Yes, We’ve Opened The Door To Polygamy And Incest: We Just Didn’t Want To Admit It Before

Conservatives have been laughed at for claiming that the homosexual “marriage” pretense will open the door to a host of horrors. On March 20, 2012, Kent Greenfield, a law professor at Boston College, participated in this mockery by his review of amicus briefs that were given to the Supreme Court to defend the traditional (i.e. heterosexual) definition of marriage. He wrote in part:

“Then there’s the fixation on how a ruling in favor of gay marriage will start the nation down a slippery slope toward polygamy and incest.  Adam and Steve today; tomorrow Adam, Steve, with Cain and Abel along for the ride as well. But no one seems to notice that the slippery slope worries are as great with heterosexual marriage as same-sex marriage. The slope between gay marriage and polygamous or incestuous gay marriage is no steeper and no slicker than between heterosexual marriage and polygamous or incestuous heterosexual marriage. So how would this “slippery slope” danger play out? Is the worry that recognizing marriage equality for gays and lesbians will drive straight men into the arms of their sisters? Well, now you’ve lost me.”

That was written before the Supreme Court’s decision. Now that the decision has been made, Greenfield is suddenly changing message:

“It’s  been a few weeks since the victories in the marriage cases at the Supreme Court, and maybe it’s time for the political left to own up to something. You know those opponents of marriage equality who said government approval of same-sex marriage might erode bans on polygamous and incestuous marriages? They’re right. As a matter of constitutional rationale, there is indeed a slippery slope between recognizing same-sex marriages and allowing marriages among more than two people and between consenting adults who are related. If we don’t want to go there, we need to come up with distinctions that we have not yet articulated well.”

What follows is an examination of several attempts to stave off incestuous and polyamorous marriages. They all plainly fail. Most telling is this one:

“arguments for marriage equality do not really depend on the claim that people have no choice about who they are. Rather, the argument that resonates most with Americans is that LGBTQ people have the same right to make choices about their families as straight people. Let’s be honest: If science revealed tomorrow that sexual orientation is fluid and changeable, the arguments in favor of marriage equality would essentially be the same, wouldn’t they? Just like our arguments for religious liberty do not depend on whether people are destined by biology to be a Methodist, our arguments about the liberty to marry need not depend on science. In any event, if we throw all our eggs in the ‘it’s about the hardwiring’ basket, are we sure we have made the distinction we want? Are we confident that science will show that people who are polyamorous or who are attracted to a cousin are not hardwired that way?”

The whole article is good (and by good, I mean it exposes evil), but one other observation is especially important. The author asked homosexual “marriage” advocates about the distinction:

“In private conversations with leaders in the marriage movement, I often hear two responses. The first is that there is no political energy behind a fight for incestuous or polygamous marriages. The second is that they would be fine if those restrictions fell as well but, in effect, “don’t quote me on that.” The first of these responses, of course, is a political response but not a legal one. The second is to concede the point, with hopes that they won't have to come out of the closet on the concession until more same-sex victories are won in political and legal arenas.”

Conservatives were right all along. And we have many state battles in which to persuade the American people while they witness religious liberty being ended.


Comments

comments

  • ICOYAR

    You know what an unintended consequence will be? Widespread AIDS all due to people who want to cheat on their spouses. They want to turn marriage into a joke, and God does not take jokes well.

    Also, they want to destroy the family, they don't get anybody for who they could indoctrinate, all more conservatives and libertarians get larger families as a result.

    Leftists all call themselves "progressives", because if they don't, then they break the (weak) illusion that they put up, and the reality that they wanting to go back to the Stone Age way of thinking with these practices.

    • smilee

      Your so confused and aids will not be anymore widespread because of these changes as they have been having sex all along as do most heterosexuals married or not

      • KentPerry

        wrong again idiot

        • smilee

          OH and how then idiot???????????

  • Coda

    Conservatives need to just stop arguing arguing with liberals. Just stop. Because they will never listen. They need to quit compromising and just DO. They know people like that are dirty rotten liars who decieve the people to push their own agenda. Stick your foot in the gadang dirt quit talking and get to doing. Tell them liberals we don't care if it makes sense to you THIS IS HOW ITS GONNA GO DOWN, period, they don't get to talk. Libs love technical, wordplay, and focusing on tiny details. The bottoms line is no matter how you wanna argue it it will always be the same whether society agrees it will or not, once morals are destroyed so is that country, no matter how you want to argue it or whether or not you agree with it does not matter. So Sick of all this liberalism, we ain't gonna have none of that in this country, period.

    • John

      Sorry, your view points keeping gays from getting married are unconstitutional. Why do you disrespect the Constitution so brazenly?

      • David

        For what Moral or Ethical reason do they want to Be Married ?

        • John

          Same reason as heterosexuals want to get married. Did you really ask that?

        • David

          To Begin a Family and for the pro-creation of Children?

        • John

          Yep, and both are applicable for homosexuals too.

          Are you saying these are the only two reasons people have to get married? What about heterosexual couples who get married but decide not to have a family or children? What about those who can't have children because they are infertile? Should they not be allowed to get married?

        • David

          So using the same logic then why would they get married they can't have any Children either ! What's your point? If they can't then there is no need for it because that's why people get married !

        • John

          Have you heard of adoption? And since when is having children a requirement for marriage? My point is you are not the marriage police. So why do you feel the need to restrict people's rights?

        • David

          And if No One Wants to Give Away their Children to them ? I believe that's why those kinds of immoral relationships were always against the Law so they couldn't be married !

        • John

          Well we know that isn't the case, so why would you ask such a dumb question, and why do you capitalize the first letter of ever word?

          You do know that there are many people who get married who don't have children, right? Should they not be allowed to get married?

        • David

          Just Making a Point... If they have no Children Why get married.. It doesn't make any sense to be committed for Life to One Person for No Reason ! Then for the same reason Homosexuals or Anyone for that matter can Have Sex with Anyone or As Many People they Want to ! Isn't that why they meet others for to Begin with. No Commitments No baggage No Headaches !!!

        • John

          It doesn't have to make sense to you. It's none of your business. Why are you right wingers always sticking your noses in other people's affairs? Then trying to tell people how they should live their lives?

        • RageFury

          1 Word, Adoption.

        • RageFury

          Oh and many simply get married out of Love and for no other reason. Sexual Persuasion will not change that in the slightest.

        • smilee

          Not everyone gets married for that reason and the reason is only the business of each couple so butt out where you have no business.

        • Nameless App 1989

          Not everyone wants children.

        • G W

          I don't know either???? other than they desire to be recognized as normal and want the tax benefits of marriage?? Personally I don't care about civil ceremonies but the gay agenda forcing religions to legitimize which according to most religions is wrong, cannot possibly end up good for them. They seem to have a real hatred of Christians but if the Mohammedans ever gain control of government? the gays will wish they stayed in the closet.

        • smilee

          Does not matter as it is not your business why they want to get married and they are permitted equal protection under the law so they cannot be denied it and it is only a matter of time that this will be enforced in all states.

      • G W

        The gay agenda has made "fabulous" gains since the potus has come out in favor of the gay agenda BUT no where in the U.S. Constitution does it say anything about homosexuals having a right to get married much less forcing a religious ceremony. What is going to happen is the rainbow people are gonna push to far and there is gonna be a terrible backlash from society. Y'all should quit while your ahead. No pun intended.

        • John

          What gay agenda? You mean receiving the same rights protected under the constitution as you?

        • Dara

          Everyone has the same rights. Gays want SPECIAL rights. Natural law negates whatever fake gay 'marriage' law you people come up with.

          I really don't get you progressives. Those who CAN procreate demand the 'right' to KILL thier offspring. Those who CAN'T want to play at fake 'marriage.

          Call you 'gay unions' something OTHER THAN MARRIAGE. That one is taken!

        • smilee

          What sppecial laws, they are only asking for equal protection under the law which is required by the constuition. Procreation is not a part of any marriage law, it is neither required or denied by it so it is irrelevant to this discussion.

        • http://www.facebook.com/aemoreira81 aemoreira81

          The Constitution also leaves that issue to the several states as it isn't mentioned expressly in any Clause or Amendment...meaning that the place to check the agenda is the state level...but not the federal level.

        • smilee

          YOUR WRONG!!!! no state can write any law without equql protection and that includes marriage laws without guaranteeing equal protection under the law, 14th amendment

        • http://www.facebook.com/aemoreira81 aemoreira81

          Equal protection under the law? In what clause of Amendment of the Constitution is marriage mentioned?

        • smilee

          14th amendment and it says no state shall enact any law (marriage laws are state laws) and thus the fourteenth amendment does apply to marriage. It does not have to mention marriage per say but it does say all laws made by state has to have equal protection and marriage is a law so it must apply to it and when they do not give equal protection the court can and should strike it down.

