Religious conservatives will never abandon Trump

[martybegan]

And let the party dedicated to your demise win the election....

The issue for them is which party would be more likely to try and force them to live their lives in a way against their own morals.

And that party is the Democrats.

wow.

Good stuff there. LOL

Again, it underscores why I’m very comfortable with my leaving of the Organized Religion scam.

Like ex-smokers, people who leave religion are usually the most zealous bigots against those who still practice it.

"I can't understand them, so I must destroy them, fuh fuh fuh"

Read the Religion board and show me threads started by atheists to attack Christians

I will show you multiple threads of Christians attacking atheists

You just have to read posts by JoeB, you don't have to go thread searching.

Any time you hear people using the "magic sky pixie" line, that's attacking someone's religion.

FAIL

Show me threads started by Atheists about "magic pixie in the sky"

Again, look up any post by JoeB, I just responded to one 5 minutes ago.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yeah, I'm sure you'd like to pretend that state legislatures banned something that was previously allowed, but that's not how it worked.

The state government deciding what does and doesn't constitute a recognized marriage, for legal purposes, is actually exactly within the correct purview of government. It never stopped anyone from making binding legally-contractual arrangements of their own that just didn't happen to wear that particular label. This pretense of "without the word marriage, we couldn't write wills or medical powers of attorney!" is really old and threadbare.

A state government deciding what is a marriage tramples on a right held by the individual. Why should people go through all this legal maneuvering when they could simply get a license and have a ceremony, civil or religious, so that the contract they made must be recognized by all levels of government, including the federal government?

Is there any legal document that a couple can execute that would bind the federal government to pay out Social Security surviver's benefits to a surviving partner and allow the couple to file a joint tax return? What legal document would prevent greedy relatives from challenging a surviving partner's right to inherit.or a partner's right to decide on treatment of a patient?

Why should any couple be forced into a legal morass when other couples have access to a simple, streamlined procedure that grants them all of these rights and more?

Why not use the term "marriage" on the civil level? What would be the point of not using it? If a couple wants to enter into addtional obligations, they can marry in a ceremony within their religious group that outlines their additional religious responsibilities. Nobody is stopping you from doing this. I know that Jewish people include a contract in their wedding customs.

Way to start in the middle and misinterpret in all directions.

1) Last time I checked, there is no "individual right" to have any government entity define any contract, marital or otherwise, according to one's personal opinions.

2) Whether or not it would be "easier" for a particular individual to enter into one specific contractual arrangement rather than another is not relevant to whether or not that contractual arrangement is legally appropriate. I might think it's "easier" for me to pass on my property when I die if I marry my son (blech!) rather than write up a will, but that doesn't in any way convey some sort of "right" for me to choose the first contract rather than the second.

3) Anyone who thinks that simply getting married obviates the need for other legal arrangements in regards to wills, medical powers of attorney, etc. is a ******* moron who really needs a sit-down with an attorney and/or financial planner. I have been married for 24 years as of last month, and I can assure you that I still have both a will and a legal directive in the event of my medical incapacitation.

4) I don't personally approve of Social Security in the first place, and therefore have very little patience with the government saying, "We're going to take your money, whether you like it or not, to MAYBE give back to you when you're old, and if you die before you hit the magic age (or if you're too rich when you get there), we're just gonna keep it." I would quite frankly prefer that people's retirement funds be privatized and under their personal control to begin with.

5) If you think marriage/divorce is "simple and streamlined" in comparison to virtually any other legal arrangement to accomplish the same things, you're nuts. Getting into a marriage might be quick and easy, but nothing after that point is.

6) The point of not using the word "marriage" for things outside of its original meaning and intent is just that: words mean things. And "marriage" means a lot more things outside of the simple legislative recognition that homosexual activists pretend is their reason for demanding its redefinition. In fact, all the things it means outside of the basic legal and financial contract - which is supposed to be what the law is acknowledging - are the REAL reasons behind this fight.

Marriage is a right residing with an individual. Furthemore, no government has the right to tell anyone with whom to contract or not, and marriage contracts are treated differently than other contracts, legally speaking..

The marriage contract is easy to enter into, without all the forms. We are not talking about getting out of it. What federal form did you fill out that obligates the federal government to accept a joint tax return from you and your spouse or destribute survivor's benefits to your spouse if something happens to you?

You don't have any right to interfer with other people's civil rights just because you

The term "marriage" is statutory. If you got married in your cult ceremony, the person who offiated still had to sign a legal document, but you still got your bibble stuff even though you weren't married at the courthouse and the only thing that you signed was your license.

