The political, social networking site that integrates politics with popular culture.
The political, social networking site that integrates politics with popular culture.

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar

@jackson1962

Jackson:

Interesting subject, I thought you might approach this from a certain angle such as “gay marriage’ or something like that but I think you just want all the restrictions on marriage dropped. Let’s take a look at that.

Your first paragraph: “I hope that the Supreme Court uses some of the same thinking it used in looking at the Affordable Care Act. SCOTUS, and Roberts stretched the bounds of the argument by allowing that the ACA was a tax, and by extension constitutional.”

Do you realize that Roberts broke the law by changing the ACA? Roberts and SCOTUS have the authority to let stand, or strike down a law that does not find authority to exist in the Constitution.

There is no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to FINE someone for not participating in commerce. Roberts and the rest of the court all acknowledged this as is evident in the various legal opinions (so far so good), and the ACA was correctly struck down on that point.

Then Roberts, not the rest of the court although he did it in the name of the court, decided to change the word “FINE” to the word “TAX.” As a TAX it could stand as a matter of the taxing authority of the United States Congress. Subsequently the ACA (in reference to buying health insurance) has NOTHING to do with health insurance and is ONLY a TAX. Sure, it will be administered for a while on those who refuse to buy health insurance but eventually (and we see this now) that tax will be levied on everyone regardless of whether or not you buy a health insurance plan (one has nothing to do with the other because of the use of the word “TAX”).

Roberts violated the Constitution (Supreme Law of the Land) when he changed that word because ONLY the legislature of the United States (Congress) can change a law once it is passed.

Roberts claimed precedence of changing a “simple word” in a previous case and that change stood. Two things here:

First it was illegal then and it is still illegal now. If I murdered someone in 1954 and got away with it would that justify my murdering someone today? I don’t think so. For those of you who would like to see me swing from a gallows and I know there are many, I wasn’t even born in 1954.

Second, IF he is going to change a word, even though he does not have that authority under the Constitution but feels the need to do so for the purpose of clarification it MUST NOT be a substantial change. You will admit that the change from “fine” to “tax” was substantial, in fact the Supreme Court said it would not be allowed to stand if it was a “fine” but they would let it stand if it was a “tax.” On the other hand correcting a misspelled word MIGHT be allowable.

Your next paragraph: “With regards to same sex marriage I hope that the court expands the discussion to it’s logical conclusion; why is the government licensing a religious ceremony?”

The government issues a marriage license for many reasons, one of which is they offer benefits to married couples. I see you don’t believe they should but they do. They offer benefits to married couples because we the people believe that the family unit is the foundation of a society. You are free to disagree with that if you want.

One other reason the government issues that license (there are many reasons) is that if one parent neglects the child the state can legally go after that parent in the best interest of the child.

Your next paragraph: “States should not be giving marriage licenses to any couple. If your church will marry you, then you are married. Frankly, if you “feel” married, you should be married.”

Apparently you aren’t old enough to remember things like polygamy (one man having several wives). This was very offensive to much of the public and the answer was to restrict who could get that marriage license. Polygamy pretty much went away because of this.

What about the crazy people who want to marry their cat? How about when some rich lady who owns a bunch of real estate marries her cat and then the lady dies? The property then becomes that of the cat. The renters stop paying rent and the place goes downhill so all the tenants move out and hoodlums move in. The place becomes a crack house that people cannot do anything about because the owner has no opinion on the matter. Eventually the police come in and rout out the crack heads but in the ensuing battle three cops are killed. Then since the property is so run down and now unsafe it must be bulldozed. That damn cat won’t pay for a thing so the cost is borne out of your tax dollars, but the benefit goes to the cat. Perhaps the original will that gave the property to the cat specified that when the cat died the lady’s nephew Joe gets the property. See how things go downhill when you take off all the restrictions?

Your next: “The government should also not offer any benefits or penalties for being married.”

I am for these benefits and things that entice the birth of babies to be INSIDE wedlock vs outside wedlock. Studies overwhelmingly support the fact that children born in wedlock (of loving parents) are more successful in life.

I do not support penalties for those who choose to remain single. I also hope that those who choose to remain single will abstain from having children though.

Your next: “I believe the two sides in the argument are missing the point and I hope SCOTUS will set this point straight.”

Marriage is not a right but a privilege. If marriage was a right we could not stop or even limit polygamy. If marriage was a right we could not stop two four-year-old kids from getting married. If marriage was a right we could not stop that lady from marrying her cat.

We can restrict these things because marriage is a PRIVILEGE and NOT a right.

Now, if your goal was to address the gay marriage thing you have a valid issue, you just went about it wrong.

Those who profess “gay rights” and the “right of gays to be married” are fighting an illogical battle (but they might win because the courts are somewhat illogical on this).

Quite simply, gays have no “rights” that they can claim due to their status of being gay. Gays have no more rights than me (I’m not gay) and I have no more rights that a gay person. We ALL have the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” and that’s it.

The specific “rights” listed in the Bill of Rights are included in the right to “life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and are only mentioned for clarity and specificity.

Notice that there is no mention in any of that of marriage, or other things like driving a car. Yet we marry and drive cars every day! How can we if we don’t have a “right” to do either of these?

Again, same with marriage which if it was a right we would not be able to stop polygamy, kids getting married, immediate siblings getting married, parents marrying their kids, or the lady marrying her cat; if driving was a “right” we would have significant problems as well.

If driving was a right we could NOT stop people from driving drunk, we could NOT stop a three year old kid from driving, and we could NOT force people to drive under a speed limit or on the right hand side of the road. I think we should be glad that driving a car is a PRIVILEGE and not a right. Likewise with marriage, if it was a “right” as gays will tell you it is we would have many problems we don’t want to have.

If marriage is then a privilege then the people can define it the way they want. That voted upon definition (voted upon by the people) was that marriage was to be between one man and one woman. That was the lawful will of the people. The courts are now overturning the lawful will of the people and that is wrong in every way it can be wrong.

To note, if the PEOPLE (via their voting power) decide that they want to change the definition of marriage to allow gays to be married, the PEOPLE can do that. Some states have done this (even though DOMA has not been properly dealt with) and some states have not. In fact some states have on numerous occasions stated their will to NOT allow gay marriage and have done so at the election booth (therefore properly) and the courts still overturn the lawful will or the people. This is a Constitutional violation.

Here is my OPINION on the matter (my opinion is mine): I believe that most gays (there are exceptions) want to be married for the benefits of marriage. I believe they rightfully want to inherit property (tax free) of their mates, just as married couples do. I believe they want to have the authority to make medical decisions for their loved one and I support this as well.

However, what I don’t agree with is the failed notion that to get those government benefits they need to be married. I believe that there can be some other legal arrangement that is very similar to marriage (call it “same sex legal bond” or something like that) that gives the couple the same inheritance and medical benefits.