        • http://www.facebook.com/aemoreira81 aemoreira81

          No...there is only equal protection for what is already in the COTUS (or what was passed later on).

        • smilee

          You just do not have it right, equal protection clause of the 14th amendment requires states to give equal protection under all its laws and marriage is one of them thus marriage is covered even though it does not say anything about marriage beyond equality for either straight or gay. No one can force a religious ceremony under the law so that is irrelevant to this discussion.

      • Dara

        The Constitution NOR the Bill of Rights addresses marriage. It IS a STATES rights issue. The People of 31 states have said a resounding NO to gay 'marriage'.

        • John

          Just like the people of many states said no to interracial marriage. How did that turn out for them?

          And yes, the constitution does address marriage. There are many cases which have established this, here are some recent ones:

          Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

          M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996) “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

        • Dara

          Nope... it does NOT. It's a STATES rights issue. That you post a lib judge's ruling with the words 'procreation' is amusing. Last time I looked two people of the same sex can NOT procreate... which is why a union between them can NOT be described as marriage.

          I have no problem with gays doing whatever with whoever (consenting adult!!!) they choose.....You progs make up words all the time...Call gay unions.... something ELSE.

        • John

          So you're saying that people who can't procreate should not be allowed to get married? Then what about the 10% of the US population who is infertile and unable to procreate? You don't think much, do you?

          Sorry. You don't have a monopoly on marriage. But you sure do have a history of trying to restrict others from getting married. Why is that?

        • smilee

          Your wrong go read the 14th amendment that says no state can write any law that does not include equal protection and as marriage are is covered under state law they cannot be enforced in an unequal manner. The Supreme court has yet to vote on that per say but they did let prop 8 stand and that decision found this to be the reason that prop 8 is unconstitutional, the Constitution trumps all 31 states that did that and it is only a matter of time until they will be forced to do so as the Constitution says that and will as soon as the supreme court rules the same as every lower court has.

        • Dara

          Nope (and it's you're - not your) wrong. The 14th says not a thing about marriage. The whole thing is - or should be - really pretty simple for all you 'scientific' progs.

          Marriage = 1 bolt and 1 nut.

          The 'marriage' of two bolts is a physical impossiblity... as is the 'marriage' of two nuts.

          Call your 'gay/lesbian/whatever' unions something ELSE and (for me at least) there IS no problem. The 'problem' gets ugly when YOU attempt to redefine yet another WORD.

          Saul Alynski would be SO proud... change the language... change the culture. Not only NO... but HELL NO!

          What I don't get is this: The 'gay' activists do NOT want 'equal' anything. Their STATED GOAL is to DESTROY the institution of marriage for EVERYONE.

          In EVERY country where gay 'marriage' has been federalized it has resulted in nothing but misery for ALL.

          'Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.'

          But you have a nice day.

        • smilee

          The 14th amendment says the states must only write laws that have equal protection in them and that applies to all state laws and one would think that you know that marriage is covered in state law so it has to have equal protections in it, You are so very confused and are babbling like a fool.

        • Dara

          Typical prog response... no intelligent, well thought out answer... progressive 'fall back' is to just call names. It's no wonder our country is in such a abysmal mess....perhaps you should study/read/learn before you speak... I've always found that to be a productive way to do business. Progs? It's seems you 'think' with your emotions, devoid of fact. Sad.

          As I said - I hope you have a nice day

        • smilee

          That has been the ruling of every court that has ruled on it so far, it is fact and has nothing to do with progressive beliefs it is just the facts. And it is what the 14th amendment says weather you like it or not as that is irrelevant. Your still babbling like a fool and facts are not something you understand as all I did was point out what the Constitution actually says and how the courts have to date ruled on this issue. What is sad is how you shoot your mouth without first putting the brain in gear.

      • Coda

        Well i think homosexuality is a disorder based on a faulty belief system or a way to cope with a current or past event in life or because of a perversion that manifested in your life. I wasn't taught to believe this by crazy old white men or whatever it's just what i think. I also believe in God and that he says homosexuality is a sin and I don't think he would tell you not to participate in something unless it was in your best interest.

        • John

          It seems like you can't think for yourself. Not much freedom in having your life dictated by religion.

        • http://pastorsb.com/ Doug Roy

          Religion, no, but the only liberty of mind and spirit are found in Christ. He taught us that sin binds men and takes their liberty. Only being liberated from sin can a man be free to think and believe the truth. "You shall know the truth and the truth will make you free." Jesus

          No religion offers this liberty. Only Christ, the Son of God. But only as a man repents and turns from his sin can this transformation come. And that command is from Christ to all men: "Repent and believe the good news!" Those who hang on to sin and believe its lies of "freedom" and "happiness," can never find liberty and remain bound to their sin and slaves to it. They will never be free to do what is good and right or to know the truth. And the end of their lives will only be the beginning of a just and eternal punishment for all the harm and evil they've promoted in this life.

        • John

          So what about those who don't believe in your Christ?

        • Coda

          There's no freedom in living under the control of sin. You see Christianity as a set of rules because you don't know anything about it. You can't be free living in the bondage of sin. Christianity has one requirement and absolutely no more. Most people think Christianity and immediately think of the ten commandments when really God never intended for us to be under law, but under grace. The law was given to show man the hopelessness of himself and bring him to his end to show him that he can't rely on himself. Noone was ever supposed to obey the law because God knew we never could.

  • Shermer

    I don't know anybody, at all, who thinks polygamy and incest are a good idea. When I do, I'll consider it time to entertain the possibility that we are on that slippery slope.

    • fliteking

      Apparently your liberal Pal John does.

      http://godfatherpolitics.com/11757/yes-weve-opened-the-door-to-polygamy-and-incest-we-just-didnt-want-to-admit-it-before/#comment-968876162

      Your comment fits well with the title of this article. Perfect in fact.

      • John

        Why are you linking to the article that you're posting in? Kind of redundant, wouldn't you say?

    • David

      What your Saying the Ungodly and the Wicked Don't have the Same Rights as Homosexuals ! It's In the Constitution ! You Know the Document that was Written years ago that has No Relevance Today, Unless of Course you Can Plant Some of Your Liberal Immoral Judge Friends to Rule in Your Favor that IS !!! God Help U.S.A.ll !!!

      • Shermer

        Why are random words in your comment capitalised?

    • thisoldspouse

      Uh... the people pushing for it apparently do.

      • Shermer

        What is the rate of public acceptance of polygamy and incest?

  • John

    This rhetoric sure sounds familiar, where have I heard it before? Oh yea! I remember! It's EXACTLY what the racists were saying in 1967 when they didn't want interracial marriage to be legalized. Look at the argument delivered by the then assistant attorney general for the state of Virginia in the Loving vs. Virginina case. Tell me if you recognize any similarities in the language that the bigots today are saying will happen if homosexual marriage is legalized. Then tell me which of these things have happened. Of course, none of them have.

    "It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent."

    Notice any similarities, bigot? Isn't history great? It shows that prejudice is the same regardless of the issue at hand. Shame! Aren't you bigots embarrassed?

    • fliteking

      Still have that "hatred thing" tempering your behavior, no?

      Have you ever stopped to reflect on how you readily stereotype Conservatives?

      It is obvious, from reading your past posts, stereotyping Conservatives is a hobby for you.

      You seek out specific people of known belief systems in an effort to demonize and judge them, in other words you leave a clear path & evidence doing exactly what you claim Conservatives are guilty of doing. Don't you find this concerning ?

      • John

        What part of my post was stereotyping? I'm showing that the language used today to fight against gay civil rights is the same as was used to fight against interracial marriage. Sorry that makes you look like a bigot.

        ps: look up the definition of stereotyping. don't you find it concerning that your post makes no sense?

    • fliteking

      Just can't stop, can you?

      I bet those you know in the real world do everything they can to avoid you.

      • John

        You seem upset. It's okay. Why aren't you proud of your history and bigot roots?

    • fatman45

      Would that be the 1967 case defended by the DemocRAT governor of Virginia Miles Godwin, defending the 1924 law passed by the majority DemocRAT assembly of Virginia and signed into law by the DemocRAT governor of Virginia Elbert Rinkle? Those bigots? History is great, when it isn't rewritten by the leftists who control the education system and the media. From Lincoln all the way to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s it was Republicans who pushed the civil rights movement, yet somehow, everyone believes DemocRATs to be the champions of it.

      • John

        I lose track of the amount of times right winger bigots try to ignore the southern strategy and the dixiecrats. It's like all you idiots think party lines have stayed the same since the founding of the parties.

        Ironic that you say the left is rewriting history as you do it right in your post by trying to equate the Democratic party of the 20s to the current one. Ah, the irony is just too great not to point out.

        Would you like to comment on the issues I brought up? Or do you like to ignore the fact that you right wingers use the same arguments that were used against interracial marriage?