Your membership in a cult that you chose doesn't give you the right to interfere with anyone else's civil rights. The world doesn't revolve around you.

Was there some point at which I said, "Gosh, Lice, PLEASE state your personal screwed-all-to-hell worldview to me as established fact, because I am going to respect it just as if it came from a real person"? Because if I did, I certainly don't remember it.

Let me know when you have something meaningful to say. IF that ever happens.

You have now fully conceded that you have no arguments whatsoever and the only thing you have is condescension and hate.

Your concession is noted.

"You listed a whole bunch of points, but my snowflake butt is chapped because you're mean enough to treat me like the fool I am, so I take that as a surrender."

You have now fully conceded that the only "argument" you recognize is "Oh, Dragontwat, you're SUCH a good and moral person that it makes everything you say too wonderful to be fact-checked."

Your failure is noted . . . as always.

Feel free to go bother people about your own non-entity country now. The important country is too busy for your peanut gallery yabbering.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A state government deciding what is a marriage tramples on a right held by the individual. Why should people go through all this legal maneuvering when they could simply get a license and have a ceremony, civil or religious, so that the contract they made must be recognized by all levels of government, including the federal government?

Is there any legal document that a couple can execute that would bind the federal government to pay out Social Security surviver's benefits to a surviving partner and allow the couple to file a joint tax return? What legal document would prevent greedy relatives from challenging a surviving partner's right to inherit.or a partner's right to decide on treatment of a patient?

Why should any couple be forced into a legal morass when other couples have access to a simple, streamlined procedure that grants them all of these rights and more?

Why not use the term "marriage" on the civil level? What would be the point of not using it? If a couple wants to enter into addtional obligations, they can marry in a ceremony within their religious group that outlines their additional religious responsibilities. Nobody is stopping you from doing this. I know that Jewish people include a contract in their wedding customs.

Way to start in the middle and misinterpret in all directions.

1) Last time I checked, there is no "individual right" to have any government entity define any contract, marital or otherwise, according to one's personal opinions.

2) Whether or not it would be "easier" for a particular individual to enter into one specific contractual arrangement rather than another is not relevant to whether or not that contractual arrangement is legally appropriate. I might think it's "easier" for me to pass on my property when I die if I marry my son (blech!) rather than write up a will, but that doesn't in any way convey some sort of "right" for me to choose the first contract rather than the second.

3) Anyone who thinks that simply getting married obviates the need for other legal arrangements in regards to wills, medical powers of attorney, etc. is a ******* moron who really needs a sit-down with an attorney and/or financial planner. I have been married for 24 years as of last month, and I can assure you that I still have both a will and a legal directive in the event of my medical incapacitation.

4) I don't personally approve of Social Security in the first place, and therefore have very little patience with the government saying, "We're going to take your money, whether you like it or not, to MAYBE give back to you when you're old, and if you die before you hit the magic age (or if you're too rich when you get there), we're just gonna keep it." I would quite frankly prefer that people's retirement funds be privatized and under their personal control to begin with.

5) If you think marriage/divorce is "simple and streamlined" in comparison to virtually any other legal arrangement to accomplish the same things, you're nuts. Getting into a marriage might be quick and easy, but nothing after that point is.

6) The point of not using the word "marriage" for things outside of its original meaning and intent is just that: words mean things. And "marriage" means a lot more things outside of the simple legislative recognition that homosexual activists pretend is their reason for demanding its redefinition. In fact, all the things it means outside of the basic legal and financial contract - which is supposed to be what the law is acknowledging - are the REAL reasons behind this fight.

Marriage is a right residing with an individual. Furthemore, no government has the right to tell anyone with whom to contract or not, and marriage contracts are treated differently than other contracts, legally speaking..

The marriage contract is easy to enter into, without all the forms. We are not talking about getting out of it. What federal form did you fill out that obligates the federal government to accept a joint tax return from you and your spouse or destribute survivor's benefits to your spouse if something happens to you?

You don't have any right to interfer with other people's civil rights just because you

The term "marriage" is statutory. If you got married in your cult ceremony, the person who offiated still had to sign a legal document, but you still got your bibble stuff even though you weren't married at the courthouse and the only thing that you signed was your license.

Your membership in a cult that you chose doesn't give you the right to interfere with anyone else's civil rights. The world doesn't revolve around you.

Was there some point at which I said, "Gosh, Lice, PLEASE state your personal screwed-all-to-hell worldview to me as established fact, because I am going to respect it just as if it came from a real person"? Because if I did, I certainly don't remember it.

Let me know when you have something meaningful to say. IF that ever happens.

