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.
they like to avoid that salient fact....
Loving v. Virginia
but then again, dominion over one's own body is a right... and they've never let that stop them.
Thanks.
In a ironic way, this very ruling can, and should be used to crush every single last unconstitutional law that restricts the right to bear arms.
but that's different, somehow. it just is.
If you don't like the government telling you how you can live, don't support it telling me how to live.
or
get used to shit like this.
Hmmmm... OWS calls for a day of general strike. My, my my, the left squeals and claps and muses how WONDERFUL it is that people are banding together for a cause. Naturally, the 'evil' here being the fictitious 1%. "Shut down the county!" one OWS leader screams through a bull horn. Shut down traffic, the stock markets, impeed traffic, shut down the universities. It is a manufactured cause that the left champions because it keeps them in the news for just another day, despite the fact that most of the people they demonize are self-made and support the very system they 'game' to become professional protestors. It doesn't matter if you support or even care what they want, we are going to FORCE you to conform.
The church calls for it's members to band together against gay marriage. Naturally, they aren't calling for the rounding up of gays, the tatooing of their arms with a number, or their segregation. No call to arms to shut down gay or lesbian centers, or to place them in concentration camps. No sounds of construction for gallows on which gays or lesbians will swing at dawn like they do in Iran. Just a call to members of the church that because of our shared religion, we do not believe that same-sex marriage should be the law of the land.
Oh my GAWD! It is the inquisition all over again. There is NO DIFFERENCE between the clerics of Iran who openly carry out executions of gay men and the priests who call for unification against gay marriage. These priests are FORCING their religious views on me and the rest of the country. How dare they tell anyone how to think. The humanity of it all!
Naturally, OWS are heros to the left and the priests are evil, simply because the left supports ones views and doesn't support the others. It has never failed to amaze me how the left can always scream to keep your religious views to yourself, but then champion a group that not only wants to espouse their views from a 'pulpit' but then disrupt society to impose those views. Imagine the outcry if a priest stood at every intersection stopping traffic because they wanted gay marriage outlawed. Why is the left so afraid of speech they do not agree with? I have always maintained that Orwell's book 1984 was a treatise on how society would look if liberals got what they want. Mindless robots who did what they were told, when they were told. Who stood in line patiently and behaved. Not me.
Oklahoma still has a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. That constitutional amendment does not allow the state to recognize same-sex marriages performed in any other state. I gave money to get that amendment passed and will give money to defend my states right to keep it. If your state wants to pass same-sex marriage, I am all for it.
Freedom... it is so feared by the left. Why?
Thanks.
In a ironic way, this very ruling can, and should be used to crush every single last unconstitutional law that restricts the right to bear arms.
but that's different, somehow. it just is.
If you don't like the government telling you how you can live, don't support it telling me how to live.
or
get used to shit like this.
jokes on you
Image blocked, link it if you dare!!
"And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself*. There is none other commandment greater than these." mark 12:31
*unless your neighbor is gay
And guess what? I still love them."And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself*. There is none other commandment greater than these." mark 12:31
*unless your neighbor is gay
I guess that works if you define 'love' as letting anyone do anything, regardless of any consequences. My kids try the same thing on me as a parent, it never works.
"And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself*. There is none other commandment greater than these." mark 12:31
*unless your neighbor is gay
I guess that works if you define 'love' as letting anyone do anything, regardless of any consequences. My kids try the same thing on me as a parent, it never works.
"And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself*. There is none other commandment greater than these." mark 12:31
*unless your neighbor is gay
I guess that works if you define 'love' as letting anyone do anything, regardless of any consequences. My kids try the same thing on me as a parent, it never works.
It's not your choice to "let" gays do anything.
Not in my opinion at least, obviously we disagree.
I guess that works if you define 'love' as letting anyone do anything, regardless of any consequences. My kids try the same thing on me as a parent, it never works.
It's not your choice to "let" gays do anything.
Not in my opinion at least, obviously we disagree.
My point wasn't about letting or not letting gays do anything. My point was about the implication that since the Bible/God/Jesus calls for us to love one another that that somehow means that the meaning of love is to accept and allow any behavior that anyone wants to exhibit, and if you don't then you don't 'love' them. In a nut shell, it's an empty argument.
"And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself*. There is none other commandment greater than these." mark 12:31
*unless your neighbor is gay
I guess that works if you define 'love' as letting anyone do anything, regardless of any consequences. My kids try the same thing on me as a parent, it never works.
i define love as treating others as i would want to be treated.
nice try, though
It's not your choice to "let" gays do anything.
Not in my opinion at least, obviously we disagree.
My point wasn't about letting or not letting gays do anything. My point was about the implication that since the Bible/God/Jesus calls for us to love one another that that somehow means that the meaning of love is to accept and allow any behavior that anyone wants to exhibit, and if you don't then you don't 'love' them. In a nut shell, it's an empty argument.
Oh ok, i better understand now.
Still not sure how gay marriage being legal hurts religion in any way. All a religious person has to do to get around this is go to a church that doesn't perform gay marriages.
I guess that works if you define 'love' as letting anyone do anything, regardless of any consequences. My kids try the same thing on me as a parent, it never works.
It's not your choice to "let" gays do anything.
Not in my opinion at least, obviously we disagree.
My point wasn't about letting or not letting gays do anything. My point was about the implication that since the Bible/God/Jesus calls for us to love one another that that somehow means that the meaning of love is to accept and allow any behavior that anyone wants to exhibit, and if you don't then you don't 'love' them. In a nut shell, it's an empty argument.