        • fatman45

          I lose track of the amount of times left wingers try to ignore the fact that southerners have moved on from past. It's like all you idiots think old prejudices have stayed the same since the founding of the Republic.

          Ironic how you try to turn the tables of the discussion by putting words in my mouth in order to insult me. Where exactly did I "equate the Democratic(sic) party of the 20s to the current one"? I was merely pointing out how the current DemocRAT party tries to ignore (rewrite) their own history.

          My only objection to gay "marriage" is the Orwellian redefinition of words. Call it whatever you want - just don't call it a marriage because it is not! Other than that, if they wish to live in sin, as long as they aren't harming anyone else that is their business and the moral consequences are between them and God.

        • John

          Oh, you've moved on from the past? Haha, please.

          Is that why in the year 2000, when there was an amendment to remove the ban on interracial marriages from the Alabama constitution, 40% of the vote wanted interracial marriage to remain illegal? Is that what you mean by southerners have moved on from the past?

          You are rewriting the history by not acknowledging that many of today's racist Republicans were the Democrats of the 60s. Don't play victim here.

          How is it not marriage? Who are you to decide what is or isn't the definition of marriage? If a church wants to marry a gay couple, who are you to say they can't? Funny that you mention "orwellian redefinition". What would you call the ban on interracial marriage?

          Keep your religion to yourself and stop trying to dictate other people's lives, thanks!

        • smilee

          Just one point today all those states you mention are as we speak rewriting their voting laws after the latest SC ruling to restrict many from voting in their states these are Bills developed by ALEC and is the model being used in these states to do just that and ALEC from its inception has admitted that it's s top priority for them. These prejudices do very much still exist today and are more prominent in the old confederate states and they have now taken over the republican party and that is their current home.

        • fatman45

          The laws you speak of are only trying to "disenfranchise" the dead DemocRAT "voters" along with the illegal alien DemocRAT "voters" and just generally stop all the other ways DemocRATs cheat in elections. Which is why the DemocRATs are so against them, even though more than 80% of the public support voter ID laws!

        • smilee

          Then you admit these laws will disenfranchise some and as illegal citizens do not vote that is not an issue anyway and the dead do not vote despite your allegation ( i realize years ago some alive voted for them but that was a rare exception and not the rule or any evidence it has happened in recent times) there is no evidence of voter fraud to speak of either based on the few whom are charged after investigations. WE here a lot of rhetoric that supports your silly statements but nothing to factually support it has been found but never the less those whom want to disfranchise some voters will tell that lie repeatedly to accomplish their goal and the ALEC model for these laws which is being used and despite their denials it does disfranchise a large number and it prevents no fraud. The majority have not figured that out as yet and that includes you. Propaganda and false rhetoric does work at least for a while, if it didn't you people would not use it if it was not ineffective in getting what you want.

        • fatman45

          Yes, I admit it will disenfranchise those who have no legal right to vote! I don't see how anyone who has a legitimate right to vote could be disenfranchised by simply asking them for their identification! For instance in Texas and Pennsylvania free ID cards will be given to anyone who doesn't have one. But reality is no one in this day and age can get along without ID, so that is a superfluous argument. And yes, there have been many documented cases of dead people voting, or rather, live people fraudulently voting in the name of dead people. Christine Gregoire became governor of Washington through the dead vote, Al Franken became a Senator thanks to the votes of dead people, and in the last election it was documented that votes had been cast in the names of dead people in both Ohio and South Carolina.

        • smilee

          Photo ID will not tell anyone if you are eligible to vote only that it is a picture of you. There are many whom do not have a card and only the ID card is free, verification documents are not nor is transportation costs and other related costs. Some of these documents are $35.00 or more. I live in MN and that is an out and out lie about the Franken election as it never happened and it was for lack of trying to prove it on the part of the republicans. No election has ever been so scrutinized as that one and in the end even the republicans had to admit that and that is was fair and honest. The majority of those who did the recount were republicans and all of them said it was 100% fair and honest and which proves you wrong on that election and as you will lie about that you are probably lying about the rest of your statements you cannot prove they ever happened. You sir have absolutely no concern for the truth and are willing to make statements that are totally false. These laws disenfranchise many people and that is why they are being passed not for honest elections and data galore exists to to support it.

      • smilee

        Were you been, the southern democrats you speak of left the party after the civil rights act and voting rights act was passed and became republicans as Johnson said would probably happen when he sign the bills. The old south is solid republican today and just as radical as the democrats in the 1860"s when the old south was all democrats. Johnson was the champion of it and he was a Democrat and that is a fact most believe if had not shepherded it through congress is never would have passed, he and Lincoln both were the best at arm twisting the congress of any presidents we have had.. It was just as hard for Lincoln to get congress to pass the 13th amendment as it was for Johnson to get the civil and voting rights bills passed. They both did what was considered impossible.

    • http://pastorsb.com/ Doug Roy

      What I notice is a guy who calls himself John trying to equate bans (that have since been lifted) against interracial marriage w/ bans on perversions like homosexual and incestuous relationships. Not apples and oranges. Homosexual sex is two men anally copulating: which is an unclean and unsafe and unnatural act, and women doing the same unnatural stuff that leads to early deaths and much sickness and disease making the average lifespan of both male and female homosexuals only about 55 years. Rather than bigotry, I'd have to label your argument as stupidity.

      • John

        Do you also notice that you want to take your opinion and use that to restrict their rights? Can I use my opinions to restrict your rights too?

        Do you also notice it's none of your business? Why do you care?

        • http://pastorsb.com/ Doug Roy

          What is a right, John? Who declares a "right?" Right used to imply something good given to man to protect him. Homosexuals are killing themselves and harming others and promoting perversion and promiscuity. That is NOT a right. It is licentiousness and evil.

          It is as much my business as anyone in this country and I care because I love God and his laws and truth and hate lying and corruption: calling good evil and evil good. I rebuke what you are doing because you use a corrupt argument to support immorality in society.

        • smilee

          How are they killing themselves???? I believe the gay gal who brought forward the DOMA challenge was 83 in good health and over the average death age. You only have respect for those you approve of,, Just how Christian is that?????

        • http://pastorsb.com/ Doug Roy

          I quoted stats from an actual study. This is reality, like it our not. If you don't know the dangers of anal sex and all the other perversions practiced, you need to do your own study.

          Christ opposes all sin. Homosexuality has long been called a perversion and an abomination in the Bible (over 3,500 years). Nothing new here. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed perhaps 4,000 years ago and the land there by the Dead Sea is still dead today as a reminder of God overthrowing these wicked towns wherein they practiced open homosexuality and many other perversions.

          The tribe of Benjamin was nearly wiped out in the time of the Judges of Israel because they adopted the homosexual and other perverse practices of the people of Cana. Read about it in Judges 19 and 20. It wasn't just the perpetrators of the crime that ended up dying, but those that supported their "rights" to do these things.

          I respect the Bible as the inspired Word of God. You should consider that by supporting the gays and their lifestyle, you will be judged as guilty as they for siding with them. Either you are for what is good and right or opposed to it.

        • smilee

          But you do not respect all God's children, how christian is that?????

        • John

          The constitution does. Stop trying to rule others based on your religion.

        • http://pastorsb.com/ Doug Roy

          Stop trying to rule others base on your atheism or secular viewpoints.

          Show me in the Constitution, John, where anyone has the right to homosexual behavior and homosexual marriage?

          And where did those rights come from that you refer to in our Constitution? Methinks you need to read the Declaration of Independence where the source of our rights is mentioned.

        • smilee

          Under the fourteenth amendment which guarantees equal protection under all state laws and the ruling of the court in Texas a few years ago specially ruled they had that right under the Constitution based on it. You now have been referred to where it is in the Constitution

        • http://pastorsb.com/ Doug Roy

          No, you've only stated a recent corrupt ruling of one court of a few men. I could state many such corrupt rulings, even by SCOTUS. The state of Texas also had laws in the book several years back (as did many states) that made sodomy a criminal act and it was held to be so for a long time. The SCOTUS struck down this law and those of other states duly authorized by their state legislatures and approved by their governors. The laws against sodomy also coincide with the laws of God for the conduct of men on this planet as stated in the Bible. These laws have been in effect since the beginning of the human race, as God made them male and female and Christ reiterated that law as the rule for men and women in marriage (Mark 10:7). The tenth amendment gives states clear authority to enact their own laws of conduct within their states. The Const. does not give SCOTUS the right to overturn duly authorized laws not in direct violation to the Const.

          When people think that "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is somehow a license to live whatever debauched lifestyle they choose, they have no support in the law or Const. when looking back to the first hundred and fifty years of this nation. Only recently (last 50 years) has SCOTUS interfered with state's rights and usurped authority from Congress and the people. It is their actions outside the rule of law and the Constitution that have led this country down the path to immorality and an antichrist school system and a nation that kills their own babies by the millions.