You have now fully conceded that you have no arguments whatsoever and the only thing you have is condescension and hate.

Your concession is noted.

Really, have you encountered a more dreadful person on this board than Cecilie1200 ?

Glad to hear that I'm not being too subtle about my contempt for you, Cornball. I'd hate to have you still thinking you're some sort of person.

 

[busybee01]

Describe, in detail, how the Democratic primary was “rigged”.

Superdelegates.

Superdelegates don't "rig" the system. Those are the primary rules all candidates agree to. All voters that wanted to were allowed to vote for Bernie. 3 MILLION fewer did than voted for Hillary. A far greater margin than between Clinton and Obama.

The delegate system is set up similar to the EV system, so you do have a "dead vote" component.

It's still not a rigged system. Every voter that wanted to vote for Sanders could. 3 MILLION fewer did so.

Who voted for the superdelegates?

The superdelegates didn't matter. Clinton beat Sanders among the delegates awarded by the vote.

In 2008, the superdelegates backed Clinton by a large margin. However as Obama won states, the superdelegates shifted to Obama. Had Sanders done the same thing, he would have picked up the superdelegates.

 

[martybegan]

Superdelegates.

Superdelegates don't "rig" the system. Those are the primary rules all candidates agree to. All voters that wanted to were allowed to vote for Bernie. 3 MILLION fewer did than voted for Hillary. A far greater margin than between Clinton and Obama.

The delegate system is set up similar to the EV system, so you do have a "dead vote" component.

It's still not a rigged system. Every voter that wanted to vote for Sanders could. 3 MILLION fewer did so.

Who voted for the superdelegates?

The superdelegates didn't matter. Clinton beat Sanders among the delegates awarded by the vote.

In 2008, the superdelegates backed Clinton by a large margin. However as Obama won states, the superdelegates shifted to Obama. Had Sanders done the same thing, he would have picked up the superdelegates.

it's still, ironically, undemocratic.

 

[Cecilie1200]

[


1) We don't believe sperm are sacred. We never have. The whole sperm thing is a left-wing attempt at dodging the issue of abortion by way of left-wing abysmal ignorance of basic reproductive biology. Just because you baby-killing mouthbreathers have spent the last 50 years shouting, "If you think abortion is murder, then you have to think masturbation is too!" does NOT in any way make your stupidity any part of OUR beliefs.

Who is "we"? Genesis 38 has been misinterpreted by Christians for centuries.

6 For his first son Er, Judah got a wife whose name was Tamar.

7 Er’s conduct was evil, and it displeased the LORD, so the LORD killed him.

8 Then Judah said to Er’s brother Onan, “Go and sleep with your brother’s widow. Fulfill your obligation to her as her husband’s brother, so that your brother may have descendants.”

9 But Onan knew that the children would not belong to him, so when he had intercourse with his brother’s widow, he let the semen spill on the ground, so that there would be no children for his brother.

10 What he did displeased the LORD, and the LORD killed him also.

I can't tell you how much I value your "wisdom" on how we are "misinterpreting" the Bible because we don't see it the way you do. I can't tell you, because it's impossible to measure negatives to that extent.

Again, who is "we"? Just you and your rice crispies? What do "we" believe this passage refers to?

Cecile you should recognize that she will never know what “we” means. Or rather she does...and feels hatred for it.
I know that’s not pleasant but it’s true.

I’m asking who she thinks she’s speaking for because the “sperm as sacred” issue has been long debated in religion.

Mainstream pro-lifers, dipshit. And also mainstream Christians, depending on which sentence you're referring to. You know, two of those groups of people whose beliefs you imagine you "know" all about without ever having actually sullied yourself by speaking to one and ASKING what they believe and why.

Your admired (by you, anyway) abilities at cherrypicking Bible verses aside - since it means exactly jack and shit - the beliefs of both groups continue to be exactly what they are, not whatever straw man you want to build up to avoid having to actually take them seriously enough to educate yourself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Way to start in the middle and misinterpret in all directions.

1) Last time I checked, there is no "individual right" to have any government entity define any contract, marital or otherwise, according to one's personal opinions.

2) Whether or not it would be "easier" for a particular individual to enter into one specific contractual arrangement rather than another is not relevant to whether or not that contractual arrangement is legally appropriate. I might think it's "easier" for me to pass on my property when I die if I marry my son (blech!) rather than write up a will, but that doesn't in any way convey some sort of "right" for me to choose the first contract rather than the second.

3) Anyone who thinks that simply getting married obviates the need for other legal arrangements in regards to wills, medical powers of attorney, etc. is a ******* moron who really needs a sit-down with an attorney and/or financial planner. I have been married for 24 years as of last month, and I can assure you that I still have both a will and a legal directive in the event of my medical incapacitation.