The problem is that gays think they can ONLY get these benefits by getting married when these benefits have NOTHING to do with the sanctity of marriage. Marriage is more than one thing, it is a spiritual bond between two people, in Gods presence, who have the ability to further the human race (have offspring), AND it is a legal bond recognized by all of society.

There are not many gays who are seeking that spiritual bond in the presence of God. In fact when the notion behind marriage is to perpetuate the human race ALL gays by definition fall considerably short of the reason for that spiritual bond.

We need to leave alone that bond between one man and one woman and seek other ways for gay couples to get what they want in terms of medical authority for a sick partner.

I fully support gays who truly love each other and want to dedicate their lives to each other having the legal authority to make medical decisions for an incapacitated loved-one and should that person die I have no problem with the remaining spouse having legal claim to the deceased property much the same as married couples do.

I do not personally approve of the gay relationship but that is only my opinion and I recognize that gays have the same rights as me. I am also smart enough to see that the sanctity of marriage is NOT the problem. The problem is in the IRS code and medical laws that dictate who can and who cannot make medical decisions for an incapacitated person.

I think if the “gay marriage” movement wants to tear down marriage they will have one hell of a fight on their hands (look around to see that I am correct) but if all they want is a change in the IRS code and the medical authority laws they would find those who support only heterosexual marriages would be fighting right alongside them to help them get those benefits.

What say you Jackson, or anyone else on this site?

@jlriggs57aol-com

Profile photo of jackson
jackson @jackson1962

So many things, so long. I always find it interesting when people want freedom in some areas, but want restrictions in others. Good luck.

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar

@jackson1962

Jackson:

I think you understood the point, which was that you cannot restrict rights but you can restrict privileges if that is the will of the people. Sadly most people look at a privilege they have and consider it to be a right.

If you understood that then it was worth every word!

Profile photo of jackson
jackson @jackson1962

Marriage is religion. If you want to limit that then you do not understand the constitution. Also worth every word.

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar

@jackson1962

Marriage is not religion nor is religion marriage. Marriage may have a basis in religion, that is not in dispute. However, marriage is also recognized secularly as is evident by the government requiring a “marriage license.”

You adequately pointed this out in your original post but in the short time since then you seem to have forgotten it.

I do understand the Constitution fairly well and I would say that I know it far better than a famous Constitutional scholar but so does the average bum on the street. That said I welcome any constructive and helpful criticism you can provide.

Profile photo of jackson
jackson @jackson1962

“May have a basis in religion”. How else did we come to know marriage other than through religion (this is a rhetorical question)?

The government can recognize marriage, a I recognize that there is a sun, however the government has no place in licensing or authorizing marriage. Just because it does, does not make it right or constitutional.

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar

@jackson1962

Jackson:

As far as marriage having a basis in religion I believe I said that is not in dispute, meaning I did not dispute it. However it appears that either you dispute it or that you want me to dispute it. I don’t know which and I don’t really care!

I’m glad that you can recognize the sun but I’m starting to want to see if you can recognize the sun two out of three times because I think that might be a challenge for you.

Yes, the government does recognize marriage and no, I suppose they don’t have to recognize it. However there are significant changes to our way of life if government decided to NOT recognize marriage.

1) There would be no tax deduction for marriage

2) There would be no inheritance for the spouse when their partner passed away

3) There would be no legal way for a loved one to accurately make medical decisions for you should you be incapacitated.

For clarification of #3 please consider that the state (and federal) government will NOT allow someone to make medical decisions for you if they don’t have legal documentation that there is a “relationship” (commonly and as of now referred to as marriage)

4) If a child’s mother dies and there is no way to identify the father even though he might live in the same household then the child becomes a ward of the state, something most folks probably don’t want

5) There would be no laws established regarding sexual relations from a marriage standpoint. This means that if your spouse sleeps with a stranger that is solely the problem of you and your spouse. That might be ok with you but probably not all folks because that is used by many as “grounds for divorce.” If your spouse has consensual sex with a stranger you have no legal standing whatsoever.

There are many more downsides to having the government not recognize marriage. But let me ask you another question. If the government all of a sudden stopped recognizing marriage and giving benefits thereto, would gays still seek to legalize gay marriage? I think the answer to that is NO. Perhaps gays know more than you.

Jackson you might not stand alone on this but you probably stand in a very small group if you don’t want the government to recognize marriage.

Last but not least I thought I had made it clear that marriage is NOT a “right” nor is it in the Constitution (see your last sentence). That said if I need to go into even more detail to be clear on that let me know. I stopped where I did because I didn’t think it necessary to make a long post even longer (having second thoughts on the length of posts now and maybe longer is better).

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@kevlar
@jackson1962

Let me start off by saying that I do not agree with the gay lifestyle. Those of you who have been in discussions with me about this subject matter already know that.

Having said that, I would also say that a lot of the things that the LGBT and other homosexual groups say and do, baffle me. Since this whole thing started, meaning the homosexual movement, they have confused me.

The first thing is that they are constantly saying that homosexuality is about LOVE. “We just want everybody to understand that it’s about LOVE.” “This isn’t about sex, it’s about LOVE.” “People have dirty minds, we just want to be seen as just ordinary people, in LOVE with someone of the same gender.”

So their words say, “It’s all about LOVE.” Really, really. So when they have a chance to show this normal, ordinary love, in their own parade, this is what we see.

I edited these pictures. Why are we seeing nude men and women? Why are some dressed in bondage outfits?

There were literally dozens and dozens of pictures like this, so these are not isolated pictures. If, and I say if, homosexuality is about love. If all they want is to be seen as ordinary people, why are their parades filled with nudity, sexually explicit costumes, mock sex acts, and exposing their naked bodies to everyone in the streets, including children. THIS IS ORDINARY?? THIS IS JUST ABOUT LOVE??

Next, “They just want to be excepted.” Okay, so to get those who do not agree with the lifestyle you are trying to get excepted, you sue people who will not bow to your will and provide you the services you want.

So they feel that if you sue people they will change their minds and come around because you took them to court, sued them, and possibly put them out of business. Nothing says, “Except me” like a good civil court case. This has not only happened with bakers, it has happened to several different businesses. How is this creating a good feeling about the homosexual community?

Next, another way to gain the love and respect of those you are trying to sway is to invade and force yourself into organizations that don’t want you, but you force them by intimidating the group itself. And if that doesn’t work they intimidate those who sponsor these organizations.

Take, for instance, The Boy Scouts. The Boy Scouts had been in existence since 1910. The homosexual community would not rest until they had bullied their way in and caused a large number of the scouts to quit. They would not start their own boys organization, they would not wait and give it some time for the organization to decide on it’s own to allow homosexual boys in, they forced it to happen. Now that’s the way to show people why they should love and embrace the homosexual community.

