I think your points are an indictment of your honesty.
I think your points are an indictment of your honesty.
I think your points are an indictment of lack of sleep or heavy narcotic use. Again, when was Cheney or any other VP ever considered to be the most powerful man in the world? The PRESIDENT is often considered to be that, but not the VP.
Yes, I've been living under a rock. So the change to the constitution was to add, out of the fucking blue, that marriage is btn a man and a woman.
Great.
NOOOOOOOO!!!! California's law has always been that marriage is between a man and a woman, until the CA court's ruling in 2008, deeming Prop. 22 (a stronger enforcement of a previous marriage law) as "unconstitutional". To paraphrease Matt Staver from Liberty Counsel, all the voters did was restore the definition of marriage in California to what it had always been (since the state's existence) until that ruling.
I'm certain in the applicable time, you'd say the same thing about slavery, miscegenation, and women as property. Your justification of democratic absolutism is applicable to those things as well.
Remember, the essence of democracy is the lynch mob.
PLEASE!!! Every time the people vote against some bone-headed liberal idea, all of a sudden they're listed as being a mob, just like the folks protesting ObamaCare.
It's always "mob rule", when you lose on an issue. And, once again, slavery, miscegenation, and women being used as property have nothing to do with the subject at hand, notwithstanding that the people's voice played a role in ending that as well.
What's a bigot?
a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.
You've stated that b/c of your religious prejudice, gays shouldn't marry. You don't oppose gay marriage on the basis of any credible fact. You oppose it on the grounds that you hold the belief that a book written by sheepherders is the word of God and that word is 'death' to fags.
You and your ilk are textbook bigots. Tell me why you are not.
For starters, I'm not intolerantly devoted to my own opinions. And my religious beliefs are no more "prejudice" than your anti-religious/secular beliefs are.
Furthermore, your blurb about the Bible being written by sheepherders simply mirrors your own "prejudice" and flat-out buffoonery on the matter.
You certainly put yourself out to make sure gays are treated like second class citizens.
I do nothing of the sort. If asked to vote on an issue, I simply vote "yes" or "no". The fact that you or any other gay "marriage" supporter doens't like is neither my problem not my concern.
I have no such stake in the matter other than to point out the hurtful and hateful basis of your actions and perspective.
If you have no stake in the matter, then quit blubbering about it and find a new hobby.
'Genius'....Hey, I put my pants on one leg at a time just like you.
I stated that log cabin republicans were like chickens belonging to the Col. Sanders party.
You misread that as me calling someone a chicken/coward. I stayed with the meme correctly. You showed that your attention span is limited.
Again, what are you smoking? I made no indication that you were calling the Log Cabin Republicans cowards. What I said was simply how stupid your take is that somehow homosexuals can't or shouldn't be Republicans.
Again, in reference to republicans and log cabin freaks.
Again, lay off the weed!! Your referring to Log Cabin Republicans as "freaks", simply because they are Republicans and gay is as dumb now as it was then,
Says me.
I think your points are an indictment of your honesty. You're right. The religious right that runs that party is a mix of religions. What was I thinking?
Few will accuse you of "thinking", when it comes to posting this mess. What I said, O-ye-that-hath-trouble-reading, is that the GOP listens to evangelical Christian voters, BECAUSE THAT BLOCK HELPS THEM WIN ELECTIONS.
I made those points in reference to those ugly chapters in American history.
Then I opined that those bigotries sounded biblical. As usual you go overboard to intoxicate your mind so that the perfection of the Bible remains intact in your bigoted world-view.
But since we're here, Christian uberman Jerry Falwell beat the drum for miscegenation. Billy Graham railed against Jews...Let's face it, anything Christian south of the Mason/Dixon line was pro-slavery miscegenation.
Both miscegenation and anti-Semitism are wrong, per Biblical standards. And, lest that memory of yours go south, BOTH changed their tunes, when learning that such didn't agree with Scripture.
Your protestations about women are insane. "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."--1 Tim. 2:11-14
Few things are more comical than some Bible skeptic, boneheadedly posting verses, with nary the foggiest clue of the context in which it was written.
One, this verse in reference to a particular group of women who were being taught false thing about the Christian faith and were erroenously teaching others. Paul addressed this issue to them and them alone.
Two, O factually-deprived one, Paul was taught the Gospel of Jesus Christ, in part, BY A WOMAN: Priscilla, along with her husband, Aquilla. And he credits his start in the faith with what he learned from her.
Acts 18:26,
And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.Three, in Romans 16, Paul lists a number of women who have helped him in the ministry (almost half the people he thanks are women): Mary, the aforementioned Priscilla, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Persis, to name a few.
Romans 16:1-4,
I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea, That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you, for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also. Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus, who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. Not to mention the minor fact that women worked as prophetessed, such as Anna, who saw Jesus Christ as an infant in the temple of Jerusalem.
Luke 2:36,
And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity.And, of course, there's Deborah, who ruled over Israel as a judge.
Judges 4:4-5,
And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time. And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment. Here's a hint: When people come to a woman for judgment, she's giving them INSTRUCTION.
So much for that foolish quip of yours.