4) I don't personally approve of Social Security in the first place, and therefore have very little patience with the government saying, "We're going to take your money, whether you like it or not, to MAYBE give back to you when you're old, and if you die before you hit the magic age (or if you're too rich when you get there), we're just gonna keep it." I would quite frankly prefer that people's retirement funds be privatized and under their personal control to begin with.

5) If you think marriage/divorce is "simple and streamlined" in comparison to virtually any other legal arrangement to accomplish the same things, you're nuts. Getting into a marriage might be quick and easy, but nothing after that point is.

6) The point of not using the word "marriage" for things outside of its original meaning and intent is just that: words mean things. And "marriage" means a lot more things outside of the simple legislative recognition that homosexual activists pretend is their reason for demanding its redefinition. In fact, all the things it means outside of the basic legal and financial contract - which is supposed to be what the law is acknowledging - are the REAL reasons behind this fight.

Marriage is a right residing with an individual. Furthemore, no government has the right to tell anyone with whom to contract or not, and marriage contracts are treated differently than other contracts, legally speaking..

The marriage contract is easy to enter into, without all the forms. We are not talking about getting out of it. What federal form did you fill out that obligates the federal government to accept a joint tax return from you and your spouse or destribute survivor's benefits to your spouse if something happens to you?

You don't have any right to interfer with other people's civil rights just because you

The term "marriage" is statutory. If you got married in your cult ceremony, the person who offiated still had to sign a legal document, but you still got your bibble stuff even though you weren't married at the courthouse and the only thing that you signed was your license.

Your membership in a cult that you chose doesn't give you the right to interfere with anyone else's civil rights. The world doesn't revolve around you.

Was there some point at which I said, "Gosh, Lice, PLEASE state your personal screwed-all-to-hell worldview to me as established fact, because I am going to respect it just as if it came from a real person"? Because if I did, I certainly don't remember it.

Let me know when you have something meaningful to say. IF that ever happens.

You have now fully conceded that you have no arguments whatsoever and the only thing you have is condescension and hate.

Your concession is noted.

Really, have you encountered a more dreadful person on this board than Cecilie1200 ?

She certainly ranks among the most dreadful. She seems to want to force all of us into her fantasy world, which revolves around her prejudices and rejection of facts. She certainly knows absolutely nothing about how our legal system works. And there is her foul mouth and personal attacks. She's one of those folks who sticks her fingers in her ears and yells "LA LA LA LA" when you try to explain something to her. Totally dense.

Certainly glad you and the other bitter twats have found your correct metier. I could have told you all years ago that you were only good for telling each other how smart and wonderful you are, rather than trying to talk to real people and proving that you aren't.

 

[DOTR]

Who is "we"? Genesis 38 has been misinterpreted by Christians for centuries.

6 For his first son Er, Judah got a wife whose name was Tamar.

7 Er’s conduct was evil, and it displeased the LORD, so the LORD killed him.

8 Then Judah said to Er’s brother Onan, “Go and sleep with your brother’s widow. Fulfill your obligation to her as her husband’s brother, so that your brother may have descendants.”

9 But Onan knew that the children would not belong to him, so when he had intercourse with his brother’s widow, he let the semen spill on the ground, so that there would be no children for his brother.

10 What he did displeased the LORD, and the LORD killed him also.

I can't tell you how much I value your "wisdom" on how we are "misinterpreting" the Bible because we don't see it the way you do. I can't tell you, because it's impossible to measure negatives to that extent.

Again, who is "we"? Just you and your rice crispies? What do "we" believe this passage refers to?

Cecile you should recognize that she will never know what “we” means. Or rather she does...and feels hatred for it.
I know that’s not pleasant but it’s true.

I’m asking who she thinks she’s speaking for because the “sperm as sacred” issue has been long debated in religion.

Mainstream pro-lifers, dipshit. And also mainstream Christians, depending on which sentence you're referring to. You know, two of those groups of people whose beliefs you imagine you "know" all about without ever having actually sullied yourself by speaking to one and ASKING what they believe and why.

Your admired (by you, anyway) abilities at cherrypicking Bible verses aside - since it means exactly jack and shit - the beliefs of both groups continue to be exactly what they are, not whatever straw man you want to build up to avoid having to actually take them seriously enough to educate yourself.

Funny how non Christians always know best what Christians should believe.

 

[DOTR]

Superdelegates don't "rig" the system. Those are the primary rules all candidates agree to. All voters that wanted to were allowed to vote for Bernie. 3 MILLION fewer did than voted for Hillary. A far greater margin than between Clinton and Obama.