        • smilee

          Your whole post is pure garbage and contains no truth. The courts have ruled and you can say they are corrupt rulings but they uphold the constitutionality. The tenth only gives states the right when the US Constitution does not prevent them from doing so and in these cases they do the states have to comply by the US Constitution then and you can claim the contrary but what you claim is inaccurate and means nothing what the court says does and is the final say which you are in denial of.

        • http://pastorsb.com/ Doug Roy

          My post is true and that's why you attempt to belittle it. You are an enemy of the truth, smilee and you worship men above God. If the court told you to jump of a cliff you'd jump. You are so steeped in propaganda and lies you wouldn't know the truth it if bit you. I have nothing more to say to you. I think you are a troll.

        • smilee

          Pointing out the error of your statements is not belittling you. You say I worship man above god which is another lie you made up as i only worship GOD. Nothing in the constitutions makes anyone jump off cliff so the court cannot order that so that statement of yours is just plain silly and stupid as is the rest of your post which is untrue and another lie from you

        • John

          How am i trying to rule you? What rights am i trying to restrict?

          Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Sorry you can't define what other peoples happiness is. How would you like it if muslims started dictating what you can and can't do?

        • http://pastorsb.com/ Doug Roy

          I didn't define it. God did. All that oppose and rebel against his clear instructions and refuse to repent will be quarantined after this life from those that do. Their rebellious (sinful) actions, even though they think they are just fine, are judged by a higher power, the Creator. He has deemed them unfit for existence with God and his people.

          Muslims think the destruction of infidels is for their happiness. You are also on their list to be destroyed. The Christian religion and those who follow the Savior are deemed unfit by you and your kind, as our ideas are contrary to yours.

          Only true Christianity allows for true tolerance within a nation and between nations and those type of people helped form the U.S. Constitution using Biblical ideas. Those ideas of God and Christ are that all men might repent and be saved, so time has been given to all men, as God doesn't want any to perish. As to our govt: It is imperfect, but the current problems have arisen due to rejection of the original intent of the Constitution and the true civil rights of man. Men have purposely subverted the original intent of the laws and perverted them, even as men have perverted the original intent of sex and marriage. Your mind has been perverted. You've been deceived to believe that somehow allowing perversion to be accepted is a good thing. But you are not thinking of what is truly best for the people caught in the sin of homosexuality. There lifestyle is not only destroying their physical and spiritual lives, but it is attempting to destroy God's intended design for the family, the basic element of society. This perversion is a society destroying sin and the reason why God must judge those who practice it and allow it. If left unabated, the entire world will fall back into dark ages not seen since the flood of Noah.

        • John

          You do know that your religion isn't the only one? Have you read the first amendment?

        • http://pastorsb.com/ Doug Roy

          I am well aware of that. However, the first amendment usage of the word "religion" is not the same as you use today. It meant religion as "denomination" or sect. England had one sect that the govt recognized. France did the same, as did Italy and nearly every nation. However, our fathers wanted no sect to be promoted or excluded, but rather that all sects of Christianity would be free to practice religion. To imply that these learned men, most who were directly affected by the Great Awakening, thought that they might establish "Christianity" was ludicrous. Christianity long preceded them, as did most religions. They were only concerned about establishing one Christian sect over another which always brought persecution. However, there are a great number of official documents and actions of the Congress and President which clearly show the promotion of the Christian religion above all other religions, including the funding and printing of the first American Bible to be used in our schools, the funding of chaplains for the Congress and for servicemen, the proclamations of fasting and prayer, the recognition of Thanksgiving and Christmas and Easter. The national day of prayer and many, many other actions that show their promotion of not a single sect, but the Christian religion in general above all others.

        • John

          So basically, you are trying to justify forcing your beliefs on those who don't share your beliefs.

          The first amendment doesn't talk about establishing christianity. Reread it. No law respecting an establishment of religion, yet that is precisely what you want to do.

        • http://pastorsb.com/ Doug Roy

          It seems to me that in today's society secular humanism is being forced upon our children in schools. Are you okay with that? Children are not allowed to pray in their classrooms, nor are teachers. An atheistic viewpoint is being forced upon them with threat of job loss. They are not allowed to freely practice their religion as the second clause of the 1st amendment directs, "Nor prohibit the free exercise thereof (of religion). Atheists are currently the victors in our public school system and lord their beliefs over everyone. When Christianity was freely practiced, prior to 1962, all children were free to express themselves as were teachers. Prayer was not forced on anyone. Belief in God was not forced on any child, but the truths of the Bible were expounded and prayer to God was made in the classrooms. There were even assemblies where there was preaching of the gospel. But unlike Islam, where belief is by compulsion under threat of punishment, there was no threat upon any child for non belief, only for bad behavior.

        • John

          How is humanism forced? You have the option of going to non-public schools, first of all. Second of all, public schools teach about religion. So how is humanism forced on to anyone?You are allowed to pray. You simply aren't allowed to force others to pray.

          "They are not allowed to freely practice their religion as the second clause of the 1st amendment directs,"

          Absolutely wrong. No one can stop you from praying or forming a group to pray. Why are you misrepresenting the facts here?

        • http://pastorsb.com/ Doug Roy

          So you admit that humanism is what is taught now? Humanism is a religious belief, a theology so to speak.

          Few have the option of private school. Only those with more money. Some barely have a roof over their heads and a bit of food on the table.

          Neither children or teachers are allowed to pray without threat of punishment of some kind. Certainly not in the classroom as they once did. This is the loss of freedom to exercise ones religion.

          I am not misrepresenting the facts. Freedom to practice your religion only in the confines of what the state directs is NOT freedom. I know a young girl who was stopped from praying over her food, told that she could not do that here (in the lunchroom). I know a young man who started a prayer group and they tried to force him from school property. The ruling against prayer and Bible reading was a direct violation of the second clause of the 1st Amendment, Teachers have been fired for simply talking to a student about their faith. No, this is not freedom John. This is tyranny of the worst sort.

        • John

          Everything in public schools is taught with equal weight. Be it math, science, world religions, chemistry, etc. I have no idea where you get your information, but the law says you are able to do those things which you say people are forbidden from doing.

          I'm not really interested nor do I believe your anecdotal evidence of people being reprimanded for praying. All freedoms have stipulations. Freedom of speech won't cover me if I make death threats to someone. According to your logic, that's the government suppressing my rights.

          Here, educate yourself on the laws regarding religion in public schools so you don't come across as being so ignorant: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faq/frequently-asked-questions-religious-liberty

        • http://pastorsb.com/ Doug Roy

          When someone calls me a liar I tend to treat that as offensive, John. You have offended me. This is also an abuse of your liberty, but not one that gets you locked up. It just gets you ignored.

        • John

          An abuse of my liberty? Because I said I didn't believe you? PLEASE! You obviously don't believe me either, so should I act offended like you are doing here? What a drama queen act. Is this to compensate for a lack of rational answers to the points I made? I think so.

          You are supporting the unconstitutional limiting of someone's rights based on your religion. And now you want to cry about it? Oh, yes, you poor soul.

        • http://pastorsb.com/ Doug Roy

          You didn't just say you didn't believe me, you said you didn't believe my examples which I knew of first hand from the people who experienced it. In so doing, you called me a liar. I disagree with your attitude and your take on things, for sure, but I've not called you a liar. And herein is an example of your misunderstanding of liberty, rights, and abuse. In your arrogance and conceit you have failed to recognize truth or evidence that is contrary to your own notions and you attack those who disagree with you using insults.

          And, using sound logic, I will point out how 150 years went by with strong laws on the books of every state against acts of sodomy. All the courts till that time never once thought they did not have the right to limit wicked behavior in society by making laws against it and punishing it. Keep in mind also that the State of Virginia had a penalty of life in prison against sodomy. Thomas Jefferson sought for lessening of the penalty to castration, but his proposal was voted against.

        • John

          Yes, I don't believe your examples. Why should I trust a stranger on the internet that I'm debating with who misrepresents many facts? Would you believe my anecdotal evidence that all spoke against what you claimed? Of course not. Everything you are typing is in disagreement of what I say, but I'm the bad one? Please. I have not called you a liar either, so what are you going on about?

          My arrogance? You are the one claiming a divine truth who wants to rule all people, including those who don't believe in your religion. And you call me arrogant? The arrogance required to do and say that is beyond imagination.

          I have not insulted you so please stop playing the victim, it is really pathetic to watch.

          I will also point out how xxx years went by with strong laws in favor of slavery. All the courts till that time never once thought they did not have the right to treat African Americans like slaves and property. And until the amendment granted women the right to vote, they could not do so. Citing tradition as an argument in your favor is really weak, but I guess that's all you have. That and imposing your views on religion to everyone you possibly can.