Thankfully, the boys and leaders who decided to leave, have started their own group called Trail Life USA, which does not rely on sponsors who can be bullied into changing their minds. There organization is growing by leaps and bounds. They already have many troops all over the country.

Lastly they say they want to be able to marry for some of the following reasons, so if they die their spouse would get everything, if they get sick and can not answer for themselves, their spouse can make all of the necessary decisions, etc.

We all know that these things can be taken care of by a will and a legal power of attorney.

What they want is to force their way in to another tradition. They don’t care about a piece of paper. If that was the case they could easily call it something else and get a certificate for it. That won’t do. They won’t be forcing themselves into society by doing it that way.

I have to agree with Kevlar, great minds and all, marriage is a privilege not right, as per the lack of verbage in the Constitution. I will say this, if the SCOTUS says it will allow marriage between two homosexuals, it will diminish the meaning of the word to a lot of people. Once we change the meaning of marriage, again I agree with Kevlar, what’s to stop people from marrying chickens, dogs, cats, horses, pigs, etc.? If there are no restrictions what’s to stop an 35 year old from marrying a 10 year old?

I have my own reasons for not wanting homosexuals to marry.

* As a Christian, the Bible I read, speaks against it. And no, I am not perfect.
* I, personally, think it’s just not a good lifestyle.
* The LGBT is trying to strong-arm their way into being excepted.
* I don’t think that any group that only consists of less than 4% of the population, according to the latest statistics, should be able to tell the other 96% what they will and won’t except and what they will and won’t do.

People who do not want to rent to, make a cake for, or provide any other service, to anyone, should not be sued and possibly lose their business because someone doesn’t like it.

I don’t like any group or individual who tries to run over people, either with physical bullying or with political pressure. I don’t like tyrants, whether it’s obozo or the LGBT.

Attachments:
You must be logged in to view attached files.

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar

@jlriggs57aol-com
@jackson1962

James:

Good analysis and this is a fairly good description of what the gay movement really is. I am personally against the gay lifestyle as I indicated earlier “I do not personally approve of the gay relationship but that is only my opinion and I recognize that gays have the same rights as me.”

I then said something that you corrected me on (I don’t think you meant that I was wrong but you were more accurate than me). I said “I am also smart enough to see that the sanctity of marriage is NOT the problem. The problem is in the IRS code and medical laws that dictate who can and who cannot make medical decisions for an incapacitated person.”

You are correct that a will can be made to circumvent the medical issues and that would include a “Living will” in the case of medical decisions (I think that is the name of the document).

However, the notion that a “married couple” is treated differently in the tax code than a non-married couple would probably require a law change because I don’t think there is another way around that (such as the “will” work-around for the medical part).

Too bad that those who are gay and want to have that tax advantage don’t know that the problem is the IRS code and not the marriage laws. I take that back as that is playing into their greedy hands, I think they do know but like you said, they just want to bully their way into the lives of non-gays.

I do believe that since marriage is a privilege and NOT a right it is open for the voters to decide. In most states the voters have not voted to allow gays to marry and I strongly believe it is the legal choice of the voters and NOT SCOTUS.

That said, if the vote is put to me for voting in my state, I will vote against it (gay marriage) EVERY time because I personally don’t approve. If gays want to lobby for a tax incentive then let them do it and I would support it, not by voting for it but by not voting against it.

The reason I would do that is because it would then save, as in take away any outward incentive to push for gay marriage (this I would do to protect the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman). Any remaining inward incentive for gays pushing for gay marriage would then expose them for what they really are.

I do believe strongly in the Constitution and I think it does allow the voter to decide the marriage issue. If the voters by majority vote in the particular state vote to allow gays to marry then short of the fact that DOMA is federal and as yet not been properly overturned, majority should rule.

The DOMA law needs to be properly addressed first and the SCOTUS answer to it was inappropriate. DOMA itself violated nobody’s rights (and did not violate the Constitution) and therefore SCOTUS had NO authority to strike it down. Allowing SCOTUS to address DOMA as being a power of the STATE, which they didn’t, and NOT the federal government is another thing altogether but I don’t think that was the consideration. For clarity, marriage is a state jurisdiction and not a federal jurisdiction (it is NOT in the enumerated powers). I don’t have to agree with all laws even those that are in accordance with the Constitution, that is a matter of opinion, but if it is a legal law then I must obey.

There is no such thing as “gay rights” and anyone who believes there is knows nothing about our system of government. I am strongly against “gay marriage” because I don’t agree with the lifestyle, but that is opinion only. I cannot find a legal means other than existing laws which can be repealed in Congress (not struck down by SCOTUS) to prohibit gay marriage. I do believe there are plenty religious reasons to condemn gay marriage, but other than existing law (which is subject to repeal) there is no secular grounds to condemn the concept of gay marriage (personally I wish there was).

I will vote against it every time but someday it will probably pass. Unfortunately most gays are selfish in nature and will destroy the sanctity of marriage just so that they don’t have to change the IRS code to get what they really want (actually what they want the rest of us to think they want).

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@kevlar

You are right, I was not trying to correct you. I don’t believe I have ever felt the need to do that. If at some point in the future that situation arises, you can be assured that before I type in the first word I will take a week to research all information possible to make sure I haven’t made a mistake. Then I’ll take a couple of days of writing and re-writing it before I actually post it.

I’m crazy, but I’m not that crazy.

Have a good one Kev. :)

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar

@jlriggs57aol-com
@jackson1962

James:

LOL. No offense taken, I think I could have worded that better. I don’t think you were trying to correct me but I do think that what you had to say regarding the wills and the medical part was far more accurate than what I said. Thanks for providing clarity.

Without re-reading the entire thread I was putting the medical issue on par with the tax issue, whereas to “correct” the tax issue would require a change in the law (IRS code) I was thinking that “correcting the medical part would require a change in the medical and HIPAA laws.

While changing the medical and HIPAA laws would probably “correct” the problem you were very correct to point out that a will would accomplish the same thing without a change in the law.

I don’t think I was wrong and I don’t think you were trying to correct me but I do think you were more correct than me. I welcome all the clarity we can get on a subject so thank you.

Because I personally disapprove (as a matter of my opinion) of gay marriage I find this subject somewhat uncomfortable to discuss because I believe that marriage between one man and one woman and raising children WITHIN that bond is the very fabric of this society and is what has made our people strong.

Furthermore I think one of the quickest ways to tear apart the fabric of this country is to lessen the meaning and traditional status of marriage. When we do this we start raising our children OUTSIDE of that bond and that almost always is problematic.

A will is a great way for a gay couple to care for each other in medical terms (and would be similar and probably EXACTLY the same as a married couple in that regard).

