Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Not at all. We're actually quite a bit better than we once were, depressing as that is, but you'd have to know human history to know why.Since the United states has started turning on God, we have become a cesspool. Proof you should even see.That's human history, not God handing out spankings to naughty believers and unbelievers.God speaks and acts in subtle ways. Not so you would notice it but what's a few floods. Fires. Natural disasters such as bird flu, AIDS, Ebola, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, global warming, drought.Then there's starvation, slavery, mass murders, Liberal Progressive nation destroyers. That's just a few. Keep up the good work.Marriage means nothing now, thanks. If I ever marry again it will be between me, my wife, and my pastor. No government in it at all. Queers will never be able to truly be married under God, no matter how hard you try.If you accept same sex civil unions then you have accepted same sex marriage. You no longer have an argument against it.
The Presbyterians and many other Christian churches are marrying gays in the eyes of God.
If God wants to prove he hates homosexuals and wants them treated as second class citizens,
he should speak now...or forever hold his tongue.
Keep believing that, and when you find out you are wrong. Unfortunately it will be to late.Man created God, not the other way around little friend.God is everyone's ruler, wether you like it or not. He created you and he has already decided when you will die. Not his fault you choose not to believe.Well, that would be up to God now wouldn't it? Do you speak for Him? And, since God has no standing in American laws, He matters not a damn in this case eh?No matter how hard you try, queers will never be married in the eyes of God. Never.Marriage means nothing now, thanks. If I ever marry again it will be between me, my wife, and my pastor. No government in it at all. Queers will never be able to truly be married under God, no matter how hard you try.
The Presbyterians and many other Christian churches are marrying gays in the eyes of God.
If God wants to prove he hates homosexuals and wants them treated as second class citizens,
he should speak now...or forever hold his tongue.
It's odd that you have faith in Jesus, because he sure wouldn't have any in you.That you might know 'many' social conservatives is anecdotal and irrelevant.No, redefining marriage is perverse. When a civil union would've done the same thing.
But if they had settled for civil unions they couldn't go after the churches.
The social cons across the nation wouldn't allow civil unions b/c it was too close to marriage for their liking. Civil unions only became popular with them when they started losing the marriage debate.
I know many "social cons" and I've never heard any of them say they disagreed with civil unions
Otherwise, it doesn't make any difference, 'civil unions' are just as un-Constitutional as denying same-sex couples access to marriage law, 'separate but equal' is just as repugnant to the 14th Amendment.
I repeat, GFY
We have become a cesspool since we started turning our backs on God. We can thank liberals for that.Not at all. We're actually quite a bit better than we once were, depressing as that is, but you'd have to know human history to know why.Since the United states has started turning on God, we have become a cesspool. Proof you should even see.That's human history, not God handing out spankings to naughty believers and unbelievers.God speaks and acts in subtle ways. Not so you would notice it but what's a few floods. Fires. Natural disasters such as bird flu, AIDS, Ebola, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, global warming, drought.Then there's starvation, slavery, mass murders, Liberal Progressive nation destroyers. That's just a few. Keep up the good work.Marriage means nothing now, thanks. If I ever marry again it will be between me, my wife, and my pastor. No government in it at all. Queers will never be able to truly be married under God, no matter how hard you try.
The Presbyterians and many other Christian churches are marrying gays in the eyes of God.
If God wants to prove he hates homosexuals and wants them treated as second class citizens,
he should speak now...or forever hold his tongue.
As for you seeing nothing but moral decay all around, that is the rant of all that have come before, how decry change and the moral failings of youth and society. The lament of old men who are now a thing of the past.
I know many "social cons" and I've never heard any of them say they disagreed with civil unions
Funny think is that over a decade ago it was social conservatives (which included Democrats and Republicans if talking about a political party) that pushed state constitutional amendments that banned both Civil Marriage and Civil Unions.
Like this one from my states (Virginia):
Section 15-A. Marriage.
That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.
The of course there was Referendum 71 an attempt to repeal Washington States Civil Union law which granted all the rights, responsibilities, and privileges (at the State level, Civil Unions did not transfer across state lines nor were they recognized by the federal government) of Civil Marriage. Social Conservatives were upset that it made Civil Unions to much like Civil Marriage and therefore was unacceptable.
I'm in my 50's and was around back then. Please to try to re-write history and imply that social conservatives pushed for Civil Unions for gays and it was gays that rejected them.