        • http://pastorsb.com/ Doug Roy

          You do not understand the nature of true Christianity and Christ's teachings. There is no compulsion to believe in Christ. Only the standards of right and wrong are espoused in society according to the basic laws of God, tempered by Christ's doctrine. These laws are good for all men and herein is the conflict. Homosexuality is bad for society, for families and the promotion of healthy relationships among people. I am not calling for the deaths of homosexuals, simply forbidding them from legal approval and support which only affirms them in an evil lifestyle and degrades the true purpose and meaning of marriage. "Supporting" them is an oxymoron. It's like a father supporting a sons criminal lifestyle of burglary. So are people who "support" homosexual lifestyles. They really hate homosexuals by their action of supporting their sinful, debilitating lifestyle. They debase true marriage and are helping to destroy the correct meaning of marriage and family. There basis of "support" is a hatred of what is good and right. They encourage the destruction of these people's eternal souls, which they care nothing of and are callous for the concern of their own souls. Their love and support is a deed of hatred and depravity of mind. Also, the "supporters" of homosexual marriage hate those with contrary views. They promote dissension and enmity among people, not peace. They want to destroy Christianity in society and consider its influence evil and destructive to their goals of sexual liberty (or utter debauchery). They are enemies of peace and good.

        • John

          Ah, yes, another false prophet trying to tell me what I do or don't understand about Christianity. Yes, I'm sure your definition of things is the only true Christian way of being. Right?

          What don't you understand about you not having the right to legally discriminate? What part of the Constitution are you confused about? I'm sure you sin often, can I take your rights away so as not to support you and your sins?

        • http://pastorsb.com/ Doug Roy

          Yes, I am right, but the truth support all who believe it.
          I have the right to discriminate every day...legally, as do you.
          I have no confusion about the Constitution at this point.
          Not all sins are violations of civil law. Pride is a grave sin, yet it is one of the heart and mind. However, it does go before destruction and a fall.

        • John

          And of course, you assume your truth is the ultimate one. Why? Because it's written in a book? What about other religions and their texts? They can claim just as much right to the ultimate truth. There is no way of proving anyone is right. Sure doesn't seem to stop self righteous people like yourself though.

          Yes, you are confused about what the first amendment means and the restrictions that are in place.

          And you have dodged my main point which is that you wish to punish people for their sins, so why can't I punish you for yours?

      • smilee

        These same acts are very common between heterosexual people too so why then do they not die younger, I think your conclusions are skewed and nothing but BS

  • Screeminmeeme

    You can't destroy the basic building blocks of civilization and then wonder what happened when it falls. And fall, it surely will.

  • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

    Of course in California they rejoice because the favorite targets of homosexuals are little children and they have now been put on the satanic altar of liberalism with its high priest. Obama.

    • John

      Drama queen alert.

      • TheSunDidIt

        It's a fact pedophile.

      • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

        No drama fact. Look at the laws that they have passed forbidding teaching them that gays and their illness is not a good thing. As for "queens" I heard you still have not found that hamster.

        • John

          Are you complaining that you can't discriminate? That is too funny.

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          Cant discriminate?? Sure I can. I also know right from wrong. And good from bad. To bad you never learned those things

        • smilee

          I do not think you do or up from down either

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          Up from down?? Gravity takes care of that. I have morals and ethics for the rest. Something liberals never had and are unlikely to get.

        • smilee

          Your assumptions are again so incorrect, your hatred of liberals blinds you to the truth

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          Typical liberal now gravity does not exist. Liberals are what they are and are easy to pick apart because they do not dwell in reality. The current President is a perfect example

        • smilee

          What do yu know about reality, your posts make it very clear you know nothing about it.

    • smilee

      You get my award for the biggest liar on this site

      • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

        Look up the laws that California is trying to pass. Then take that gays love little children. In the wrong way of course. And you get the daily award of most ignorant moron. Liberals seem to win something every day.

        • smilee

          That award most definitely belongs to you

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          And obviously you can not read either.

  • http://www.facebook.com/aemoreira81 aemoreira81

    At least states can stand in the way of a moral slippery slope, as age-based restrictions should stand up in court, as well as a race- and gender-neutral basis for restricting certain types of marriages.. If SCOTUS had ruled the other way and upheld the federal DOMA's Article 3, that would have continued a different, more dangerous slippery slope started by Wickard v. Filburn and then expanded by Roe v. Wade and NFIB v. Sebelius (there, Kennedy was in the dissent) of granting the feds extra-Constitutional powers. Moral issues should still be states' rights issues.

    Which would you choose? Here, choosing neither is not an option.

    • John

      It isn't a moral issue, it's a constitutional issue. Stop trying to force your religion onto others, thanks!

      • Nameless App 1989

        Exactly! If Gay were a mental illness that can be cured, then how come not all of us are straight?

        • JT1964

          For the same reason that some are serial killers, kleptomaniacs and alcoholics. It's a mental disease masked by the "click" of endorphin rush. There was some progress being made by addressing the psychosis with added levels of testosterone or estrogen; as males and females that suffer this disease seem to have lower levels than their heterosexual counterparts. Unfortunately, this research was ended under pressure from those who wanted more "playmates".

          The key here is that we all have some forms of mental illness. The difference is that some embrace their disfunction, while others rightfully fight against it.

      • smilee

        The SC only rules on Constitutional issues and two many do not believe in the Constitution being the supreme law of the land and expect them to not follow the Constitution but religious doctrines

  • RBlakeH

    They also opened the door to beastyality in their endeavor to bump south of the equator heads.

  • TheSunDidIt

    Not just "steep" and "slick" (as in Slick-Willie) but, SLIMY too.

  • ed8101

    One only has to review history and the fall of all great empires and civilizations. Almost all of them fell for the same reasons -- moral degeneration. We are on the same path. When will people wake up and recognize reality?

    • Nameless App 1989

      "Moral degeneration?" If you all were as for "sanctity of marriage" as you say you are, you'd abolish divorce as well.

      And another thing. Speaking of Polygamy, Mitt Romney is a Mormon, and Mormons have received a lot of flack for condoning Polygamy as well.

      • ed8101

        Who said any of us were in favor of divorce? It is a horrible thing. I wish people could be mature enough to work through their difficulties. If children are involved, they bear the brunt of it. As far as the Mormons, they did encourage polygamy early in the movement. However, they have long abandoned the practice. Although I have heard of a splinter group that still adheres to the idea.

    • John

      Can you give an example of ONE great empire/civilization which fell due to moral degeneration?

      • pgson

        Greece, Egypt, Rome, just to name some *minor* ones...

        • John

          And what moral degradation was responsible for it?

        • pgson

          Perhaps you should actually do some research on history, if you truly need to ask that question. We look just about like Rome did right now. The politicians corrupted to their cores, leaders half insane with power, homosexuality, and every other form of sexual deviation, porous boarders, armies of defense and its people's spread so thin, failing economy bled dry by the leaders; their invaders took them over from not only the outside, but from within. This is the same with all I've mentioned, actually. The pattern remains the same, constant throughout time.

        • John

          So in other words, you can't answer? Wait, you think that homosexuality is what caused the fall of Rome? Bahahaha.

        • Dara

          @John - You really haven't read your history, have you? Please do so before any further comment. Your total and complete ignorance (on this matter) is STUNNING.

        • Thomas Klein

          What are you talking about, you asked, they answered, rather well, and then you say You can't answer? Homosexuality is just one indicator of moral decline, but it, in itself didn't bring down Rome.

        • John

          Rather well? The only thing related to moral degeneration that I could see in that post was what the author called sexual deviation.

          What do any of the other factors have to do with it?

          " porous boarders, armies of defense and its people's spread so thin, failing economy bled dry by the leaders; their invaders took them over from not only the outside, but from within."

        • RageFury

          Infidelity rates are another.

        • pgson

          Wow, so that whole paragraph of 93 words written, you were only able to read or retain *one* of them? Looks like living proof drugs do destroy short term memory.

        • John

          If you can tell me how borders, armies, or the economy related to moral degradation, then maybe you might have a point. Good luck.

          Did you find it was worth it to count the words in there to make your point? Hahahaha.

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          No he did answer. Homosexuals in Rome and Greece liked little children to. Some things never change.

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          Homosexuality. Now for more answers go back to school and your mothers basement.

      • Guest

        YOU USEFUL-IDIOTS LIKE YOU.

  • oleinwi

    I will put this forth here and now, the pedophiles have been using the same arguments as the homosexuals for years, "it's just how they are, they are born that way, it's how they show their love..". Get ready folks, remember, the opposition to homosexuality was just as strong 50 years ago as the one against pedophiles now...I promise, that will be coming down the road. They have opened Pandora's box (Satan's box?), and will not even attempt to close the lid. In the not too distant future, you will hear arguments about legalizing the whole works!

