Don't say we weren't warned.

[gallantwarrior]

One chink in the dyke and it's off to the races, a no holds barred, anything goes free-for-all. As long as it feels good, go for it.

Married lesbian threesome expecting their first baby in July | Mail Online

 

[idb]

One chink in the dyke and it's off to the races, a no holds barred, anything goes free-for-all. As long as it feels good, go for it.

Married lesbian threesome expecting their first baby in July | Mail Online

...except they're not all married to each other.
Apart from that your post is totally...ya knooowww...like, really true...?

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right - the Bible says if we turn our backs to his ways, he'll turn his back on us...

Our nation is lost without God
Apr. 25, 2014 | Today is the National Day of Prayer in our country. The Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) has a graphic on its website that states, “God and Government, A Dangerous Mix.” They are opposed to a National Day of Prayer.

I found their statement about God and government interesting for several reasons. The first is that history would tell us that, while many “god-oriented” governments have been repressive, atheism and government is at least as dangerous a mix (FFRF is a member of Atheist Alliance International). Stalin and Lenin would have agreed with FFRF and atheism, but I don’t think that we would want to live under their rule.

Secondly, the founders of our country would disagree with FFRF. George Washington said, “It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.” John Adams said, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion … Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” The founders of our country knew that God was essential to good government.

Thirdly, although the atheist will not acknowledge it, God and government inextricably are tied together because God is the supreme governor over all human affairs. God tells us that “there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God” (Romans 13:1).

A nation may choose to ignore God, but that won’t make Him go away. Thus, it is both wise and beneficial to have a National Day of Prayer. However, it is also necessary that the nation celebrating that day is truly desirous of the Lord’s guidance and favor. Our currency states “In God We Trust,” but those are mere words if we really won’t listen to God. Likewise, a National Day of Prayer is nice, but it is only religious window dressing if we really want to do our own thing, instead of following God. God cannot just be a by-word. He must be at the heart of a nation if He is to be of any blessing and benefit.

MORE

See also:

Officials Outraged Plant Burning Aborted Babies for Electricity: “Ultimate Disrespect to Innocence”
4/24/14 ~ Local officials in central Oregon are upset that an energy plant is reportedly burning aborted babies from Canada to generate electricity.

Following a LifeNews report that received national attention, the Marion County Board of Commissioners issued a statement indicating it will temporarily halt all burning of “medical waste” while it investigates. Today the Marion County Board of Commissioners is holding an emergency meeting to determine how the Covanta Waste-to-Energy Facility was authorized to burn medicate “waste” that includes the remains of aborted babies. “We are outraged and disgusted that this material could be included in medical waste received at the facility,” said Commissioner Janet Carlson. “We did not know this practice was occurring until today. We are taking immediate action and initiating discussions with Covanta Marion to make certain that this type of medical waste is not accepted in the future.”

In a new interview with the Associated Press, Kristy Anderson, a British Columbia Health Ministry spokeswoman, said that, in addition to the bodies of aborted babies, the medical waste also includes amputated limbs and cancerous tissue. She said the provincial government agency has a contract with a firm that sends the waste to Oregon. A local report from Oregon has more on the background and comments from outraged local officials: The county has been using the Covanta facility in Brooks, to turn waste into energy for years. The county uses municipal waste from homes and businesses plus medical waste as incinerator fuel to produce power.

Marion County Chair Sam Brentano says if that is the case it cannot be tolerated. He immediately stopped the burning of all medical waste while the county looks into the report. An emergency commission meeting was scheduled for Thursday morning. “Bottom line I’m not going to facilitate abortion,” said Brentano. “It’s the ultimate disrespect to innocence.” The burner company Covanta told KGW Wednesday night that while they burn the waste, it’s the county that decides what trash gets incinerated. “Marion County contracts for and delivers medical waste to the facility and Covanta has no responsibility for the program,” the company said. “Covanta is shocked by these allegations and is discontinuing the receipt of this waste stream until we have been assured by the county that this alleged material is not being delivered to the facility.”

According to its website, it processes 550 tons per day of municipal solid waste, generating up to 13 megawatts of energy sold to Portland General Electric. County spokeswoman Jolene Kelley said medical waste has been included in the program for some time, but the commissioners never had any indication that fetal tissue might be included. “We learned that today,” she said.

Officials Outraged Plant Burning Aborted Babies for Electricity: "Ultimate Disrespect to Innocence" | LifeNews.com

 

[idb]

Fantastic headline!!!!!

an energy plant is reportedly burning aborted babies from Canada to generate electricity

 

[jon_berzerk]

One chink in the dyke and it's off to the races, a no holds barred, anything goes free-for-all. As long as it feels good, go for it.