The delegate system is set up similar to the EV system, so you do have a "dead vote" component.

It's still not a rigged system. Every voter that wanted to vote for Sanders could. 3 MILLION fewer did so.

Who voted for the superdelegates?

The superdelegates didn't matter. Clinton beat Sanders among the delegates awarded by the vote.

In 2008, the superdelegates backed Clinton by a large margin. However as Obama won states, the superdelegates shifted to Obama. Had Sanders done the same thing, he would have picked up the superdelegates.

it's still, ironically, undemocratic.

The Democrats aren’t even close to being a democratic organization. The deck is stacked with superdelegates. Watch how they control their own party members and imagine what they do with control of the government.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Way to start in the middle and misinterpret in all directions.

1) Last time I checked, there is no "individual right" to have any government entity define any contract, marital or otherwise, according to one's personal opinions.

2) Whether or not it would be "easier" for a particular individual to enter into one specific contractual arrangement rather than another is not relevant to whether or not that contractual arrangement is legally appropriate. I might think it's "easier" for me to pass on my property when I die if I marry my son (blech!) rather than write up a will, but that doesn't in any way convey some sort of "right" for me to choose the first contract rather than the second.

3) Anyone who thinks that simply getting married obviates the need for other legal arrangements in regards to wills, medical powers of attorney, etc. is a ******* moron who really needs a sit-down with an attorney and/or financial planner. I have been married for 24 years as of last month, and I can assure you that I still have both a will and a legal directive in the event of my medical incapacitation.

4) I don't personally approve of Social Security in the first place, and therefore have very little patience with the government saying, "We're going to take your money, whether you like it or not, to MAYBE give back to you when you're old, and if you die before you hit the magic age (or if you're too rich when you get there), we're just gonna keep it." I would quite frankly prefer that people's retirement funds be privatized and under their personal control to begin with.

5) If you think marriage/divorce is "simple and streamlined" in comparison to virtually any other legal arrangement to accomplish the same things, you're nuts. Getting into a marriage might be quick and easy, but nothing after that point is.

6) The point of not using the word "marriage" for things outside of its original meaning and intent is just that: words mean things. And "marriage" means a lot more things outside of the simple legislative recognition that homosexual activists pretend is their reason for demanding its redefinition. In fact, all the things it means outside of the basic legal and financial contract - which is supposed to be what the law is acknowledging - are the REAL reasons behind this fight.

Marriage is a right residing with an individual. Furthemore, no government has the right to tell anyone with whom to contract or not, and marriage contracts are treated differently than other contracts, legally speaking..

The marriage contract is easy to enter into, without all the forms. We are not talking about getting out of it. What federal form did you fill out that obligates the federal government to accept a joint tax return from you and your spouse or destribute survivor's benefits to your spouse if something happens to you?

You don't have any right to interfer with other people's civil rights just because you

The term "marriage" is statutory. If you got married in your cult ceremony, the person who offiated still had to sign a legal document, but you still got your bibble stuff even though you weren't married at the courthouse and the only thing that you signed was your license.

Your membership in a cult that you chose doesn't give you the right to interfere with anyone else's civil rights. The world doesn't revolve around you.

Was there some point at which I said, "Gosh, Lice, PLEASE state your personal screwed-all-to-hell worldview to me as established fact, because I am going to respect it just as if it came from a real person"? Because if I did, I certainly don't remember it.

Let me know when you have something meaningful to say. IF that ever happens.

You have now fully conceded that you have no arguments whatsoever and the only thing you have is condescension and hate.

Your concession is noted.

Really, have you encountered a more dreadful person on this board than Cecilie1200 ?

Dozens. But that she's a "dreadful person" means she's exactly what I know her to be: a smart conservative Christian woman who doesn't tow your line.

You know who else are "dreadful people"? Black conservatives. Hispanic conservatives. Gay conservatives. Basically any conservatives other than White Christian Men, who I have been told you are waiting to die.

Small minded people, the entire lot of you.

Thanks, but leave the cackling hen party to themselves. We're all better off if they're talking to each other about how superior they are and how "mean" I am for refusing to believe their self-appointed "goodness", instead of bothering people with their "My opinions should be respected just for existing" nonsense.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They may not approve of his life, but unlike the democrats, he will not go after what is important in THEIR lives. Democrats offer nothing to Evangelicals except more attacks on their beliefs and lives.

Which kind of shows how fucked up Evangelical Christians are, doesn't it?