    Also, the historical statement below is absolutely correct, every great civilization in history lost its moral compass, shortly before they fell...

    • smilee

      The difference is that gay marriages is between adults and has noting to do with children and is looked at very differently by both gays and straights. This is not a worry as to becoming law as that will never happier as very few in numbers support it, the majority now support gays and it is because they are adults and deserving of the freedom to be their themselves. The other is an abusive behavior and not likely to every be an accepted practice. Your just simply barking up the wrong tree.

      • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

        Actually 33 states have outlawed gay marriage. The numbers are against you. And when it is widely known that little children are your target (1-2% commit over 33% of child molestations) then the hunt will begin. Of course you all have been nice enough to come out of the closet. Easy Targets.

        • smilee

          Hate to bust your bubble but I am not gay. When the SC rules gay marriage constitutional the 33 states who have outlawed gay marriage will have all their laws declared unconstitutional and rendered fully null and void. They left the decision of the district court in place in CA on the prop 8 law because the ones who brought the suit did not have standing and that ruling found prop 8 unconstitutional under the 14th amendment of the US Constitution and rendered prop 8 fully null and void and that has been the ruling of all the other lower courts that have ruled on it thus far and those states were forced to recognize gay marriage too. There are cases pending in those states that have anti gay marriage laws and those filing will have standing and when it gets to the SC most expect it be declared constitutional and all anti gay marriage laws in the US will then be null and void. Most believe based on his past votes that Justice Kennedy will vote that way and the four so called liberals are expected to and it will be at least 5-4. That ultra conservative columist Charles Kratanhammer (SP) recently wrote an article saying just this and he feels it will be in the not to distant future. I say less than five years. Your allegation that little children is a target is absurd and ridiculous and could only be hatched in the sic mind of likes of you

  • David

    Amazing... that's Terrific so does that mean you can marry four other women and not have to have their consent ? Because i can think of that many who i want to marry tomorrow !!! Don't forget those who want to marry their Dog or Horse too !!! Typed with TONS of SARCASM !!!

  • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

    This battle was lost when Christians turned marriages over to the States to sanction and license. Whoever provides the license makes the laws regarding whatever it is they license.

    The State has no business licensing anything created and already sanctioned by Yahweh, God of the Bible. It has no more business licensing marriage than it does preachers of the gospel.

    The State/Constitutional Republic became a competing and seditious sovereign to Yahweh when the framers made the secular Constitution the supreme law of land, per Article 6.

    Find out how much you REALLY know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our Constitution Survey at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ConstitutionSurvey.html and you'll receive a FREE copy of the 85-page "Primer" of "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective."

    • JT1964

      Here's the real kick in the shorts though(and I believe a real probability for the reason that the Supreme Court could not uphold traditional marriage). Some divisions of the Christian Church allow gay marriage, gay pastors and even promote the "gay agenda"; ELCA has led the way in this. How can someone who supposedly has read and understands Scripture, go against the Word? Beats me.

      • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

        Because they're NOT Christian!

        • JT1964

          I agree. A Confessional Christian believes the entire book; not just verses here and there. It may be time to make it entirely clear that there are two types that profess to be Christian; Confessional Christians and Liberal Organizations Masked as Christians. I don't believe in changing one word - it's God Breathed.

        • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

          Amen!

        • smilee

          Wrong I know many Christian liberals. What have you confessed lately????

        • JT1964

          We're not talking about political affiliations. A Christian may vote for whomever they want and still be a Christian. I confess many wrongs that I do each day; heck, I'm a sinner just like every other human. The difference is whether you repent and fight against that sinful nature or just let it overtake you.

        • smilee

          You certainly were go back and read your last post

        • John

          Ok, since you believe the entire book, you also believe that if a person rapes a virgin and is discovered, he must pay the father then marry her. And they can't get divorced.

          “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her
          all his days."

          Deuteronomy 22:28-29

      • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

        I understand completely and here is your answer. At the conventions it was decided not by ministers but, by lay people. I am and will be always Missouri Synod Lutheran Church. We dont allow practicing gays into church.

        • smilee

          That is not the only fault in that synod

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          You must mean the ELCA they have lost their way. And you are right they have other problems to.

        • smilee

          Nope never mentioned the ELCA and was not referring to it I WAS referring to the Missouri synod and that should have been clear to you

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          Why you would have to be mentioning the ELCA. The LCMS still keeps the path with GOD. That should have been clear to you.

        • smilee

          It was you that brought up the ELCA not me and I responded to it

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          "That is not the only fault in that Synod" That was you wasn't it????

        • JT1964

          The Missouri Synod DOES seem to be returning to a Word based proclamation of faith; it's a wonderful thing to see. With ELCA, this idea is being rammed down the throats of the laypeople by the synod; the church hierarchy. We can only hope and pray that the laypeople(many of whom ARE Confessional Christians) will speak out in favor of the Word, rather than following the words of men. Our fear in the Wisconsin Synod is that very soon, the Word may be considered "hate speech" and preaching parts of the Bible outlawed.

    • http://pastorsb.com/ Doug Roy

      In this, "The State has no business licensing anything created and already sanctioned by Yahweh, God of the Bible" you are wrong. God's laws about morality are not just for believers, but for all men everywhere. His laws forbidding incestuous sex (found in Leviticus) are for everyone and have been followed in all God fearing nations everywhere. Scientific knowledge of genes and such has now proven the wisdom of these laws in preventing a degradation of the gene pool. Yet this knowledge was known by the Creator long ago (Leviticus written about 3,500 years ago.) Muslims, led by their false prophet, Muhammad reject those laws of God and allowed incestuous marriages, causing much mental illness as has been scientifically followed and studied.

      There is much reason for states to implement laws on marriage, as this is the basis for all social development and decent society. Where the laws of God are rejected and anything goes, there is chaos and the destruction of family and decent society. Laws against homosexuality and adultery and fornication all fall in this category. When states fail to promote good and healthy family relationships by good laws in accordance to the Bible, we see the destruction of the society and a flood of filth and evil as we have today.

      The State is to not compete with God, but support the good worship of God and good living but good laws that discourage and punish evil behavior. Wherein the U.S. has begun to oppose Christianity and tried to eliminate its influence in our schools and public life, they have become the enemy of God. As Jesus said, "He that is not with me, is against me."

      A State cannot be neutral about religion. They will either promote good religion, side with a particular sect, or oppose religion. England supported Anglicanism most recently, Catholicism in the past. Russian supported Greek Orthodoxy, but then communist atheism for many decades until the fall of the Soviet Union. China supports atheism currently, but allows state controlled Christian churches who censor their sermons. There is an underground church of Christians, however, in China, which is persecuted. Iran supports Islam. India supports their religion (Hinduism). The U.S. supported basic Christianity w/o particular support of any one sect, like England. Today that has changed and we are in the process of trying to purge Christianity from our laws and customs, giving rise to atheism, and all manner of godless sexual relationships, as noted in the article above.

      The libertarian philosophy, which you espouse, is antichrist in nature. Governments are to support good and oppose evil. When they begin to do the opposite, they become the enemy of God and the people.

      • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

        Thanks for responding. However, I think you need to go back and carefully read what I wrote--we're in agreement with each other.

        • http://pastorsb.com/ Doug Roy

          I reread what you wrote and am still in disagreement. Paul and Peter talk about good government and a Christian's duty to obey the laws that are not contrary to Christ's direct commands or basic righteousness. God is the author of government and all order among men. Wherein constitutions are in violation of God's laws, they oppose right and good and should be changed. But what you seem to advocate by your statement is simple anarchy.

        • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

          Not at all, In fact, think about the word "anarchy" ("a state of society without government or law," Webter's College Dictionary, 2000) in light of Isaiah 33:22 and James 4:12. Since Yahweh is the only lawgiver, only His moral standard is law. Consequently, anyone or government (such as the Constitutional Republic) that rejects His law is in a state of anarchy.

          I admit my original statements could have been clearer. I should have clarified that with "State," I'm referring to today's renegade government in sedition to Yahweh and His government and law (the only government Paul and Peter are referring to in their respective passages--Romans 13:1-7, Titus 3:1, and 1 Peter 2:13-14).

          Renegade governments make legal (and usually license by which they take over control) what Yahweh has made unlawful (e.g., sodomite unions) and illegal what Yahweh has made lawful (e.g., monotheistic Christianity outside the four-walls of their church buildings).

          That said, there is no need for even a godly government to license Biblical marriage. It's already lawful and same-sex "marriages" are already unlawful--no licensing needed.

  • Proudamerican

    Dont forget about bestiality while you are on a depravity agenda. You are almost animals now anyway!

    • Nameless App 1989

      Actually, humans have always been animals. But animals such as dogs and cats lack the mental capacities to consent to man-on-animal procreation, so...