As stated, I do not support the gay lifestyle but I would support a change to the IRS code to allow “married” tax breaks to unmarried gay couples who can establish that they have a serious and genuine (?) longterm relationship (that word “genuine” was kinda difficult for me to type but that is a matter of opinion too).

My reason for doing this is because the two combined (medical/inheritance and preferential tax treatment) are the reasons the gay movement is lobbying for gay marriage. Give them the medical (which as you point out they already have) and the preferential tax treatment (via a change in the tax code although a flat or fair tax would be even better) and the will have everything they have been crying for.

Do this and the gay marriage thing will stop. Rather it should stop but it won’t for the reasons that you James pointed out earlier. However, if they get the medical and the tax things, all they will have left to support their movement is NOTHING except the purely selfish desire to destroy that American value we call the family unit.

This will then become painfully obvious to those who are not gay but think we need to be “fair” to all. I say be “fair” and give them what they are screaming for, medical and tax, and then expose them for the real phonies they are.

Again, thanks to your clarity the gays already have a perfect way to solve their medical and inheritance concerns. If only they were smart enough to figure it out, that is.

Fortunately there are plenty people like me who will find a way to tactfully shove their own stupidity down their throats and reveal them for the true hacks they are. The only thing left to give them (and they will have just about everything they have been asking for) is the tax thing.

On calling them “stupid” as I kinda did in the previous paragraph, a point of clarity is in order: ANYONE who uses the term “gay rights” is by definition STUPID because there is no such thing as “gay rights” and to lobby for that is a public demonstration of their stupidity. For the record gays have no more rights than me and I have no more rights than they have. For further reading on this matter please see my previous posts on this thread.

Give them the tax thing and be done with it. Then let them prove to the American people that what they really wanted in the first place but were afraid to ask, is to force their way into the system of family unit that has worked in this country for a couple hundred years and in this world for thousands of years and to do so for the sole purpose of destroying that base of virtue (and by extension, this country).

There is a big movement afoot to destroy this country and one of the biggest and quickest methods is to destroy our value system and instill doubt and distrust among us. It is impossible to do that if there is a strong base of the family unit. Destroy the family unit and you can take the country wherever you want to take it.

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@kevlar
@jackson1962

Two of your comments really resonated with me.

You said, “Furthermore I think one of the quickest ways to tear apart the fabric of this country is to lessen the meaning and traditional status of marriage.”

I could not agree with this statement more. Once the status of marriage is diminished, the family dynamic will change and become less. As that happens the family unit will fall apart and with that the country.

And.

“When we do this we start raising our children OUTSIDE of that bond and that almost always is problematic.”

This is already happening so much, I would not care to calculate the percentage, that we can see a huge tear in our society. It is taking it’s toll. Our prisons are filling up, the rate of unwed mothers is skyrocketing, and the number of kids being raised on welfare is at an all time high.

Our country is being destroyed and it’s our own citizens that are doing it.

Have a great day.

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar

@jlriggs57aol-com
@jackson1962

James:

Your last comment is spot on: “Our country is being destroyed and it’s our own citizens that are doing it.”

If I could add to that it would be that it is the leaders of this country who are leading and encouraging that destruction and even worse it is the people themselves (to whom the government is accountable) who are allowing the leadership to lead us down the path of destruction.

The lowest common denominator by definition will take the least path of resistance and do as little as possible to promote good values in this country. Combine that with political leaders who actively want to encourage that destruction (I could make a list of thousands of examples) and you have a perfect recipe for disaster.

There is one group and ONLY one group who can stop this dangerous slide and that is the American voter themselves. We probably won’t change the hearts and minds of those voters who are by choice in the lowest common denominator (LCD) group, but the rest of us also have the power to vote these anti-American political leaders out of office, but for some reason we don’t. The number of voters who want to promote and improve this country far outweighs those who want to wreck it. So why don’t we do something about it?

We don’t like what they do but we don’t vote them out of office because they make the best promises in the campaign, so we vote for them. All we have to do and it is very simple to do, is learn how this government is supposed to work and why the government even exists.

Once we the voters learn this simple stuff we can analyze the promises that candidates make and decide if that promise is one that can be fulfilled or not. Most of those promises made by candidates CANNOT be fulfilled in ANY reasonable fashion. If we know that ahead of time we can discount the false promises (lies) and vote for the person who touts things that can be delivered.

One quick example: Obama made a million promises in his first campaign that he would close GITMO. Those of us in the know knew that he could NOT deliver on that without further endangering the country. We have been proven right time and again and because we knew that he could not deliver on that promise we did not use that promise of his in deciding for which candidate we should vote. Furthermore most of us knew the danger of even trying to deliver on that promise and we tried to educate those non-informed voters among us (but in hindsight we failed to convince them).

Those who were not smart enough at the time to understand that GITMO could not be closed without further endangering the country were happy to cast their vote for Obama. I hope they are seeing the error of their ways and I know a few who genuinely do see their error.

Also, Obama made a promise to end all the wars we were in (Afghanistan and Iraq mostly).

Ironically the quickest way to end a war is to lose it. Check out what is happening! We lost the war in Iraq (and are coincidently paying the price but more importantly Obama made good on his promise) and will in the next few months lose the war in Afghanistan by running away as we did in Iraq. The funny part is that in this case Obama will have made good on his promise to end the wars, but sadly he will have put the United States in a much worse and much more dangerous position.

The informed voter foresaw this and didn’t vote for him while the uninformed voter did vote for him because they were unable to see the dangers of making good on those promises.

Have you noticed that Jackson is no where to be found? I suppose he could be away from the computer (legitimate) but it seems he might have just thrown that grenade under the tent flap and run.

I sometimes leave for an extended time but I don’t often throw that proverbial grenade under the tent flap before I leave.

Profile photo of Two Cents
Two Cents @twocents

@jlriggs57aol-com first of all, those pictures your posted are hilarious. Sometimes I think the gay community goes a little over board. It’s like calm down, you don’t need to like flaunt your sexuality so overtly. I am straight and I dont feel the need to like run around naked with women. It’s creepy. Just don’t do it. You’re so out there that of course people are going to be creeped out because it’s not appropriate, gay or straight.

@jackson1962 @kevlar I think one of the biggest issues with the gay rights movement, is that they don’t just want equal rights. They want over bearing rights. They want special privileges. If they just wanted to be legally bound to their spouse, why not just go for a a civil union? Why force everyone to change the definition of a word.

At the same time, I personally don’t care what they call it. If its marriage, civil union, whatever, fine let people do what they want but I think the fact that gays are trying to take over a word esentially, it shows their over reaching ways.