"He might be a creep who ***** porn stars, but he will never, ever judge my homophobia and racism! He'll encourage it!"

I can’t wait until you and all the other scum are sliced up into many tiny pieces during the civil war that is coming up in 2020.

You may think you are safe treating Christians like shit despite all the charities only existing because of Christians, but that is why people like me exist. To do what Christians are too nice to do.

Somebody has to do the Apostle Paul thing, and put boot to buttock with the hard truths . . . if only to protect all the ones who are too nice.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It subtracts from the whole this is a "men vs. women" motif progressives try to play. Plenty of women are pro-life, particularly in places like Alabama and other Southern/midwestern States.

"Big Government" is really only at the federal level. What States do is more local annoying government, at least as long as they stay within the Constitution.

A state legislature deciding whom you can legally marry, what survivor benefits you’re entitled to, and prohibiting you from making your own healthcare decisions is not “big government”?

Yeah, I'm sure you'd like to pretend that state legislatures banned something that was previously allowed, but that's not how it worked.

The state government deciding what does and doesn't constitute a recognized marriage, for legal purposes, is actually exactly within the correct purview of government. It never stopped anyone from making binding legally-contractual arrangements of their own that just didn't happen to wear that particular label. This pretense of "without the word marriage, we couldn't write wills or medical powers of attorney!" is really old and threadbare.

Having to have the government’s blessing of your marriage is an example of having a pretty invasive government. You may think differently but then again, you’re an idiot.

More emotion. Every time you open your flapping gob, I feel like I need a shower from the storm of hormones you send flying around.

I get that you see the entire world through the prism of "You must approve of me!", but no one has ever been "getting the government's blessing" on anything. Marriage is a legal and financial contract, however much immature twits like you want to pretend it's all one big badly-written romance novel. It carries with it a wide variety of issues which may someday have to be settled by legal adjudication, just like any other contract. Therefore, just like any other contract, the law has to decide what does and does not constitute a legally binding contract in their jurisdiction. No more, no less. Ideally (meaning when it's not influenced by a bunch of sobbing teenagers masquerading as adults) the law is silent on overwrought emotional BS like you leftists keep gabbling on about.

I doubt you think differently, since I doubt you think at all.

The State not allowing you to marry someone of the same sex, a different race, etc…is an example of a large invasive government.

Zero emotion is involved in that statement.

Zero logic or common sense is involved in yours, Smokey.

*snore* "Large invasive government is anytime the government isn't giving me what I want."

I'm very glad the likes of you finds my statements illogical, since having ignorant trash agree with me would indicate some sort of problem. As long as you're blathering about "You're illogical because you don't see how I should get my way," that means that everything I'm saying is exactly as it should be.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A state legislature deciding whom you can legally marry, what survivor benefits you’re entitled to, and prohibiting you from making your own healthcare decisions is not “big government”?

Yeah, I'm sure you'd like to pretend that state legislatures banned something that was previously allowed, but that's not how it worked.

The state government deciding what does and doesn't constitute a recognized marriage, for legal purposes, is actually exactly within the correct purview of government. It never stopped anyone from making binding legally-contractual arrangements of their own that just didn't happen to wear that particular label. This pretense of "without the word marriage, we couldn't write wills or medical powers of attorney!" is really old and threadbare.

Having to have the government’s blessing of your marriage is an example of having a pretty invasive government. You may think differently but then again, you’re an idiot.

More emotion. Every time you open your flapping gob, I feel like I need a shower from the storm of hormones you send flying around.

I get that you see the entire world through the prism of "You must approve of me!", but no one has ever been "getting the government's blessing" on anything. Marriage is a legal and financial contract, however much immature twits like you want to pretend it's all one big badly-written romance novel. It carries with it a wide variety of issues which may someday have to be settled by legal adjudication, just like any other contract. Therefore, just like any other contract, the law has to decide what does and does not constitute a legally binding contract in their jurisdiction. No more, no less. Ideally (meaning when it's not influenced by a bunch of sobbing teenagers masquerading as adults) the law is silent on overwrought emotional BS like you leftists keep gabbling on about.

I doubt you think differently, since I doubt you think at all.

The State not allowing you to marry someone of the same sex, a different race, etc…is an example of a large invasive government.

Zero emotion is involved in that statement.

Zero logic or common sense is involved in yours, Smokey.

You can pretty much marry whoever you want, and call it whatever you want. Government recognition is the issue here. One could also handle most of the things, except the tax code that marriage gives via the government via power of attorney contracts. Or Civil Unions could have been allowed, which was the original concept.

But SSM advocates want the word "marriage" because the end goal is forced acceptance, not just tolerance.