>>>>
You figure out the difference between Covenants and Testaments yet? That would be on Google also
No being, assuming He exists, which He most likely doesn't, would understand my rejection of Him, as presented by other humans, better than God. You believe in a tiny little egotistical petty being who hands out salvation on the cheap to any and all who simply ask, and damns all others to an eternity of punishment for rejecting Him. That's not a god worthy of praise or worship, that's a god worthy of a bowl of fruit. My God would be God, beyond all human things, beyond all human reasoning, beyond all human concepts of Heaven and Hell, without limits upon his actions for good or for evil since he's God can do whatever the fuck He chooses to. Now that is a God, not yours that praised those who slaughtered men, women, children, slaves, livestock, and infants in His Name.Keep believing that, and when you find out you are wrong. Unfortunately it will be to late.Man created God, not the other way around little friend.God is everyone's ruler, wether you like it or not. He created you and he has already decided when you will die. Not his fault you choose not to believe.Well, that would be up to God now wouldn't it? Do you speak for Him? And, since God has no standing in American laws, He matters not a damn in this case eh?No matter how hard you try, queers will never be married in the eyes of God. Never.The Presbyterians and many other Christian churches are marrying gays in the eyes of God.
If God wants to prove he hates homosexuals and wants them treated as second class citizens,
he should speak now...or forever hold his tongue.
What you believe is (mostly) untrue. The country simply rejects your version of faith, and therefore you...We have become a cesspool since we started turning our backs on God. We can thank liberals for that.Not at all. We're actually quite a bit better than we once were, depressing as that is, but you'd have to know human history to know why.Since the United states has started turning on God, we have become a cesspool. Proof you should even see.That's human history, not God handing out spankings to naughty believers and unbelievers.God speaks and acts in subtle ways. Not so you would notice it but what's a few floods. Fires. Natural disasters such as bird flu, AIDS, Ebola, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, global warming, drought.Then there's starvation, slavery, mass murders, Liberal Progressive nation destroyers. That's just a few. Keep up the good work.The Presbyterians and many other Christian churches are marrying gays in the eyes of God.
If God wants to prove he hates homosexuals and wants them treated as second class citizens,
he should speak now...or forever hold his tongue.
As for you seeing nothing but moral decay all around, that is the rant of all that have come before, how decry change and the moral failings of youth and society. The lament of old men who are now a thing of the past.
Then it stands to reason you should be a Muslim and praying for the black flag of ISIS to fly atop the White House.No being, assuming He exists, which He most likely doesn't, would understand my rejection of Him, as presented by other humans, better than God. You believe in a tiny little egotistical petty being who hands out salvation on the cheap to any and all who simply ask, and damns all others to an eternity of punishment for rejecting Him. That's not a god worthy of praise or worship, that's a god worthy of a bowl of fruit. My God would be God, beyond all human things, beyond all human reasoning, beyond all human concepts of Heaven and Hell, without limits upon his actions for good or for evil since he's God can do whatever the fuck He chooses to. Now that is a God, not yours that praised those who slaughtered men, women, children, slaves, livestock, and infants in His Name.Keep believing that, and when you find out you are wrong. Unfortunately it will be to late.Man created God, not the other way around little friend.God is everyone's ruler, wether you like it or not. He created you and he has already decided when you will die. Not his fault you choose not to believe.Well, that would be up to God now wouldn't it? Do you speak for Him? And, since God has no standing in American laws, He matters not a damn in this case eh?No matter how hard you try, queers will never be married in the eyes of God. Never.
Your god is unworthy of my worship, and mine couldn't fucking care less since I was put here to live my life, not stand around praying for another even better one.
Liberals are outraged that some localities are refusing to comply with the Supreme Court's new Dred Scott ruling, i.e., its ruling on gay marriage. They scream "equal protection under the law."
But, what a minute! How about "equal protection under the law" for men whose "sexual orientation" is to have sex with consenting pubescent preteens? How about "equal protection" for people whose "sexual orientation" is to have sex with animals? How about "equal protection" for people whose "sexual orientation" is to have multiple wives purely for sexual enjoyment and not for any religious purposes?
