which is more destructive to the sanctity of marriage?

[ding]

The defense of marraige act will no longer be enforced by our government. Thank God for small favors. First let me say that the government has absolutely no business in the lives of it's citizens churches and especially their bedrooms. The next thing to do now is to get the churches out of our bedrooms.

Which is more destructive to the "sanctity of marriage"? Gay marriage or divorce? IMO it must be divorce. The divorce rate is over 50% in this country, and I recognize that repeat offenders artificially inflate that number, but not by that much.

The gay community is realatively small but compared to the press they get and the outrage directed at them for wanting the same rights as everyone else (as per the constitution) is unbelievable. You can see just about every reverend, priest, or pastor condemn the gay community and rail against them. They have gone far into the political arena to try and guarantee they do not get equal rights i.e. marriage. Why would they do this? IMO it is because organized religion has become an elitist organization. They need to make themselves feel superior to everyone else. This is why everyone else is going to hell but them and their particular brand of religion.

Divorce, is the third rail of religion. Pastors, preists, and reverends rarely, if at all, ever talk about divorce. Why is that? IMO it is because they do not want to loose their congregation. If they were to turn the same effort and energy they use against gays, against their own parrishoners, for divorcing they wouldn't have a congregation left. It is true that in the bible the appostles gave exceptions and reasons for divorce, but Jesus and God never did, hmm....can you imagine a priest saying "I'm sorry, but you can't get divorced because what is bound on earth is bound in heaven, Jesus says." The reply would be even funnier, "But Paul said...." I didn't realize that Paul trumps Jesus?

So the question I have is what is more destructive to the institution of Marriage? Homosexuals or Divorce?

Let's be honest here, OK? People who prefer having sex with the same gender want special rights. They already have equal rights.

I think they are both equally destructive.

 

[bodecea]

The defense of marraige act will no longer be enforced by our government. Thank God for small favors. First let me say that the government has absolutely no business in the lives of it's citizens churches and especially their bedrooms. The next thing to do now is to get the churches out of our bedrooms.

Which is more destructive to the "sanctity of marriage"? Gay marriage or divorce? IMO it must be divorce. The divorce rate is over 50% in this country, and I recognize that repeat offenders artificially inflate that number, but not by that much.

The gay community is realatively small but compared to the press they get and the outrage directed at them for wanting the same rights as everyone else (as per the constitution) is unbelievable. You can see just about every reverend, priest, or pastor condemn the gay community and rail against them. They have gone far into the political arena to try and guarantee they do not get equal rights i.e. marriage. Why would they do this? IMO it is because organized religion has become an elitist organization. They need to make themselves feel superior to everyone else. This is why everyone else is going to hell but them and their particular brand of religion.

Divorce, is the third rail of religion. Pastors, preists, and reverends rarely, if at all, ever talk about divorce. Why is that? IMO it is because they do not want to loose their congregation. If they were to turn the same effort and energy they use against gays, against their own parrishoners, for divorcing they wouldn't have a congregation left. It is true that in the bible the appostles gave exceptions and reasons for divorce, but Jesus and God never did, hmm....can you imagine a priest saying "I'm sorry, but you can't get divorced because what is bound on earth is bound in heaven, Jesus says." The reply would be even funnier, "But Paul said...." I didn't realize that Paul trumps Jesus?

So the question I have is what is more destructive to the institution of Marriage? Homosexuals or Divorce?

Let's be honest here, OK? People who prefer having sex with the same gender want special rights. They already have equal rights.

I think they are both equally destructive.

Special rights.....like being tax-exempt? That kind of special rights?

 

[ding]

The defense of marraige act will no longer be enforced by our government. Thank God for small favors. First let me say that the government has absolutely no business in the lives of it's citizens churches and especially their bedrooms. The next thing to do now is to get the churches out of our bedrooms.

Which is more destructive to the "sanctity of marriage"? Gay marriage or divorce? IMO it must be divorce. The divorce rate is over 50% in this country, and I recognize that repeat offenders artificially inflate that number, but not by that much.

The gay community is realatively small but compared to the press they get and the outrage directed at them for wanting the same rights as everyone else (as per the constitution) is unbelievable. You can see just about every reverend, priest, or pastor condemn the gay community and rail against them. They have gone far into the political arena to try and guarantee they do not get equal rights i.e. marriage. Why would they do this? IMO it is because organized religion has become an elitist organization. They need to make themselves feel superior to everyone else. This is why everyone else is going to hell but them and their particular brand of religion.