Married lesbian threesome expecting their first baby in July | Mail Online

...except they're not all married to each other.
Apart from that your post is totally...ya knooowww...like, really true...?

do you have a problem with them being able to marry

 

[idb]

One chink in the dyke and it's off to the races, a no holds barred, anything goes free-for-all. As long as it feels good, go for it.

Married lesbian threesome expecting their first baby in July | Mail Online

...except they're not all married to each other.
Apart from that your post is totally...ya knooowww...like, really true...?

do you have a problem with them being able to marry

I hadn't thought about it...have you?

 

[jon_berzerk]

...except they're not all married to each other.
Apart from that your post is totally...ya knooowww...like, really true...?

do you have a problem with them being able to marry

I hadn't thought about it...have you?

it doesnt bother me a bit

 

[idb]

do you have a problem with them being able to marry

I hadn't thought about it...have you?

it doesnt bother me a bit

I suspect I'll be similar...if I bother to think about it.

 

[BDBoop]

Yup. Our world has enough REAL issues to worry about.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I find it interesting because some were adamant that polygamy and other alternative forms of family configurations would never be an issue if same-gender unions were permitted. So, if these three women are permitted their "marriage" (that's what they consider their union to be), why not allow polygamy. As long as all parties are in agreement, what difference does it make.

 

[Howey]

One chink in the dyke and it's off to the races, a no holds barred, anything goes free-for-all. As long as it feels good, go for it.

Married lesbian threesome expecting their first baby in July | Mail Online

Only two of them are legally married, but thanks for reading The Mail.

lol

 

[Moonglow]

Only three lesbians?? Well I guess it's enough for a daisy chain....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

One chink in the dyke and it's off to the races, a no holds barred, anything goes free-for-all. As long as it feels good, go for it.

Married lesbian threesome expecting their first baby in July | Mail Online

Nonsense.

You and others on the arrogant, authoritarian social right need to address your inane, unwarranted fear of, and hostility toward, diversity and expressions of individual liberty.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

One chink in the dyke and it's off to the races, a no holds barred, anything goes free-for-all. As long as it feels good, go for it.

Married lesbian threesome expecting their first baby in July | Mail Online

...except they're not all married to each other.
Apart from that your post is totally...ya knooowww...like, really true...?

American conservatives don’t let facts and the truth get in the way of trying to exploit a non-controversy for some perceived partisan gain.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I find it interesting because some were adamant that polygamy and other alternative forms of family configurations would never be an issue if same-gender unions were permitted. So, if these three women are permitted their "marriage" (that's what they consider their union to be), why not allow polygamy. As long as all parties are in agreement, what difference does it make.

GW, their "marriage" is in their minds.

The reactionaries on the weird far right think they are "normal."

The libs on the far left think they are "normal."

It's America.

 

[MaryL]

I love this stuff. So trashy, like something out of the National Enquirer. Three Lesbos demand marriage for the sake of their child! The Sasquatch demands equal rights! Ghost Diet exposed! Well, except, this isn't a joke. Gays take this nonsense seriously. Should the rest of us, though?

 

[HenryBHough]

Beware forced marriages.

It happens in some cultures. I'm not going to invite you to call me "racist" by mentioning any by name.

Those are bad enough; it is possible for a country firmly opposed to them to quickly discover, through asking the coerced member of the couple, how it came to be.

But as things develop how are we going to firmly establish the state of mind of goats, sheep or even chickens at the time of their marriages? I do think we should resolve that before legalizing those unions.

 

[percysunshine]

It is only a matter of time;

Praying mantis sucks out male brain after mating.

.

 

[HenryBHough]

Happens not infrequently during mating between human(oids). Apparently less potentially fatal and some say more pleasurable.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I find it interesting because some were adamant that polygamy and other alternative forms of family configurations would never be an issue if same-gender unions were permitted. So, if these three women are permitted their "marriage" (that's what they consider their union to be), why not allow polygamy. As long as all parties are in agreement, what difference does it make.

What’s interesting is that you and others on the social right keep returning to this failed, tired, and discredited canard.

Either you’re a demagogue or ignorant as to the facts of the issue.

In the event of the latter:

Marriage law can accommodate only two equal partners, same- or opposite-sex; not three or more.

These three individuals are at liberty to call their arrangement whatever they wish, including ‘marriage.’ But as a fact of contract law and in the eyes of their state of residence they are not married, as marriage is between two equal partners only.

Recognizing the equal protection rights of same-sex couples to enter into marriage contracts will in no way change this, it hasn’t changed this fact in the ten years states have acknowledged that right, it will not change when same-sex couples’ right to marry is recognized in every state.

The mistake you make is to incorrectly perceive that recognizing the right of same-sex couples to access marriage law will ‘change’ marriage, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth; the marriage law that same-sex couples are afforded is the same marriage law afforded to opposite-sex couples, unchanged, unaltered, and not ‘redefined.’