You can see this with the push to force churches to marry them. Churches should not have do things against their will. But they are claiming protective class, and therefore they can make claims of discrimination. See this article: http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/of-course-the-government-should-force-churches-to-perform-gay-weddings/

I don’t know how in what world sexuality has become a protected class. Don’t even get me started on that. But I think the anti gay movement is basically giving them more power becuase now people actually perceive that they are persecuted. If we just let them do what they want there would be no argument as to whether they were discriminated against, but now it seems that they are because so many right wing people speak out against them.

Lets just let them do what they want. If they want to call their union a marriage good for them, but at the end of the day all it is as far as the government is concerned is a legal contract binding your assets and your children to each other. What really matters, is the church that marries you and your commitment to God.

This is the one thing I get really confused about with religious people. Who care what your government does?? The USA government is so unimportant if God is all knowing and all powerful. Do you really think GOD cares what the USA government does? Its one governing body out of an entire world. He cares about you and what you do. Your actions. Your commitment to him, not the USA government. Get married in a church, in front of GOD, and forget what they gays do or don’t do or what the USA government does or doesnt do because it literally shouldn’t matter to you at all.

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@kevlar
@jackson1962
@twocents

Two Cents you said, “Sometimes I think the gay community goes a little over board. It’s like calm down, you don’t need to like flaunt your sexuality so overtly.” Yes they do need to flaunt their sexuality so overtly, simply because for all their rhetoric about their cause being about love, it’s not. It’s about sex and that’s all it’s about.

You also said, “This is the one thing I get really confused about with religious people. Who care what your government does??”

The government plays a big part to a Christian. With the uttering of the word or the stroke of a pen a tyrant can make Christianity illegal. It has happened in many countries. This is just one reason why Christians must keep a close eye on the government.

There are several other reasons, but I won’t go into those here. At the risk of insulting you or anyone else, which is never my intent, I would tell you that the other reasons would not make any sense to anyone who is not a Christian.

If a person wants to work a con on someone, would they just jump into it with the stranger they are trying to con or would they ease into it so as to avoid suspicion, to make it seem as everything is going smoothly, then spring the trap at the very end when it is too late for the one being conned to do anything about it? If you have ever seen a con job happen either in real life or in a movie you know the answer to the question.

The links below will lead you to a true story of a man who had sex with a dolphin for a year. He wrote a book about it. Did the literary world turn their heads in disgust at this man for his acts of bestiality? No. He got his book published. Did he lose some jobs, friends, family members? Yes. But not all. Is he going to be prosecuted for his acts? No. What he did, he did back in the 70’s. Here is a quote.

“… Brenner’s acts would be illegal today. But Florida only enacted a law banning bestiality in 2011, so the encounter he described in 1971 would not be covered.”

If you continue to read what he says, he tells the tale of the dolphin seducing him.

http://www.sfweekly.com/exhibitionist/2013/01/07/meet-the-man-who-had-sex-with-a-dolphin-and-wrote-a-book-about-it

http://rightwingnews.com/craaaaazy/man-sex-year-dolphin-named-dolly-speaks-year-long-affair-new-documentary-claims-seduced/

It seems that every year we are asked to accept more and more, and because it all happens slowly, methodically we just shrug our shoulders and go along with whatever the latest thing is.

Two Cents I would put it to you, where do we say enough is enough? When bestiality is accepted as normal? When pedophilia, rape, and incest is the next new normal? Where is the cut off? Where do we say, this is the line I am going to draw and I will not accept anything further?

To a lot of liberals I am speaking pure hate, because to not be for something is to hate. I disagree, God says we all sin and he also says as long as we breathe we have a chance. I am not for any sin, not even the ones I commit. The expectation for me is to work hard every day not to sin. The Bible says, “we are to strive for the perfection we can never gain”.

I’m not here to preach and I apologize if that is the way I came off. Sort of one of the dangers of the lifestyle.

I hope I was able to shed some light on your questions.

Have a great day Two Cents.

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar

@jackson1962
@twocents
@jlriggs57aol-com

TwoCents:

You bring up some interesting points. I like your paragraph “I think one of the biggest issues with the gay rights movement, is that they don’t just want equal rights. They want over bearing rights. They want special privileges. If they just wanted to be legally bound to their spouse, why not just go for a a civil union? Why force everyone to change the definition of a word.”

I agree that gays don’t want equal rights because they already have equal rights. I think you hit it on the head when you said they want “over bearing” rights. However if they ever read the Constitution and Declaration of Independence they would see that this is fundamentally and wholly against the American way of life and against every value for which we stand. I served 22 years in uniform and I didn’t serve a single day to allow one group to stand above another.

I also don’t have a problem with the concept of civil union. If that is a way, and I think it could work, to get the tax and medical benefits then let them pursue that track. I really don’t care if the civil union is, from a secular standpoint, identical to marriage. You mention that they could even call it marriage. As I have pointed out, we the people have the power, since marriage is NOT a right but a privilege, to redefine the word.

On using the word “marriage.” That is NOT within the power of the courts to decide nor is it in the power of the United States Supreme Court to decide (but I bet they will illegally decide it because of political pressure), it is a power of the people and of the people ONLY.

This means that to include gays in the definition of “marriage” you would have to open it to a state election (not national because this is not one of the enumerated powers and therefore the federal government cannot participate). If that happens, when it comes to the ballot box in my state I will vote against it and I will encourage my friends to do the same. I will vote against it because it is my OPINION that it is wrong. That said, if I lose on that in a valid state election I will respect the will of the people.

Another interesting point you bring up is the power of the church to marry you and the power of the state to marry you. This once again brings up the notion that marriage is both a faith based issue AND a secular issue. I don’t know if you were inferring this but I would like to mention it: the performance of a bond between two gay people should not be forced upon the church. In other words if the concept of homosexuality is wrong by the church teachings then the church should not ever be forced to perform that ceremony. Let the state do it instead, but only if the people of that state are willing to change the definition of marriage.

Taking that point one step further leads very well into the notion of the gay-bond being called a “civil union” and NOT a marriage. For the record again, I believe homosexuality is wrong but for some reason it is growing in popularity or at least the gay speech is getting louder. If it comes to the point where this must be resolved I think this might be acceptable. It gives the homosexuals what the allegedly want (legal bond with similar benefits to married couples) while maintaining the sanctity of marriage as between one man and one woman.

As for the relationship between the United States government and God, I am probably not qualified to speak on that. Sadly and sometimes regretfully the lack of qualifications rarely stops me from making a fool out of myself (LOL).

Anytime two or more people get together in any meaningful fashion other than a brief encounter on the sidewalk, a hierarchy will often develop. Certainly when the number of people exceeds a certain number (10, 100, 1000, I don’t know) they will form a hierarchy and look to one person as a leader. Think about a plane crash where the captain and first officer have been killed and the flight attendants as well. There is no “command” left. Often times it may be hours or days before rescue arrives, especially if you crashed in the middle of the ocean. My point is that in most cases, given enough time, a leader will emerge. It starts out unofficially because one person is both capable and willing to lead, then given enough time it often becomes semi-official.