Divorce, is the third rail of religion. Pastors, preists, and reverends rarely, if at all, ever talk about divorce. Why is that? IMO it is because they do not want to loose their congregation. If they were to turn the same effort and energy they use against gays, against their own parrishoners, for divorcing they wouldn't have a congregation left. It is true that in the bible the appostles gave exceptions and reasons for divorce, but Jesus and God never did, hmm....can you imagine a priest saying "I'm sorry, but you can't get divorced because what is bound on earth is bound in heaven, Jesus says." The reply would be even funnier, "But Paul said...." I didn't realize that Paul trumps Jesus?

So the question I have is what is more destructive to the institution of Marriage? Homosexuals or Divorce?

Let's be honest here, OK? People who prefer having sex with the same gender want special rights. They already have equal rights.

I think they are both equally destructive.

Special rights.....like being tax-exempt? That kind of special rights?

For you to understand my point you would have to know about the time in our country's history that people were denied the right to marry and compare the differences to today.

 

[Penelope]

Adultery, lying, physical and or emotional abuse.

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

The church and the lay sacrificed marriage when they invited government in for the benefits (tax, child support, alimony). When you allow government into your personal affairs they are no longer personal. Not rocket science kids.

 

[Moonglow]

Getting married is a special right? Yeah a right to be tormented and depressed..

 

[BS Filter]

Same-sex marriage is more destructive because it destroys the meaning of marriage. Divorce is between two people. Changing the definition of marriage destroys the definition of covenant and fullness for future generations.

 

[ricechickie]

Divorce should be outlawed. You pledge "till death do you part" and that's it. FOREVER.

And UP goes the murder rate!

 

[TNHarley]

Personally, i think its irrelevant.
The govt got involved with marriage. How does constitutional equality not tie into that?
The govt should have NEVER got involved. Period.
So suck it up.

 

[TNHarley]

Same-sex marriage is more destructive because it destroys the meaning of marriage. Divorce is between two people. Changing the definition of marriage destroys the definition of covenant and fullness for future generations.

Indeed. It does mess with the historical meaning. BUT our noisy ass big brother got involved. The COTUS weighs more than definitions.

 

[AZGAL]

Right now government allows marriage between 2 people. I am not sure what rights polygamists have. There are many churches that decide whom they shall marry inside their church. There are unions of people who prefer to just "live together". Today there are a lot of options for people. It is not either divorce nor gays messing up marriage, it is the influence of Hollywood with all the rotating part
What does Hollywood mean? - Definitions.net
www.definitions.net/definition/Hollywood

... copy the glitter of Hollywood". Hollywood(adj). a district of Los Angeles long associated with the American film industry. Hollywood(adj). of or relating to the film industry in the United States. "a Hollywood actor". Hollywood(adj). flashy and vulgar. "young white women dressed Hollywood style"; "Hollywood philandering" ...

 

[Moonglow]

Right now government allows marriage between 2 people. I am not sure what rights polygamists have. There are many churches that decide whom they shall marry inside their church. There are unions of people who prefer to just "live together". Today there are a lot of options for people. It is not either divorce nor gays messing up marriage, it is the influence of Hollywood with all the rotating partnerships...

Really? I had rotating partners but I didn't live in California.It was usually in bed..

 

[AZGAL]

Later, humans began to form clans according to "surname". They realise that the further the relationship of mating, the better survival for the next generation of their offsprings will be. This foster mass marriage between clans. That is to say, one clan will select a group of males/females and then marry them with another group of males/females from another clan. This resulted in better survival of their offsprings.

3. Transformation from mass (group) marriage to polygamy or monogomy
The transformation from mass marriage to official system of marriage is considered a revolution IMO. It takes generations for the system to work.
Polygamy means one husband having several wives. This is not uncommon in history, as seen that a Chinese Emperor can have 3000 concubines in his Imperial palace.
Monogamy is more common today.
What are your views?

 

[TNHarley]

Right now government allows marriage between 2 people. I am not sure what rights polygamists have. There are many churches that decide whom they shall marry inside their church. There are unions of people who prefer to just "live together". Today there are a lot of options for people. It is not either divorce nor gays messing up marriage, it is the influence of Hollywood with all the rotating partnerships...