The Constitution is mute when it comes to detailing contracts, which is left up to State law.

When your entire life involves trying to force other people to tell you how perfect and correct you are so that you can avoid admitting how much you hate yourself, lack of government recognition becomes indistinguishable from "preventing me from doing it". Living your own life without giving a damn for the opinions of others requires you to be able to like yourself, and leftists like Cornball are incapable of that . . . for very good, valid, and obvious reasons.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes. California as a State can make whatever laws it wants for people in their State via the State government. Why should California, New York, and even Texas be able to make rules for everyone, when it comes to things inside a State, when small States don't want it?

This is a symptom of the federal government doing things outside it's scope and Constitutional mandate.

You mean like PA laws that protect gays along with race and religion? Okay!

PA laws that apply to actual PA's, and of course the States are still bound by the right to free exercise.

As always the government has to have a compelling reason to deny free exercise, and butt hurt is not a compelling reason.

My, my...such a study in contradictions you are. You're all for states rights...until its an issue you disagree with like gays being protected equally with race and religion.

State's rights end at the rights of US Citizens via the Federal Constitution and their own Constitutions. The 14th Amendment has incorporated the bill of Rights to the States, the issue is progressives use the 14th to make additional crap up.

The right to free exercise is explicit in the constitution, I find no such right to a cake from a specific baker.

Marty loves discrimination.

Assfuck Dave wouldn't know real discrimination if it crawled up his pants leg.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yeah, I'm sure you'd like to pretend that state legislatures banned something that was previously allowed, but that's not how it worked.

The state government deciding what does and doesn't constitute a recognized marriage, for legal purposes, is actually exactly within the correct purview of government. It never stopped anyone from making binding legally-contractual arrangements of their own that just didn't happen to wear that particular label. This pretense of "without the word marriage, we couldn't write wills or medical powers of attorney!" is really old and threadbare.

Having to have the government’s blessing of your marriage is an example of having a pretty invasive government. You may think differently but then again, you’re an idiot.

More emotion. Every time you open your flapping gob, I feel like I need a shower from the storm of hormones you send flying around.

I get that you see the entire world through the prism of "You must approve of me!", but no one has ever been "getting the government's blessing" on anything. Marriage is a legal and financial contract, however much immature twits like you want to pretend it's all one big badly-written romance novel. It carries with it a wide variety of issues which may someday have to be settled by legal adjudication, just like any other contract. Therefore, just like any other contract, the law has to decide what does and does not constitute a legally binding contract in their jurisdiction. No more, no less. Ideally (meaning when it's not influenced by a bunch of sobbing teenagers masquerading as adults) the law is silent on overwrought emotional BS like you leftists keep gabbling on about.

I doubt you think differently, since I doubt you think at all.

The State not allowing you to marry someone of the same sex, a different race, etc…is an example of a large invasive government.

Zero emotion is involved in that statement.

Zero logic or common sense is involved in yours, Smokey.

You can pretty much marry whoever you want, and call it whatever you want. Government recognition is the issue here. One could also handle most of the things, except the tax code that marriage gives via the government via power of attorney contracts. Or Civil Unions could have been allowed, which was the original concept.

But SSM advocates want the word "marriage" because the end goal is forced acceptance, not just tolerance.

The Constitution is mute when it comes to detailing contracts, which is left up to State law.

Again…

If you’re married to a same-sex partner in NY and are offered a job in Birmingham, Alabama…where your marriage won’t be recognized….do you take the job and end your marriage?

This is why the backwards people of the conquered confederacy (and a few other states who were not around when the rebs were making noise) shouldn’t be allowed to make laws that run counter to the more studied and learned states that defeated them.

Why would that "end your marriage"? Are you only married if other people are telling you that you are? What's it like to be so dependent on other people for your self-esteem and self-image because you can't manage to like yourself on your own?

 

[DOTR]

Which kind of shows how fucked up Evangelical Christians are, doesn't it?

"He might be a creep who ***** porn stars, but he will never, ever judge my homophobia and racism! He'll encourage it!"

I can’t wait until you and all the other scum are sliced up into many tiny pieces during the civil war that is coming up in 2020.

You may think you are safe treating Christians like shit despite all the charities only existing because of Christians, but that is why people like me exist. To do what Christians are too nice to do.

Christians are too nice to sit in their mothers basement and make empty threats?

You are going to be surprised in a year when the civil war happens and Antifa is shitting their pants just because of me.

Bookmarked so in a year I can bring this up and laugh at your stupid delesional ass


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Why do you always misspell the word “delusional”?

Are you actually retarded?