The reason I went into that scenario is to illustrate that eventually all groups of people will form a hierarchy and this hierarchy is a simple form of government. This means that a form of government will always exist. It could be a democracy or it could be a dictatorship but it will eventually exist.

Back to the relationship between God and man’s government. Before the apple-eating event in the Garden of Eden that scenario probably never existed. After that point it has been a fact throughout history and will probably remain a fact of human nature until such time as God takes everything back (this is where my qualification to speak falls apart so I’ll not go down that road solely due to lack of knowledge, not belief OR disbelief).

Didn’t Jesus say “give unto Cesar what is Cesar’s but give unto God what is his?” I think (I guess this is also beyond my qualification so would someone with a strong understanding of the Bible please chime in here) that this was Jesus acknowledging, NOT approving but acknowledging the existence of man’s government.

Personally, post-Eden, I think that God looks at it and says that without his direct intervention (which many believe will return) this is bound to exist. Again he probably doesn’t give it the thumbs-up acceptance but until the time comes for him to return to direct control I think it is probably tolerated (again, past my qualification).

Furthermore I think he looks at all the forms of government and if he compared our type of government (not the way it is currently run but the way it was designed to run) with say that of North Korea where the people have NO RIGHTS and freedoms and can be killed at the whim of the dictator and with no recourse, and he is probably pleased (perhaps the words “not displeased” would be better) with our system of government. For the record I would never suggest that he is pleased with the CURRENT way our government operates, but if he looked at the way our government is designed to operate (in accordance with the Constitution) he might be “not-displeased.”

I am not personally a strong religious person though I do strongly believe in God. I have an issue with each religion claiming to be the right way and every other religion is wrong. I want to know which one is right and I will follow them, but any one religion according to all other religions is wrong and they say it with the same conviction.

Pick a religion and if ALL others are wrong, perhaps then ALL of them are wrong and none of them are right. I follow God in my own way. I respect all religions and I tip my hat to them all. I have been this way most of my life but with the recent events starting some 14 years ago and only getting worse, I am starting to question Islam as being a possibly invalid faith.

I question not because of the radical branch of Islam, we all know that Christianity has had its share of radicalism (think crusades and such) but what I want to see from the whole or “good” part of Islam is a collective condemnation of the radical part and the entire terrorist movement.

Individually they sometimes do this but collectively they will not. Its to the point (especially after the burning alive of the Jordanian pilot) that I believe the lack of a collective stance AGAINST this actually implicates the entire religion of Islam. I’m sorry if that offends some people but I do believe there might be some “back-door” approval there. I would like to think I’m wrong but sadly they are proving my point every day.

I try to live my life the best I can. I acknowledge and believe in God and as such the only thing I allow myself to do is be the absolute best person I can be. Do I stumble? Let me count the ways. Yes I stumble often. However, this is why I don’t feel that I’m qualified to speak in detail on the subject.

One more important point on God and government. Our Declaration of Independence (which we seem to have forgotten), in the very first paragraph acknowledges God, and in the second paragraph it declares our SUBORDINATION to God. This is the way our government was OFFICIALLY designed and it has never been officially changed. The current administration is bastardizing that design in countless ways. It would be dishonest of me to fail to point our that both parties are to blame, but the current administration of government is in all aspects, the worst.

I would like to hear an analysis of my “religious” thinkings on God and government by someone who has studied the Bible if anyone cares to chime in. For clarity, I suppose that when I mention the “Bible” I might reveal something about myself. If you want to make an inference from that you would likely be correct.

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@kevlar
@jackson1962
@twocents

Kev, I will attempt to answer your questions. I say attempt not because I don’t know the answers, but because I have to be very careful about how I word those answers. I will not go into great detail and will stick to what you asked.

You were talking about the conversation that Jesus had about money and paying taxes. That is found in Matthew 22: 16-21. And you are correct he was saying follow the laws of the government, unless they conflict with God’s will.

Through everything I have studied in the Bible I find little that speaks of God’s feelings about systems of government.

God loves and cares for his people, it would not be a stretch of the imagination to say that God would look favorably upon a country that protected His people’s rights to worship him freely.

You asked the question about which religion is the right religion? To that I would say research them. What year did each religion begin? Who started that religion? Which religion tells of the beginning of man and before? Which religion gives history that is verifiable? Ask every conceivable question you can think of. I will not tell you that my religion is the correct one. I can only tell you that if you want to know in your own mind, research it and find out. Maybe you will find the same information I did.

There is much, much more that I would like to tell you but it would be from the Christian Bible and it would include things you have not asked about. So I will leave that for another time, when we can talk one on one. You have my email address, you’ve posted it a million times.

Have a great day.

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar

@jlriggs57aol-com

James:

Thanks for the brief synopsis of my “uninformed” view of God and government.

When you opined that “God loves and cares for his people, it would not be a stretch of the imagination to say that God would look favorably upon a country that protected His people’s rights to worship him freely” pretty much describes my thoughts on the matter.

Once again, going past that on which I am qualified to speak, I tend to think that God probably does not endorse any man-designed government, only that he is probably, for lack of a better term, less annoyed with a government that protects the rights and freedoms of his people.

Interestingly when I say “rights” I am referring to those God-given rights as described in the Declaration of Independence. I think our founding fathers did the right thing when they made it their FIRST official action to subordinate ALL of the United States government and our country to God. I only wish our politicians throughout the years could have kept that good thing going. This, among others is why I think we need to get back to the Constitution and other founding documents.

When I said that my mention of the “Bible” might reveal something about myself and if the reader was to make an inference from that they would probably correct, yes my religious background and upbringing is Christian based and I have never renounced it nor will I. I am a bit leery of the corruption that has crept into many religions.

As for going to church, I am an amateur photographer (landscape, or scenery photographer) by hobby and from time to time I feel compelled to take my camera out to see some beautiful countryside, because that’s what cameras want to do – take pictures (I wanted at one time to be a comedian as well but that failed when I realized that you first need to be funny, LOL). The places I go to see beautiful country are “church” for me. Sometimes I will take the picture and then just stand there in awe of my surroundings and knowledge that man did not make this scene for me.

I respect the religions of others. There are a few that are out in the weeds and I probably acknowledge them more than respect them. I don’t have a prejudice bone in my body and I whole-heartedly stand behind our Freedom of Religion (to note: that is NOT Freedom FROM Religion as some idiots want us to believe) but considering current world events and the notion of one religion to eliminate ALL non-believers from the planet, I am starting to lay the foundation for a prejudice should I decide I need one in the near future.