"But those things are all illegal," say liberals. So what: Just make them legal. Homosexuality used to be illegal too, until 2003 when the Supreme Court ignored all precedent and decided that it should now be legal. So just pass new laws or get the Supreme Court to legalize sex with consenting pubescent preteens, beastiality, and polygamy. If one perversion can be legalized, other perversions should be legalized. It is discriminatory and unfair to allow homosexuals to love and marry but to deny this "fundamental right" to adults and pubescent pubescent who merely want to love and marry each other, to adults and animals who merely want to love and marry each other, and to men and multiple women who merely want to love and marry.
"But preteen girls can't give proper consent, nor can animals." First off, many pubescent 11- and 12-year-old girls are more mature and smarter than some 18-year-old boys. So that argument is a non-starter. Second, animals can give their consent in their own way; animals can make it clear that they love their human lover and have no desire to leave. So just change the law to allow animals to consent in their own way. After all, "society has no right to dictate who a person can and can't love or marry, and has no right to judge one type of love to be better or worse than another."
"But the Supreme Court has ruled that polygamy is unconstitutional." So just get the current Supreme Court to overrule that decision, just like you did in 2003 when the Supreme Court ignored all precedent and decided that somehow all state laws against homosexuality were suddenly "unconstitutional."
Some animal lovers and polygamists have already filed lawsuits to be allowed "equal protection under the law." In Europe some liberals have been trying for years to weaken or abolish laws against adult-child sexual relationships between adults and consenting pubescent children. Indeed, some of the scientists who have peddled the "gays are born gay" myth also claim that pedophiles are "born that way" too. It's high time that liberals in America get with their progressive brethren in Europe and push for equal protection for adults and pubescent children who only want to love and marry each other.
No, redefining marriage is perverse. When a civil union would've done the same thing.Twisting the issue like you do is perverse.Damn stop using words that have no meaning, there is nothing perverse.
But if they had settled for civil unions they couldn't go after the churches.
The social cons across the nation wouldn't allow civil unions b/c it was too close to marriage for their liking. Civil unions only became popular with them when they started losing the marriage debate.
I know many "social cons" and I've never heard any of them say they disagreed with civil unions
I'm a big fan of the Founding Fathers
No, redefining marriage is perverse. When a civil union would've done the same thing.Twisting the issue like you do is perverse.
But if they had settled for civil unions they couldn't go after the churches.
The social cons across the nation wouldn't allow civil unions b/c it was too close to marriage for their liking. Civil unions only became popular with them when they started losing the marriage debate.
I know many "social cons" and I've never heard any of them say they disagreed with civil unions
That.
And I would say that even if there were bitchin, if the laws were changed as they should have been changed, and were being changed slowly. Then at least the majority would have had some say in what happened, not just 5 old men and women making law.
Can't wait till the present SCROTUS is feeding some hungry maggots.No, redefining marriage is perverse. When a civil union would've done the same thing.
But if they had settled for civil unions they couldn't go after the churches.
The social cons across the nation wouldn't allow civil unions b/c it was too close to marriage for their liking. Civil unions only became popular with them when they started losing the marriage debate.
I know many "social cons" and I've never heard any of them say they disagreed with civil unions
That.
And I would say that even if there were bitchin, if the laws were changed as they should have been changed, and were being changed slowly. Then at least the majority would have had some say in what happened, not just 5 old men and women making law.
Or we could have the Supreme Court actually protect our rights.
We didn't wait for the country to change its attitude in Loving v. Virginia- no reason to wait until all your decided not to discriminate against homosexuals before letting them legally marry.
I know many "social cons" and I've never heard any of them say they disagreed with civil unions
Funny think is that over a decade ago it was social conservatives (which included Democrats and Republicans if talking about a political party) that pushed state constitutional amendments that banned both Civil Marriage and Civil Unions.
Like this one from my states (Virginia):
Section 15-A. Marriage.
That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.
The of course there was Referendum 71 an attempt to repeal Washington States Civil Union law which granted all the rights, responsibilities, and privileges (at the State level, Civil Unions did not transfer across state lines nor were they recognized by the federal government) of Civil Marriage. Social Conservatives were upset that it made Civil Unions to much like Civil Marriage and therefore was unacceptable.
I'm in my 50's and was around back then. Please to try to re-write history and imply that social conservatives pushed for Civil Unions for gays and it was gays that rejected them.
>>>>
You figure out the difference between Covenants and Testaments yet? That would be on Google also
Deflection.
1. It was the owner that quoted Leviticus when he referred to the couple as an abomination. Maybe you should right a letter to Aaron Klein and explain the difference.