      • Maranatha2011

        Humans have never been animals: animals have no soul. How humans behave is strictly a matter of choice. We all have a fallen nature and are in need of redemption, without it we will always do what is right in our own eyes. The result of that can be clearly seen in this instance.

        • RageFury

          Biologically humans have always been animals. Some cases through history, humans have been far worse than any savage animal ever was or will be.

        • Maranatha2011

          Humans are mammals. When humans are referred to as 'animals', it is usually pejorative. No other mammal has a spiritual nature, as humans were made in the image of God. That humans can choose to do evil and without the spiritual transformation redemption brings, we will.

        • RageFury

          Of Course we are mammals and biologically speaking we are also animals, like it or not. As to your pejorative, as I said above: through history, humans have been far worse than any savage animal ever was or will be. I refer you to our endless wars and the slaughters that go with them.

        • Guest

          But, humans are the only animal to feel EMPATHY

        • RageFury

          The vast majority of them do, in that you are correct. We do have a few loose cannons so to speak and they cause things like the holocaust.

        • Maranatha2011

          Since humans are the only species with souls, we are the only ones capable of evil. Are we capable of savagery? No doubt....
          Romans 3:10-20
          As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
          There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
          Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
          Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
          Their feet are swift to shed blood: ***
          Destruction and misery are in their ways:
          And the way of peace have they not known:
          There is no fear of God before their eyes.
          Pretty dismal; until you realize that humanity was offered redemption. We have the choice: accept or reject. Many reject, but if you accept...

          2 Corinthians 5:17
          Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

        • Don39

          We are still animals and while much of what you say is true , it does not cover your first mistake of stating we were not animals, then admitting we were mammals, just higher animals!

        • Maranatha2011

          You can choose whatever you like to believe. However, there is only one truth. I believe in Biblical creation. Here is an excellent piece by Dr. John Morris, which states the case succinctly. I agree absolutely with his conclusion.

          Is Man a "Higher" Animal?
          by
          John D. Morris, Ph.D.

          Frequently we see the statement that man is an advanced animal, implying he is higher on the evolutionary tree than the others. Let's
          examine this claim.

          Remember that evolution holds that simple forms of life spontaneously arose from non-life. Through mutation and natural selection they increased in complexity to multi-cellular animals to invertebrates to
          vertebrate fish. Next, some evolved into amphibians, then reptiles, thenbirds, and mammals. The standard view of evolution considers each stage more "advanced," or more complex than its predecessors until finally man arrives. In reality, however, all animals, living or fossil, are unthinkably complex. Each shows interdependence of functioning parts, each with a marvelous purpose to achieve. Even a single cell is more complex than a super computer. There is no such thing as simple life. Ifit's alive—it's complex.

          Consider the "lowly" insect—pick one. As you study it, you'll discover an undreamed of complexity. Or the extinct arthropod, the trilobite sporting a powerful eye with a complex lens, equally as advanced as any
          today.

          Or consider various mammals—from the whale with an intricate language, to the appreciation of beauty among some birds, to the use of "tools" among some primates—animals exhibit amazing abilities.

          Similar traits or organs or abilities are also found in man, although our sight is not as good as the hawk's, our hearing is not as good as a dog's, etc. Each has its own nitch to fill.

          Yet man is different. His "higher" characteristics have more to do with hisintelligence, his ability to plan and consider the future, and ability to express emotions. Animal instincts and habits are remarkable, but
          something sets man apart.

          We find this difference explained in the record provided by the Creatorof man and the animals. In Genesis One we see that the fish, the birds,the creeping things, the cattle, the beasts of the field, and the beasts of the earth were all created "after their kinds." But when God
          created man, He created him "after His own image." We often have similarDNA to the animals, similar body parts, similar functions, similar consciousness, similar blood, but the comparison disappears when man's eternal spirit is considered. The animals have nothing like this.
          Something about man adequately reflects God's nature in a way that the animals don't share.

          God created man with the wonderful ability to reason and comprehend abstract thoughts. He alone can speak in a language which communicates his inner yearnings. Most importantly, man can truly love and respond to
          love, most particularly the love of God. He can recognize his own sinfulness, repent of it, and appreciate God's gracious solution to his sin problem. He can respond to God's love by choosing a life pleasing toHim. Animals, regardless of their cranial capacity, know nothing of
          this.

          Man is qualitatively superior to the animals in many important ways. But he is also quantitatively distinct from all animals.

          No, man is not a higher animal. Man is not an animal at all. He is the very image of God, and nothing less.

        • KentPerry

          I agree, Stalin, Pol Pot and many other God deniers were just awful

        • RageFury

          Those and many more were quite awful, however God deniers don't have a monopoly here. In fact I would hate to have been one during the Inquisitions, the Crusades or the Witch Trials.

        • Guest

          One what ?

        • RageFury

          A God Denier of course.

        • smilee

          Humans are not animals? They are and much more than just animals, we are muti faceted and one facet is animal in case you had not noticed we breed the same way as other animals, eat many of the same foods in the same manner and get rid of their wastes in the same manners. You denying all that?? Behavior is not always a matter of free choice, behaviors differ greatly, mentally challenged behave very different than those not mentally challenged and have no choice in the matter, much of the brain is not understood and gay's will tell you they were born that way and that is who they are and unless you are gay your not privileged to understand that as you know nothing about that. Judge not least you be judged and it is the right approach. Your seem to be sitting in judgement of gays and have convinced yourself that is your right, it is not.

        • Maranatha2011

          God created us to share eternity with him, so, of course we are much more than animals. Because we are physical creatures, necessarily, we must eat, etc. We are, however, far above animals because we are made in God's image, and have eternal souls. We have free will, and ALWAYS a choice in whether we want to obey God's laws, or not. Obviously, we must be cognitively unimpaired in order to be held accountable. God is just and All Knowing: He knows who is capable of understanding and who is not.

          Interestingly, you quote the only verse, which is ALWAYS misinterpreted by those who wish to remain in their sin, yet feel justified. If you really want to know what the Bible says, through His prophet, here it is:
          Ezekiel 3:18-21

          18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
          19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.
          20 Again,when a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit
          iniquity, and I lay a stumbling-block before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

          21 Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul.

          As I do not want blood on my hands, and to stand accountable to a Holy God for failing to warn people that they are in danger of hell, I will continue to speak.
          My God is merciful, and will save any who call upon Him for forgiveness.

        • smilee

          interesting, you quote verses I never referenced and do not pertain to the point I made and you say what I quoted is always used to to remain in your sin,, that is not what I said, did or meant and I repeat judge not least you be judged

        • KentPerry

          Why not give the rest of that scripture? You know, but to judge in "Righteous" judgement

        • smilee

          Your a babbling fool whom makes no sense what so ever

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          You're a great name caller, and excellent at re-stating the issues, but offer no solutions, no positive feedback and absolutely no engagement or understanding of the subject.

          You cut and paste nonsense and circumnavigate the real issues....because you're uninformed and not very creative. You're for sure not very well read...xBox addiction?

          Trying to prove your point is more then what you're providing...did you try to "slide" by in school, or did you put forth an effort? On this site, good looks count for nothing...only substance.

          You fit the profile of any number of liberal trolls on this site; all of which have found out their BS does not get very far and will be challenged at every turn...you and the others are having a LOT of trouble defending yourself and your lack of any beliefs.

        • John

          And in this post, you do exactly what you criticize the poster for. You name call, you don't offer any solutions, no positive feedback, nothing but insults. It's all you can do so it's not surprising anymore.

        • Maranatha2011

          And, I repeat: This is THE verse everyone misquotes to serve their purpose, completely ignoring verses which deal directly with God's judgement on those who transgress His law. In doing so, they also deny His great mercy and forgiveness, through His Son. You can believe or not. The repercussions are eternal, however; there are no second chances.

        • smilee

          Just how did I misquote or misrepresent its meaning?? I did not and your confusion of what I said is what leads your to the wrong conclusion

        • Maranatha2011

          You are correct, in that I should not have used the word"misquote". The verse is often, not always intentionally, misrepresented insofar as it is never completed. The verse reads,"Judge not, that ye be not judged.
          For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Jesus was saying that we will be judged by the same standards as we judge others. His warning was not against all judgement, in fact, we are commanded to warn those who are living in such a manner as to be in danger of losing their eternal souls,(Ezekiel 3) Our standard for judging must be the inerrant word of God.
          1 Corinthians 6:9-11
          9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
          10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
          11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

          One day, I will stand in judgement, not for my salvation as that was sealed the day I accepted Christ as my Saviour; but rather for what I have done for Him. The children of light are to tell the good news of Christ to the children of darkness( 1 Thessalonians 5:5) A wonderful thing happens when one receives Christ...you become a child of God, and you can understand the things of God.
          1 Corinthians 2:14(KJV)
          . But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. Every human being is in need of a Saviour,
          Romans 3:23
          23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. And no one is refused who calls upon Him in truth.
          Romans 10:13
          13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
          I hope you take the time to investigate this: now is the day of salvation. None of us can presume upon tomorrow. Here is a link to show how God reveals himself to us all: http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=135&Itemid=0 God bless!