"Polygamy" should be legal too. Its just more institutional discrimination.

 

[yiostheoy]

The defense of marraige act will no longer be enforced by our government. Thank God for small favors. First let me say that the government has absolutely no business in the lives of it's citizens churches and especially their bedrooms. The next thing to do now is to get the churches out of our bedrooms.

Which is more destructive to the "sanctity of marriage"? Gay marriage or divorce? IMO it must be divorce. The divorce rate is over 50% in this country, and I recognize that repeat offenders artificially inflate that number, but not by that much.

The gay community is realatively small but compared to the press they get and the outrage directed at them for wanting the same rights as everyone else (as per the constitution) is unbelievable. You can see just about every reverend, priest, or pastor condemn the gay community and rail against them. They have gone far into the political arena to try and guarantee they do not get equal rights i.e. marriage. Why would they do this? IMO it is because organized religion has become an elitist organization. They need to make themselves feel superior to everyone else. This is why everyone else is going to hell but them and their particular brand of religion.

Divorce, is the third rail of religion. Pastors, preists, and reverends rarely, if at all, ever talk about divorce. Why is that? IMO it is because they do not want to loose their congregation. If they were to turn the same effort and energy they use against gays, against their own parrishoners, for divorcing they wouldn't have a congregation left. It is true that in the bible the appostles gave exceptions and reasons for divorce, but Jesus and God never did, hmm....can you imagine a priest saying "I'm sorry, but you can't get divorced because what is bound on earth is bound in heaven, Jesus says." The reply would be even funnier, "But Paul said...." I didn't realize that Paul trumps Jesus?

So the question I have is what is more destructive to the institution of Marriage? Homosexuals or Divorce?

Old thread. Really old.

 

[TNHarley]

Later, humans began to form clans according to "surname". They realise that the further the relationship of mating, the better survival for the next generation of their offsprings will be. This foster mass marriage between clans. That is to say, one clan will select a group of males/females and then marry them with another group of males/females from another clan. This resulted in better survival of their offsprings.

3. Transformation from mass (group) marriage to polygamy or monogomy
The transformation from mass marriage to official system of marriage is considered a revolution IMO. It takes generations for the system to work.
Polygamy means one husband having several wives. This is not uncommon in history, as seen that a Chinese Emperor can have 3000 concubines in his Imperial palace.
Monogamy is more common today.
What are your views?

I would kill myself if i had that many chicks lol

 

[yiostheoy]

The defense of marraige act will no longer be enforced by our government. Thank God for small favors. First let me say that the government has absolutely no business in the lives of it's citizens churches and especially their bedrooms. The next thing to do now is to get the churches out of our bedrooms.

Which is more destructive to the "sanctity of marriage"? Gay marriage or divorce? IMO it must be divorce. The divorce rate is over 50% in this country, and I recognize that repeat offenders artificially inflate that number, but not by that much.

The gay community is realatively small but compared to the press they get and the outrage directed at them for wanting the same rights as everyone else (as per the constitution) is unbelievable. You can see just about every reverend, priest, or pastor condemn the gay community and rail against them. They have gone far into the political arena to try and guarantee they do not get equal rights i.e. marriage. Why would they do this? IMO it is because organized religion has become an elitist organization. They need to make themselves feel superior to everyone else. This is why everyone else is going to hell but them and their particular brand of religion.

Divorce, is the third rail of religion. Pastors, preists, and reverends rarely, if at all, ever talk about divorce. Why is that? IMO it is because they do not want to loose their congregation. If they were to turn the same effort and energy they use against gays, against their own parrishoners, for divorcing they wouldn't have a congregation left. It is true that in the bible the appostles gave exceptions and reasons for divorce, but Jesus and God never did, hmm....can you imagine a priest saying "I'm sorry, but you can't get divorced because what is bound on earth is bound in heaven, Jesus says." The reply would be even funnier, "But Paul said...." I didn't realize that Paul trumps Jesus?

So the question I have is what is more destructive to the institution of Marriage? Homosexuals or Divorce?

Republicans at it again

White House staff secretary Rob Porter has resigned following newly published reports alleging that he physically abused his two ex-wives.

Porter resigned from his position on Wednesday, the White House confirmed.

Porter’s ex-wife, Jennifer Willoughby, said he emotionally, mentally and physically abused her, according to a report in The Daily Mail. After getting into an argument with her in 2010, Porter allegedly pulled her from the shower by the shoulders and yelled at her.