"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18) That made a proud moment in our country's history - Salem witch trials. Even Sarah Palin is a witch.
Why is that woman still alive?
It's probably because she hasn't been engaging in thing like human sacrifice and other perverse things like the "witches" referenced in the Old Testament, genius.
Here's a link to for access to 200 more biblical quotes that treat women as sex slaves, and property.
http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/women.php
At least, now we know the source of this gibberish. Though refuting this mess is quite simple, it is time-consuming. So, I'll address a few of the crackpot claims I've heard folks like you spew time and time again (the skeptic silliness is underlined).
Exodus 21:7-11:
"Unfair rules for female servants, may be sex slaves" Women were hired as servants, often to avoid poverty. And, as the rest of the passage states (and these atheists conveniently left out), if a woman is bethrohed to a man but he ends the engagement or is married to her and divorces her, HE IS STILL on the hook to take care of her financially.
"her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.". Today, we call that ALIMONY.
Furthermore, NOTHING in that passage talks about sex slaves. First, there's no sex WITHOUT marriage. And, the financial provisions in case of divorce are clearly spelled out. In other words, whether she starts out as a servant or not, once she's married, she gets all the benefits of a full-blown wife.
Deut. 22:23,24
"Woman raped in city, she & her rapist both stoned to death" It appears that these Rhodes scholars don't read too well. Verse 23 and 24 DO NOT talk about a woman being raped. Verses 25 and 26, however, do. And they read as follows,
"But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her, then the man only that lay with her shall die But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter. Raping a woman was the equivalent of murder, as far as being a capital offense.
Now how do you supposed these Einsteins miss that?
Deut 22:28-29
"Woman must marry her rapist". First, the woman doesn't have to marry her rapist. Exodus 21 states that the father makes the call as to whether or not the marriage takes place. Regardless, the man must put up the 50 shekels (about 7 years wages).
Secondly, if the father authorized the marriage, the rapist is on the hook FOR LIFE. He can't divorce her and, as the case with the servant, he must provide her food, clothes, and any other care permanently.
Third, notice that this only applies to an unbetrothed virgin; if the virgin is betrothed, the rapist dies. Care for the victim is the only reason he's kept alive.
Fourth, and most importantly, marriage doesn't equate to living in the same house, having sex with the husband, etc. I'll use a modern example: The Linda and Terry "Hulk" Hogan divorce case. They were separated for two years. They lived in different houses, had separate bank accounts, and start living completely different lives. Linda even had a restraining order again the Hulkster. Yet, they were still legally married.
So, the issue is care for the victim, plain and simple.
Proverbs 11:22
"One of numerous Proverbial putdowns" That particular verse refers to a woman WHO LACKS DISCRETION, hardly a putdown. Of course, the poster boys for "Hooked on Phonics" missed Proverbs 31,
"Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price [is] far above rubies. The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil. She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life. She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands. She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar. She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens..... Strength and honour [are] her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come. She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness. She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness. Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her. Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all. Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised. That's a real putdown there, folks.
Judg. 11:30-40
"Jephthah's nameless daughter sacrificed" Ummmmmm....not quite.
Jephthah said he would offer up a burnt offering to the Lord. Per the Levitical laws, all burned offerings has to be a) animals, and b) MALE. His daughter was neither. Furthermore, human sacrifice was OUTLAWED.
Look at the last two verses,
And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel that the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year. Why is the passage mentioning that she was still a virgin and that the women of Israel lamented for her every year?
Why is it that when the daughter finds out about the vow, her reaction ain't fear of death but bemoaning the fact that she's a virgin and will never have children (she goes away for two months to bewail her virginity)?
To understand this, you must know the context (something these silly skeptics apparently do not).
Jephthah was an illegitimate son, cast from his family. He's a wiodwer with just one child, his daughter. The only way he can perserve his name is if his daughter marries and has children. But, Jephthah offered his daughter to the Lord. Now, he must give it to her. The way that was done: She was offered to serve at the tabernacle for the rest of her life (much like Anna, from the gospel of Luke, who served as such after husband died and never remarried or had children). With his only daughter gone, Jephthah had no heirs.
Needless to say, NO HUMAN SACRIFICE WAS INVOLVED.
It's safe to say that the authors of this thread simply didn't do their homework, making mindnumbingly stupid generalizations and accusations, easily shown to be false and inaccurate. Of course, that won't stop folks like Decker from using such tripe. But that's another issue, altogether.
Pitiful? No wonder your thrown for a loop here. "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" is nowhere to be found in your book of fables, the Bible.
Wrong again!! With all societies, there are laws and rules and penalties for violating such. Your pitiful lack of understanding such holds no bearing on the matter.
Spare you from historical fact? Your psychological defense mechanisms are more elaborate than the US tax code.
What you've posted and historical fact are about as close as Alaska and Florida.
So society's gain is keeping gays as second class citizens.
Your reading comprehension is as bad as those folks from that silly link you posted. One more time: "As far as I can tell nothing. Of course, it doesn't NEED to gain anything, in order for marriage to keep its 1M-1W definition. Nor does society gain anything by altering the definition to please gays"
In other words, society gains nothing and loses nothing, by keeping marriage's definition as that between a man and a woman.