One more thing on government and ours in particular (the way its SUPPOSED to be, not the way it is), we have the right to practice our religion as we see fit and NOBODY can forcibly change that. We have a federal government for the SOLE purpose of protecting that right, and a few others. To re-iterate the now obvious, there is no other purpose of the federal government than to guarantee the protection of those God-given rights.

Thats more in two days that I have said on religion than in the last two years. Now, where’s my camera?

Profile photo of Peter T. Burke
Peter T. Burke @peter-t-burke

@jackson1962

@jlriggs57aol-com

Jackson,

“Marriage” is just the business end of matrimony. Marriage under the law is the same as a business partnership. The only difference is that in business you are not supposed to f**k your partner.

The courts and the government become involved in the business end of matrimony due to the issues of property and children. There is nothing holy or special about marriage – it wasn’t created by God – marriage was created by government.

Matrimony is the inherent right of a man and a woman to join together as a family unit. Matrimony is recognized by religions through the process of “solemnization” or some form of religious “blessing” ceremonies.

Marriage is licensed to formalize the legal obligations created under the laws of the State where the marriage is licensed.

Through the license the State can identify the parties responsible for the welfare of minor children. As a result of the license the right of inheritance of personal and real property can be determined.

The State sets the obligations of the parties to the marriage in terms of the obligation of one party for the support of the other under certain specified conditions such as pregnancy, sickness, or disability.
I don’t find anything in the Bible or any other sacred text that sets out the conditions of community property ownership of property that was acquired in a common law venue. Do the natural children of the husbands girlfriend inherit from the community estate of the husband and his wife on the death of both the husband and his girlfriend? The Bible is not clear on this.

I understand that Jesus made it clear that a man who puts away his wife to take another commits adultery (and adultery is forbidden) but he was not clear on the issue. What happens when the man doesn’t put away his wife but instead just takes a second wife and keeps the first?
Will the children of the second wife have the same rights to support and property as the children of first wife?

Clearly the Bible states that a man must not covet his neighbor’s wife but what about the woman who willingly accepts the position and role of second or “sealed” wife? Where in the Bible does it forbid a woman from polyandry?

If people have no property and no children what benefit do they receive by being married by the State? Of course there is always the expectation of mutual support and defense in times of great hardship or sickness.

If two people want to be obligated to each other under the laws of the State why should they be denied that? What difference does it make if they are going to do what they do in private anyway?

So if a guy takes a Contract Wife and then keeps up his relationship with his long standing boyfriend , would that be OK? He isn’t taking another woman – he is just continuing with a man.

If the wife has a child is the husband obligated to the support of that child regardless? Who decides? Does the child of the wife inherit from the estate of the husband of the wife without consideration of paternity? Where are these civil requirements memorialized in writing?

Great topic!! Someday people in the US will begin to understand the business end of matrimony.

By the way, I believe that a religion has an absolute right to deny the rites of matrimony to anybody for any reason, or whim, that the religion deems appropriate.
On the other hand I believe that the State is obligated by:

” We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,…”

Profile photo of Policy MAKES me SIGH
Policy MAKES me SIGH @policysigh

@peter-t-burke I agree with your comments on marriage. Marriage is a legal relationship, a business relationship, its a contract as far as the government is concerned.

As far as the church is concerned, I would argue that marriage is different to each church. For example, catholic church has a totally different process for recognizing a marriage than a christian church, or a methodist church, or any other form of christianity/catholicism.

In order to get married in most churches you go through their own set of meetings, activities, and rules before they will marry you. Your church can think and say whatever it wants, but the government has one specific reason for being involved in marriage and that is the transfer or property rights and assets within families.

@kevlar
@jlriggs57aol-com
@jackson1962
@twocents

Profile photo of John PharmD
John PharmD @epharmd

@jlriggs57aol-com
Allows love the reason that folks are against gay marriage.
“As a Christian, the Bible I read, speaks against it.”
The bible speaks well of slaves. Do you treat yours well?

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@kevlar
@jackson1962
@twocents
@policysigh
@epharmd

John, I will do my best to answer your question.

As with almost all cultures and countries at any given time in their history, there were slaves, mostly in the Old Testament. There were many reasons that some had slaves. Most were nothing more than indentured servants, who owed a large debt or wanted something the “master” had that was valuable and the other person wanted it. Some of them were in-fact slaves. They came upon this situation by breaking the law or committing a personal crime against a person like killing a member of their family. Some became enslaved when they battled the Jewish people and lost the war and their freedom.

As I said that was in the time of the Old Testament, which was the agreement between God and the Jews, who were the chosen people.

It is only fair to state that the Jews themselves were in slavery for 400 years in Egypt.

Although the New Testament, which allowed salvation through Jesus to anyone, not just the Jews, did not directly condemn slavery, it does teach in many places that early Christians should give generously to the poor to keep them from becoming slaves or indentured servants, so that no one would go hungry, and that no one had to go without shelter or clothing. Donations given from the heart.

As far as slavery goes today, God says we must give up being slaves to sin and become slaves to righteousness. Not that any of us are righteous, because we sin daily, but that we should strive for a perfection we can never truly obtain. It is the act of earnestly trying in all things, that leads us to the hope of salvation through Jesus.

And as for me owning any slaves, wouldn’t it be redundant for a slave to own a slave?

If there is anything else I can shed some light on, just let me know.

Profile photo of John PharmD
John PharmD @epharmd

Wow this is precious. So the Bible needs to be read in context of the time and place? Except of course when it comes to LBGTs. Great. Thanks for the clarity.

I prefer to take the position of “what would Jesus do/think”. Of course he never did say anything on the subject.

It is looking like Friday the US will be evolving to a better place more consistent with Jesus’s teaching.

Profile photo of Peter T. Burke
Peter T. Burke @peter-t-burke

@jackson1962

cc:
@jlriggs57aol-com
@policysigh
@twocents
@kevlar

Jackson,
Regardless of whether people like it or not, “marriage” as addressed by SCOTUS (under US law) simply marks two facts:

1. The parties (in most States) do not presently have sexually transmitted disease,

2. the marital estate of the two parties has been licensed by the States and when the fact is acknowledged by a properly authorized official of the State, has commenced.

Nothing more. No mention of love, kids, honor and obey, till death do us part, or the name of a good divorce attorney. The State is only concerned with property rights and money.

The mistake here is made by confusing the State’s purposes with God’s purposes and specific grant of natural rights.

You can go to the Courthouse, satisfy the licensing requirements, and get the fact of the joining of the two legal estates acknowledged and filed for record while you register to vote. No God, no religion, no nothing. The State now has a record of who to pursue for child support, spousal support, and who will inherit from the estate of the parties and what is not subject to the natural law of descent and the State reserves the right to grant a divorce of the estates.