Colbie Holderness, Porter’s first wife, alleged that he punched her in 2005.

“He threw me down on the bed and punched me in the face,” Holderness told The Intercept. “I think he was shocked that he had lost control to that extent.”

Holderness provided photos to the publication showing a black eye she said she sustained during the incident.


Ryan Grim

✔@ryangrim

Senior White House aide Rob Porter physically assaulted two ex-wives, they tell @theintercept. Full story to come in the morning.

His first wife, Colbie Holderness, provided these photos from a vacation they took together in Florence, Italy:

1:53 AM - Feb 7, 2018

• 
  4,299
• 
  5,292 people are talking about this

Old thread resurrected for no apparent reason.

 

[Moonglow]

Later, humans began to form clans according to "surname". They realise that the further the relationship of mating, the better survival for the next generation of their offsprings will be. This foster mass marriage between clans. That is to say, one clan will select a group of males/females and then marry them with another group of males/females from another clan. This resulted in better survival of their offsprings.

3. Transformation from mass (group) marriage to polygamy or monogomy
The transformation from mass marriage to official system of marriage is considered a revolution IMO. It takes generations for the system to work.
Polygamy means one husband having several wives. This is not uncommon in history, as seen that a Chinese Emperor can have 3000 concubines in his Imperial palace.
Monogamy is more common today.
What are your views?

I would kill myself if i had that many chicks lol

Me too from a heart attack...

 

[yiostheoy]

Porter must have a very short fuse.

Wonder what his wives did to set him off?

I prefer a complete story rather than a one sided one.

 

[Moonglow]

The defense of marraige act will no longer be enforced by our government. Thank God for small favors. First let me say that the government has absolutely no business in the lives of it's citizens churches and especially their bedrooms. The next thing to do now is to get the churches out of our bedrooms.

Which is more destructive to the "sanctity of marriage"? Gay marriage or divorce? IMO it must be divorce. The divorce rate is over 50% in this country, and I recognize that repeat offenders artificially inflate that number, but not by that much.

The gay community is realatively small but compared to the press they get and the outrage directed at them for wanting the same rights as everyone else (as per the constitution) is unbelievable. You can see just about every reverend, priest, or pastor condemn the gay community and rail against them. They have gone far into the political arena to try and guarantee they do not get equal rights i.e. marriage. Why would they do this? IMO it is because organized religion has become an elitist organization. They need to make themselves feel superior to everyone else. This is why everyone else is going to hell but them and their particular brand of religion.

Divorce, is the third rail of religion. Pastors, preists, and reverends rarely, if at all, ever talk about divorce. Why is that? IMO it is because they do not want to loose their congregation. If they were to turn the same effort and energy they use against gays, against their own parrishoners, for divorcing they wouldn't have a congregation left. It is true that in the bible the appostles gave exceptions and reasons for divorce, but Jesus and God never did, hmm....can you imagine a priest saying "I'm sorry, but you can't get divorced because what is bound on earth is bound in heaven, Jesus says." The reply would be even funnier, "But Paul said...." I didn't realize that Paul trumps Jesus?

So the question I have is what is more destructive to the institution of Marriage? Homosexuals or Divorce?

Republicans at it again

White House staff secretary Rob Porter has resigned following newly published reports alleging that he physically abused his two ex-wives.

Porter resigned from his position on Wednesday, the White House confirmed.

Porter’s ex-wife, Jennifer Willoughby, said he emotionally, mentally and physically abused her, according to a report in The Daily Mail. After getting into an argument with her in 2010, Porter allegedly pulled her from the shower by the shoulders and yelled at her.

Colbie Holderness, Porter’s first wife, alleged that he punched her in 2005.

“He threw me down on the bed and punched me in the face,” Holderness told The Intercept. “I think he was shocked that he had lost control to that extent.”

Holderness provided photos to the publication showing a black eye she said she sustained during the incident.


Ryan Grim

✔@ryangrim

Senior White House aide Rob Porter physically assaulted two ex-wives, they tell @theintercept. Full story to come in the morning.

His first wife, Colbie Holderness, provided these photos from a vacation they took together in Florence, Italy:

1:53 AM - Feb 7, 2018

• 
  4,299
• 
  5,292 people are talking about this

Old thread resurrected for no apparent reason.

They knew you would show up if it was resurrected......