "on taxes, adoption, healthcare, etc" that doesn't guarantee it will apply to new laws and people opposed to gay couples will always seek ways to favor marriage over civil unions.

Do a little research on the "equal but different" fiasco regarding racist nonsense. Marriage vs civil unions will go through the same thing.

Look at abortion. While the law states women are entitled to have an abortion we see people trying to enact laws like vaginal probes and having to look at a fetal monitor. While upholding the law they do all they can to disrupt it. The same nonsense will happen with civil unions. Some people will have nothing better to do than to think of ways to lessen civil unions. That's just the way some sneaky, miserable people are and those demanding equal treatment want to prevent that from happening and the only way is to use one term, marriage, for both same sex and opposite sex couples.

As I've said before the opponents have brought this on themselves by denying hospital visits, denying a survivng partner any legal right to the family home, denying spousal benefits,etc. Same sex couples know there will be an onging battle unless it's unequivocally stated a marriage is a marriage is a marriage. A man and a woman. Two men. Two women. Marriage is marriage. Period.
 
(Originally Posted by Althea) I can't wait. My dog and I want to get married.

(Originally Posted by apple0154) I've had my eye on the neighbor's pussy

If you were mormon could you marry them both?

Considering how dogs and cats usually get along that would be one sorry Mormon.
 
Well, there are churches for everything and everyone.....sacrifice goats, have sex on altars, sing and dance, and play with snakes, etc....whats your point....?

When the law is changed to allow men to marry men or goats or apple trees, they can use those "churches"......

We're talking about what the Bible supposedly says about marriage being blessed....

That reminds me of the GOP U.S. Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell.

(Excerpt) "One of my first dates with a witch was on a satanic altar, and I didn't know it. I mean, there's little blood there and stuff like that," she said. "We went to a movie and then had a midnight picnic on a satanic altar.......And in a 2006 appearance on "The O'Reilly Factor" she said efforts to promote condom use are "anti-human." (End) http://abcnews.go.com/News/christine-odonnell-dabbled-witchcraft/story?id=11671277

Another excerpt reads, "O'Donnell has raised close to $1 million in campaign funds online and won a financial pledge from the National Republican Senatorial Committee of $42,000, the maximum allowed. Aides say the cash keeps coming in."

Hmmm. I wonder if there's a kinky streak running just below the surface of those right wing folks. :dunno:
 
I am almost tempted to take granule off of IA for that winner.

You know what Granule? You're right. Once you let women go to work they can get all kinds of funny ideas in their heads. Best to just keep her home.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA. You forgot pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen. ;)
 
Apparently you don't want to know what the phase even means in its original context....that means its religious context...

Thats ok....remaining ignorant won't hurt you anymore than it already has....

You obviously saw these sites and refused to acknowledge them...

http://bible.org/seriespage/sanctity-marriage-exodus-2014
http://www.openbible.info/topics/the_sanctity_of_marriage
http://mikelong.hubpages.com/hub/The-Sanctity-of-Marriage-a-Biblical-Perspective
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/sanctity-marriage/

I''m checking out the first link. (Excerpt) The Scriptures frankly tell us that sexual sin can be the source of other sins. It can dull the mind, like wine, making one insensitive to reality. (End)

They nailed that one. A guy doesn't say he's in Heaven for nothing. :)
 
You're right damo, but you miss the entire point of the thread....and Zappa mis-states it to confuse the issue.....
It has nothing to do with what is right or wrong or just or unjust or if the present law needs to be changed or remain as they are....

Thats a different issue altogether.....

The only debate here was to explain WHERE and WHY, marriage was considered BLESSED or sanctified by the religious believers......and Zappa is just being obtuse to not grasp
how or why it was thought of that way....

Its mindblowing how the lefties can succeed in spinning and confuse a simple issue with a continuous barrage of unrelated bullshit just because they were being schooled
on the original question of why marriage is considered blessed by religious people....and that is the issue in question......

The issue IS NOT if the belief is right or wrong, only why it is what it is....

Simply put....its their Bible that tells them the union between man and women (marriage) is a scared (blessed) thing. They think its the word of their God as told to them
in their Bible....and anything other than the union between a man and a woman runs counter (destroys) the sanctity of that union as revealed to them by their God.......

Why they can't grasp the simple truth of that is astounding.....

I'm certainly NOT trying to claim its right or wrong or a valid or invalid belief.....I'm just explaining the origin of that belief as its been explained to me by those believers....

its their bag, not mine.....why is that so fuckin' hard to get through their skulls ?


The question is,
Why is it that not a ONE of this board's Christians can explain in PLAIN ENGLISH how exactly gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of marriage?
which Zappa asks in msg. 281 and it’s the same question that has been asked over and over and over again.

Talking about "so fuckin' hard to get through their skulls" it appears you have the thick skull. If some folks want to believe marriage is sanctified, fine. Just because other people do not believe that does not change anything. In the Bible divorce is only permitted for a couple of reasons while society accepts a number of reasons. What difference does it make to the believer?

If you believe only a marriage between a man and a woman is sanctified, great. What difference does it make to you if others do not believe that? How does gay marriage de-sanctify your marriage? That is the question.

You wrote,
....anything other than the union between a man and a woman runs counter (destroys) the sanctity of that union as revealed to them by their God.......

Fine. It means gay marriage isn't sanctified. It has nothing to do with your marriage. If you want to believe gay marriage isn't sanctified, great. No one is asking you to believe. No one is asking anything of you. That is the point.

So, again, why are you opposed to gay marriage? No one is asking those opposed to it to participate. No one is asking those opposed to it to sanctify it. No one is asking those opposed it it to believe it is sanctified. No one is asking anything of those who are opposed to it.

It's like opposing where ones neighbor is going on vacation. (It reminds me of that movie with Gene Wilder moving to Boise, Idaho.) :) If someone said they're taking a vacation and going to spend a week at a bed and breakfast in Boise would the people who usually go to Hawaii or some South Sea Island consider that de-sanctifying vacations?

Opposition to gay marriage does not make any sense. It doesn't interfere in anyone's life and as for scriptural beliefs one is not obliged to interfere in the action of others nor are they held responsible so the question is,
Why is it that not a ONE of this board's Christians can explain in PLAIN ENGLISH how exactly gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of marriage?

Give it a shot.
 
Back
Top