All the various religions have to do to protect themselves from being forced to violate their own conscience is to surrender their appointment as a “Marriage Official” back to the State – and we are done!!

For two people to join in what is the customary understanding of marriage in the USA all that would be required is two separate steps that can be done independently:

A. get a marriage license acknowledged and filed for records and,

B. make arrangements for matrimony in accordance with their religion of choice.

If the State wants to recognize the joining of the legal estate of a cat and a bird – who cares? The State does not define universal truth – God does!

If the various religions get out of the business of being a State authorized “Marriage Officiator” there will be nothing anybody can do about a church refusing to solemnize the union of Adam and Steve or the union of some farmer and his goat.
The problem comes in when the State official refuses to acknowledge that Adam and Steve have obtained a license issued by the State and they now demand that the fact of their union under the license granted by the State be acknowledged by a duly authorized and designated State official.

Persuade the Churches and religion to walk away from the State. Why would a true follower of God place any credence in the State’s claim of authority in their grant of a license for people to do what has been set forth in Genesis?

When did the State obtain the authority to grant or withhold a right that has been granted by God?

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@kevlar
@jackson1962
@twocents
@policysigh
@epharmd

John, actually he did speak on the subject. If you look at Romans 1: 26-32 you will find that he says.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

In 28 through 32 he puts them and those who agree with what they do, in with some pretty bad company.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Jesus would never condone homosexuality nor homosexual marriage.

Pete, If this was about love only like the liberals say then this wouldn’t even be an issue. All they would have to do is call it a civil union and it could hold the same governmental rights as a marriage and just move on with their lives, but this won’t work.

They don’t care about any of that, it’s not what they are really after. What they really want is to lesson the meaning of marriage, they want preachers, priests, or pastors from any and all denominations to have to perform their weddings because the law says so. They want Bakers, Wedding Shops, and Wedding planners who do not agree with homosexuality for religious reasons, to have to do business with them because the law says they have to.

It isn’t about the title, marriage, it isn’t about finding businesses that will happily cater to whatever they want. It’s about degrading religion and those who practice it. It’s about being able to make someone go against their faith so they can mock religion and say how fake and meaningless it is.

Liberals don’t want things, just to want them. They want them to make others bow to their way of thinking and agree with their ideals. Nothing less is good enough. Nothing less will give them satisfaction.

You guys have a great day.

Profile photo of John PharmD
John PharmD @epharmd

Using the bible to justify your bigotry is too easy and filled with folly.
This great Medium post, from a preacher, says it far better than I

https://medium.com/@adamnicholasphillips/the-law-of-the-land-has-caught-up-with-the-law-of-the-lord-4b282610a18c

My guess you are cool with the fifty shekels thing too. How much is that today?
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. (Deuteronomy 22:28–29, NIV)

Yes, have an awesome Gay Pride week end!

Attachments:
You must be logged in to view attached files.

Profile photo of Two Cents
Two Cents @twocents

@epharmd I think religion has it’s place in the world when people don’t get too literal.

But yeah, the bible, Koran, all religious text has some pretty crazy shit written in it.

All I know is that I don’t understand how conservatives in one breath can say that they don’t want to control people, they are for individual freedom, and then they care what gays do.

Let them get married!

It’s also quite interesting to me that religious people think God cares one single bit about what the USA government does. If you truly believe that God does not allow gay marriage, do you really think the USA government matters one single bit?

No, all God cares about is that YOU are living by his word, whatever that means. He doesn’t tell you to go force governments to force people to do things.

That would be Sharia! Am I right? The religious right is completely hypocritical on this one. Your so afraid of Sharia law, yet you want your religion to dictate government policy?

Hmmm… makes no sense!

@jlriggs57aol-com
@kevlar
@jackson1962
@twocents
@policysigh

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@kevlar
@jackson1962
@twocents
@policysigh

John, I have no bigotry towards homosexuals, I am not a homophobe, the word phobe means “fear of”, I have no fear of homosexuals. Do I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle? Yes, of course. If a person believes in God and God’s word says these are the things that are right and these are the things that are wrong, then that’s what they are, to the person who believes.

If a person doesn’t believe in God and doesn’t care what the Bible says is right and what is wrong, then that’s their decision. God gives freewill for every individual to live the way they want.

Having said that, when God has said something is wrong, then those who are trying their best to live by his word must speak out against it. There is no middle ground. In John 14:15 Jesus says, “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.” Then in Luke 11:23 He says, “Whoever is not with me, is against me, and whoever does not gather with me, scatters.” There simply is no middle ground.

When Jesus turned over the tables of the money changers at the temple, he did it because what they were doing was wrong according to God. It’s the same with homosexuality. When we as Christians see a wrong, according to God, especially when that wrong thing is being done on a large scale we speak out against it, as we should.

As for the link you posted to the preacher, who says he is a Christian, but clearly teaches against what Jesus taught, the only thing I can say is that I can call myself a gazelle, but that doesn’t make me a gazelle.

Lastly, you seem to keep referencing the Old Testament, I am not Jewish, I am Christian so I am not under the Old Testament laws. I do not live by them, nor will I be judged by them. As I told you before, the Old Testament was the agreement between God and the Jews who were the chosen people and the New Testament was given for everyone.

Two Cents you said, “I think religion has it’s place in the world when people don’t get too literal.” If you read my comments to John you will see that if a person doesn’t take God’s word literally, then they have no chance for salvation. In James 1:22 God says “But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves.” So if we just hear what God says, but don’t act on it, we are just fooling ourselves.

To your next point about the government. Yes, it matters very much to a Christian what the government does. As you can see by this topic the government is working against God, it is saying what God says is wrong and telling everyone that it is right and past that the liberals are already trying to silence Christians. A quick check of the internet will show you all of that. So yes, the government and what it does is very important to a Christian.

You are right about one thing, God does care that we live our (Christians) lives according to his word and that is a decision we (Christians) make for ourselves. I have never tried to force anyone to be a Christian or live a Christian lifestyle, but I will speak out against something that forces other people to have to live by, approve of, or accept, because the government says so. Look at the places that lost their businesses already because they would not provide services to someone who lives a lifestyle they do not agree with. To accept the lifestyle that God says is wrong, is to say it is alright, to say it is alright is turn against God, for a Christian.

If you want to believe that Christianity is like Sharia, that is up to you, but I would suggest that you look a little deeper into it. Christians do more charity work, to help more people than nearly any other group on the planet. They run soup kitchens for the homeless, they give clothes to the needy, they visit the sick, they set up groups to take the elderly to doctors appointments, etc. Does any of that sound like things that Sharia would do?

I guess that’s about all I’ve got, so you guys have a good day.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

In order to comment you must:
SIGN IN

or

CREATE A PROFILE
VIEW SIMILAR TOPICS