2. Deflection from the post I responded to. It was Social Conservatives that fought against and banned Civil Unions.
>>>>
I know many "social cons" and I've never heard any of them say they disagreed with civil unions
Funny think is that over a decade ago it was social conservatives (which included Democrats and Republicans if talking about a political party) that pushed state constitutional amendments that banned both Civil Marriage and Civil Unions.
Like this one from my states (Virginia):
Section 15-A. Marriage.
That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.
The of course there was Referendum 71 an attempt to repeal Washington States Civil Union law which granted all the rights, responsibilities, and privileges (at the State level, Civil Unions did not transfer across state lines nor were they recognized by the federal government) of Civil Marriage. Social Conservatives were upset that it made Civil Unions to much like Civil Marriage and therefore was unacceptable.
I'm in my 50's and was around back then. Please to try to re-write history and imply that social conservatives pushed for Civil Unions for gays and it was gays that rejected them.
>>>>
You figure out the difference between Covenants and Testaments yet? That would be on Google also
Deflection.
1. It was the owner that quoted Leviticus when he referred to the couple as an abomination. Maybe you should right a letter to Aaron Klein and explain the difference.
2. Deflection from the post I responded to. It was Social Conservatives that fought against and banned Civil Unions.
>>>>
The Leviticus law condemning homosexuality is valid, it's a moral law, not ceremonial or dietary law and the New Covenant didn't void it
Perhaps you should comment on topics you are knowledgeable about?
Liberals are outraged that some localities are refusing to comply with the Supreme Court's new Dred Scott ruling, i.e., its ruling on gay marriage. They scream "equal protection under the law."
But, what a minute! How about "equal protection under the law" for men whose "sexual orientation" is to have sex with consenting pubescent preteens? How about "equal protection" for people whose "sexual orientation" is to have sex with animals? How about "equal protection" for people whose "sexual orientation" is to have multiple wives purely for sexual enjoyment and not for any religious purposes?
"But those things are all illegal," say liberals. So what: Just make them legal. Homosexuality used to be illegal too, until 2003 when the Supreme Court ignored all precedent and decided that it should now be legal. So just pass new laws or get the Supreme Court to legalize sex with consenting pubescent preteens, beastiality, and polygamy. If one perversion can be legalized, other perversions should be legalized. It is discriminatory and unfair to allow homosexuals to love and marry but to deny this "fundamental right" to adults and pubescent pubescent who merely want to love and marry each other, to adults and animals who merely want to love and marry each other, and to men and multiple women who merely want to love and marry.
"But preteen girls can't give proper consent, nor can animals." First off, many pubescent 11- and 12-year-old girls are more mature and smarter than some 18-year-old boys. So that argument is a non-starter. Second, animals can give their consent in their own way; animals can make it clear that they love their human lover and have no desire to leave. So just change the law to allow animals to consent in their own way. After all, "society has no right to dictate who a person can and can't love or marry, and has no right to judge one type of love to be better or worse than another."
"But the Supreme Court has ruled that polygamy is unconstitutional." So just get the current Supreme Court to overrule that decision, just like you did in 2003 when the Supreme Court ignored all precedent and decided that somehow all state laws against homosexuality were suddenly "unconstitutional."
Some animal lovers and polygamists have already filed lawsuits to be allowed "equal protection under the law." In Europe some liberals have been trying for years to weaken or abolish laws against adult-child sexual relationships between adults and consenting pubescent children. Indeed, some of the scientists who have peddled the "gays are born gay" myth also claim that pedophiles are "born that way" too. It's high time that liberals in America get with their progressive brethren in Europe and push for equal protection for adults and pubescent children who only want to love and marry each other.
No, redefining marriage is perverse. When a civil union would've done the same thing.
But if they had settled for civil unions they couldn't go after the churches.
The social cons across the nation wouldn't allow civil unions b/c it was too close to marriage for their liking. Civil unions only became popular with them when they started losing the marriage debate.
I know many "social cons" and I've never heard any of them say they disagreed with civil unions
That.
And I would say that even if there were bitchin, if the laws were changed as they should have been changed, and were being changed slowly. Then at least the majority would have had some say in what happened, not just 5 old men and women making law.
Or we could have the Supreme Court actually protect our rights.
We didn't wait for the country to change its attitude in Loving v. Virginia- no reason to wait until all your decided not to discriminate against homosexuals before letting them legally marry.