Top Pope official Mennini called for people of all faiths - including Christians, Jews, and Muslims - to "unite" to defeat gay marriage.
Funny that issues like fighting poverty, hunger, and war weren't important enough to unite on, but when it comes to the gays, well....
Any thoughts?
Archbishop Antonio Mennini, Pope's Representative, Calls For Christians, Jews, Muslims To Unite Against Gay Marriage
It's not about the 'gay' part, it's about the 'marriage' part. I do wish people would understand that. It is not Christian to 'hate' gays.... but we cannot support gay marriage. Why? Because it's against the teachings of Christ.
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." Matthew 19 4-6
"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." Mark 10 6-9
It's the 'marriage' part that is the problem, not that they are gay.
My point wasn't about letting or not letting gays do anything. My point was about the implication that since the Bible/God/Jesus calls for us to love one another that that somehow means that the meaning of love is to accept and allow any behavior that anyone wants to exhibit, and if you don't then you don't 'love' them. In a nut shell, it's an empty argument.
Oh ok, i better understand now.
Still not sure how gay marriage being legal hurts religion in any way. All a religious person has to do to get around this is go to a church that doesn't perform gay marriages.
I've always believed that gays should have a legal union of some sort, and I'd get on board and support it if they'd leave the word 'marriage' out of it. Like I said earlier, if it's so important to them, then lobby for a 'legal civil union' and take the word marriage out of the picture. They'd get what they supposedly want, and I think most christians would be okay with that as well. That's why I believe that it's about more than that, since this could have been settled a long time ago had that path been taken.
Oh ok, i better understand now.
Still not sure how gay marriage being legal hurts religion in any way. All a religious person has to do to get around this is go to a church that doesn't perform gay marriages.
I've always believed that gays should have a legal union of some sort, and I'd get on board and support it if they'd leave the word 'marriage' out of it. Like I said earlier, if it's so important to them, then lobby for a 'legal civil union' and take the word marriage out of the picture. They'd get what they supposedly want, and I think most christians would be okay with that as well. That's why I believe that it's about more than that, since this could have been settled a long time ago had that path been taken.
and that whole black rights thing would have been settled if we'd just started calling the back of the bus the front.
simple, really
It's not your choice to "let" gays do anything.
Not in my opinion at least, obviously we disagree.
My point wasn't about letting or not letting gays do anything. My point was about the implication that since the Bible/God/Jesus calls for us to love one another that that somehow means that the meaning of love is to accept and allow any behavior that anyone wants to exhibit, and if you don't then you don't 'love' them. In a nut shell, it's an empty argument.
Really quick again though.
I mention that our lives are incredibly short, and that we all deserve a shot at happiness.
If allowing gays to marry will make a certain group of people much more happier, and improve their lives drastically, all while not changing the lives or legal rights of straight people one bit (as they will still be allowed to marry people of the same sex and call it marriage), how can that possibly be a bad thing?
Im not saying that the church should be barred from speaking their opinion as I believe in freedom of speech but what I am saying is that they are only working to make the humanity worse off. No ones benefiting from banning gay marriage. Theres only losers. So whats the point?
My point wasn't about letting or not letting gays do anything. My point was about the implication that since the Bible/God/Jesus calls for us to love one another that that somehow means that the meaning of love is to accept and allow any behavior that anyone wants to exhibit, and if you don't then you don't 'love' them. In a nut shell, it's an empty argument.
Oh ok, i better understand now.
Still not sure how gay marriage being legal hurts religion in any way. All a religious person has to do to get around this is go to a church that doesn't perform gay marriages.
I've always believed that gays should have a legal union of some sort, and I'd get on board and support it if they'd leave the word 'marriage' out of it. Like I said earlier, if it's so important to them, then lobby for a 'legal civil union' and take the word marriage out of the picture. They'd get what they supposedly want, and I think most christians would be okay with that as well. That's why I believe that it's about more than that, since this could have been settled a long time ago had that path been taken.
On most of your points I agree with you. And if there's such a 'bad feeling' from a majority about having it called a marriage, then call it something else and move on. You get what you want, do you not? Unless that's not what they want?
On most of your points I agree with you. And if there's such a 'bad feeling' from a majority about having it called a marriage, then call it something else and move on. You get what you want, do you not? Unless that's not what they want?
How about this (as Doc mentioned, but a point I make quite frequently as well) we just get the government out of the “marriage business” altogether, and simply call all unions (same or opposite sex) “civil unions” or something like that under the law (public space), and then leave the word marriage left to be defined by whatever institution the couple is a part of (private space).
If they’re gay and want to be married in a Catholic Church, too bad, move on.
That way, everyone wins, and we can go back to focusing on policy making that will actually improve humanity as a whole, rather than make humanity worse off as a whole.
Oh ok, i better understand now.
Still not sure how gay marriage being legal hurts religion in any way. All a religious person has to do to get around this is go to a church that doesn't perform gay marriages.
I've always believed that gays should have a legal union of some sort, and I'd get on board and support it if they'd leave the word 'marriage' out of it. Like I said earlier, if it's so important to them, then lobby for a 'legal civil union' and take the word marriage out of the picture. They'd get what they supposedly want, and I think most christians would be okay with that as well. That's why I believe that it's about more than that, since this could have been settled a long time ago had that path been taken.
But that's still forcing your religious views on them. If there was a religion that said only gays can get married, would you support them coming over here and saying straights can't have the title marriage but can have "legal unions?"
A Breakdown of Gay Marriage Support by Religion - National - The Atlantic Wire
Also as we see there are groups of christians where the majority support gay marriage. Catholic and white mainline protestant for example.