Liberals believe they have reached “the end of history”. They don’t read and they don’t think. They are always shocked when their resigns come to an end in violence.

 

[DOTR]

They may not approve of his life, but unlike the democrats, he will not go after what is important in THEIR lives. Democrats offer nothing to Evangelicals except more attacks on their beliefs and lives.

Which kind of shows how fucked up Evangelical Christians are, doesn't it?

"He might be a creep who ***** porn stars, but he will never, ever judge my homophobia and racism! He'll encourage it!"

I can’t wait until you and all the other scum are sliced up into many tiny pieces during the civil war that is coming up in 2020.

You may think you are safe treating Christians like shit despite all the charities only existing because of Christians, but that is why people like me exist. To do what Christians are too nice to do.

Christians are too nice to sit in their mothers basement and make empty threats?

You are going to be surprised in a year when the civil war happens and Antifa is shitting their pants just because of me.

Bookmarked so in a year I can bring this up and laugh at your stupid delesional ass


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Guy above was just snickering about driving presidents from office who had the support of 49 states. If he’s not guffawing over that he’s grinning over overthrowing the legislatures of the states or blocking control of the border.
This can only end in violence. i wouldn’t expect it next year...but what’s the alternative when votes don’t work? It won’t be a civil war. But it will be horrifyingly violent.

 

[Seawytch]

Who is "we"? Genesis 38 has been misinterpreted by Christians for centuries.

6 For his first son Er, Judah got a wife whose name was Tamar.

7 Er’s conduct was evil, and it displeased the LORD, so the LORD killed him.

8 Then Judah said to Er’s brother Onan, “Go and sleep with your brother’s widow. Fulfill your obligation to her as her husband’s brother, so that your brother may have descendants.”

9 But Onan knew that the children would not belong to him, so when he had intercourse with his brother’s widow, he let the semen spill on the ground, so that there would be no children for his brother.

10 What he did displeased the LORD, and the LORD killed him also.

I can't tell you how much I value your "wisdom" on how we are "misinterpreting" the Bible because we don't see it the way you do. I can't tell you, because it's impossible to measure negatives to that extent.

Again, who is "we"? Just you and your rice crispies? What do "we" believe this passage refers to?

Cecile you should recognize that she will never know what “we” means. Or rather she does...and feels hatred for it.
I know that’s not pleasant but it’s true.

I’m asking who she thinks she’s speaking for because the “sperm as sacred” issue has been long debated in religion.

Mainstream pro-lifers, dipshit. And also mainstream Christians, depending on which sentence you're referring to. You know, two of those groups of people whose beliefs you imagine you "know" all about without ever having actually sullied yourself by speaking to one and ASKING what they believe and why.

Your admired (by you, anyway) abilities at cherrypicking Bible verses aside - since it means exactly jack and shit - the beliefs of both groups continue to be exactly what they are, not whatever straw man you want to build up to avoid having to actually take them seriously enough to educate yourself.

I’m not cherry picking anything. I’m pointing out that your use of absolutes is foolish. There IS debate among Christians about the meaning of gods punishment of Onan.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You don’t belong in a place where the majority culture something you despise and want to break.

Okay...I don’t belong in Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea or Russia...just off the top of my head.

None of them will have your kind. And you wouldn’t survive there. The people you despise most, western Christians, are the only ones who will put up with you. For a time.

I don't despise Western Christians at all. Oops, guess your entire fantasy is destroyed. You'll get over it.

So add lying to your traits.

Nope, thats 100% the truth. Why, most of my best friends and almost all of my family are "Western Christians"...Which makes sense since 70 plus percent of Americans are Christian.

Why do I think that if someone said to you, "I don't despise black people. Most of my best friends are black", you'd be the first one to be outraged?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I actually don't like it. What I like less is government force over something as stupid as a wedding cake.

You support discrimination by government against people you don't like. You are the authoritarian asshole here.

Not at all.

What you want is an exception to the law to protect a group that really doesn't need protection.

If we were talking about people who didn't want to serve blacks, this would be an issue, because there's very questionable biblical support for that. (Actually, you can use the Big Book of Bronze Age Fairy Tales to rationalize anything, but all the churches will frown on you if you try.)

If we were talking about an atheist who just hated gays because he thinks the Butt-sex is icky, we wouldn't have an issue.

But what you want is for Christians to day, "I think butt sex is icky because the Bible says so", to get a pass. But they have an option.

Don't be a business where you have gay customers.

A preacher I am not. But our culture is breaking down. We crap on our children and the aged now as individual selfishness has taken a firm hand in many people.

You're not wrong there.