        • smilee

          Congratulations!!

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          GOD has already judged you and found you wanting. Just wait until GOD's Law prevails. And by the way homosexuality is learned not genetic. You still will have to explain to PETA that hamster up your ass.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Can I get the Readers Digest version of this?

          What's the bottom line?

        • smilee

          I guess what I said is too deep for you and beyond your ability of comprehension

      • KentPerry

        You can't be serious with that statement.

  • tom nogaro

    i married my hamster and parakeet this morning. mind you, i am not an ordained minister myself, but yesterday i received my official sky masterson decoder ring via ups, which my shrink's veterinarian assured us fully qualifies me.

    in any event, the bride was gloriously beautiful, dressed all in pink, (no virgin she). as for the groom, he wore elegant white spats and black trousers, with white suspenders and a white bow tie. a quite handsome fellow, i must say.

    the best man was the bride's militantly gay sister, and the maid of honor was the groom's transgendered mother/father, who unfortunately overdrank and fell over and peed him/her/themself.

    • Screeminmeeme

      Hilarious. Thx for the mornings belly-laugh.

      • tom nogaro

        screemin,

        ty. we aims to plse. :)

  • D'Bak61

    It's just one more example to prove that if a libtard has his mouth open, it is to tell a lie; whether to a judge in court or the 'unwashed masses.' If everyone knew the real liberal agenda, no one would ever vote them into any office...and they know it. They are true-blue communist scum-of-the-earth types, bent on destroying this nation from the inside. And it's working, folks.

    • Mickey Texas

      I and lots of my friends are libtards. So now everyone knows that I believe in government helping people. Oh the horror. I support Obamacare, school lunches, unemployment, fire, police, food inspection, drug inspection, national parks. All those commie things. Of the horror.

      • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

        Actually half of those are. But, then liberals have never been noted as intelligent.

        • smilee

          Coming from one who is less intelligent than them is not to be believed.

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          Poor baby. You liberals have existed so long with doing nothing that you have forgotten that you are basically a parasitical type of life. Confront you on the street and you fold like a pack of cards.

        • smilee

          That is just your opinion and coming from one with so little intelligence not much stock can be put in what you say

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          Actually I have the sheep skins to back it up. What do you have???

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          DUM DE DO DE DUM DE DO....make any sense? Don't see why not....it's your language.

          You're a great name caller, and excellent at re-stating the issues, but offer no solutions, no positive feedback and absolutely no engagement or understanding of the subject.

          You cut and paste nonsense and circumnavigate the real issues....because you're uninformed and not very creative. You're for sure not very well read...xBox addiction?

          Trying to prove your point is more then what you're providing...did you try to "slide" by in school, or did you put forth an effort? On this site, good looks count for nothing...only substance.

          You fit the profile of any number of liberal trolls on this site; all of which have found out their BS does not get very far and will be challenged at every turn...you and the others are having a LOT of trouble defending yourself.

          Did you ever think that maybe this site isn't for you?

          May I offer some suggestions:

          Cracked
          Mashable
          eBaum's

        • smilee

          Are you sane???? I never called him any names and as is now predictable of you you spin everything I say and even make some of it up. Now your spinning so fast you appear to be dizzy based on the malarkey you spewed out in this post I have not once cut and pasted anything here so again you illuminate your confusion and dizziness.

      • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

        Yea, "OH THE HORROR." But it was said by Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now.

        Nice job.

  • Kaitty

    Our inept law makers and the paid for their views judges have clearly opened the door all the way for every evil under the sun to proliferate openly but Christians must stand solidly behind the teachings of the Bible regardless. It will be difficult with American law fighting our foundation fathers efforts at giving us a wonderful, God given opportunity yet again, and we have failed by being too busy to take an interest, by being over confident in our legislators and leaders thereby letting it it all slip away. Will we stand together and fight to get it back? Step by step or inch by inch? Liars every where run rampant agitating ignorant people causing a great deal of trouble for themselves as well as others and wasting time, effort, and money on the wrong goals because they are being deliberately misinformed in order to divert our attention from what has been happening to our freedoms and how our government is being changed right under our noses.

    • smilee

      The founding fathers separated religion (all religions) from the state rule, the Constitution gives Christians the right to worship as they please but the did not give Christians or any other religion the right to rule over anyone or to make any laws enforced by man. Respect for all was Christ's directive, witness for him but not be his judge jury or executioner. God's greatest gift to man was his gift of free will to each man and man should not make laws that goes beyond protection of one man's freedom interfering with another man's freedom. God will judge us not you!! You may not agree with gay marriage but it really is none of your business or your marriage any business of theirs.

      • Kaitty

        Jesus came to seek and save the lost and assigned his followers, ecclesia/Christians, to do the same with agape loving care, and if refused to walk away.

        • smilee

          I agree so what is your point, but he never proposed we enforce his teachings by man made law.

        • KentPerry

          His laws are called Natural Law and I have already posted what the explains

        • smilee

          But they are not in the Constitution so they do not apply to this conversation

      • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

        Not true. The Constitution was based upon the Holy Bible. You liberals really need to read who wrote the document. Then again you have to find that nasty hamster that you keep losing. And believe me when the time comes and it will I will be more than happy to show you the error of your ways.

        • smilee

          I am totally familiar with the whole Constitution and nothing in it suggests it is based on the bible. May be you should start by quoting that part of the Constitution that says it is based on the bible. Do not try to remove the speck from my eye before you move the plank from yours.

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          Ah more scripture from one who does not believe. Here is one for you. Its simple so even your can get it. What was James Madisons training??? John Adams wrote "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is totally inadequate to the government of any other" But, since you are neither religious or moral maybe you should leave.

        • smilee

          More garbage from jong, I do believe and I am a christian but you probably would have trouble seeing that due to that large plank in your eye

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN!?

          Excellent. Then tell all of us (keep it to under 500 words), what Jesus Christ means to you and why?

          As a professed Christian you should have no trouble answering this and it should take about 10 minutes of your time....simple exercise.

          We'll wait.

        • smilee

          I do not know what a professional christian is as you are either christian or you are not and I am one, but to explain what you ask to you so you can turn around and spin all I say to mean something else as you have done all a long it would be a waste of time to feed into your silliness.

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          Accepting homosexuality is against the will of GOD. You do not make the rules GOD does.

        • KentPerry

          Really?? Try reading the very bottom where all those signatores agreed to this on their sacred honor and in what year was it again?? Oh That's right, the YEAR of our lord. Now smart guy,, TAKE A GUESS who that was.

        • smilee

          That was the accepted way to express the date and was done by everyone including atheists so it does not mean anything. Is this the best you can do to connect the constitution as based on the bible, I think you stroke out .

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Not only are you an authority on Constitution and history, but you quote the Bible like you're seminary trained.

          "Do not try to remove the speck from my eye before you move the plank from yours." What does this misquoted verse have to do with the connection between the Bible and the Constitution? What is the chapter and verse number?

          Not all the founding fathers were Christians as in the born again and eternal life sense, but they all practiced, respected and believed in the moral behaviors and values as written in the Bible....FACT.

          You need to stop thinking your BS is going to get off the ground around here. Unless you're preaching to yourself, I suggest you pull your head out of your anal port, pick up a book (those without the naked pictures of men), and start reading.

          You are absolutely NOT familiar with the Constitution nor American History. We know for sure you're not versed on the Bible.

          "A mindless person is a terrible thing to laugh at."

        • smilee

          A whole bunch of silly assumptions on your part that have nothing to do with what was in my post. I did not quote the bible I referenced a verse in it and it is there. It is you who confuses religion and constitutional law as you have not the foggiest what the Constitution is all about and because of your lack of knowledge you make off the cuff remarks of which none are true. I agree the truth is rarely spoken here as it is a home for radicals such as yourself and keeps the rest of us aware that there are people like you who have absolutely no interest in the truth or anyone whom you perceive to be non christian.Your feelings of superiority are not real either.

      • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

        Well that's a lot of warm fuzzy nothingness.

        Our founding fathers wanted separation of "church" and state....NOT GOD AND STATE.

        The founding fathers practiced and respected Christian beliefs and values. The constitution has more in common with the Bible then any other U.S. document, and that is a FACT.

        The Nut-so Supreme Court is trying to rewrite the Constitution to suit perverted liberals and goof-balls like yourself.

        Guess what Einstein? Absolute freedom is not freedom at all; rather absolute anarchy. A dysfunctional and dangerous country.

        Your standards of moral behavior and values are not standards at all...they are excuses.

        • smilee

          What they believed and practiced religiously is not what they wrote in the Constitution. Your offered a lot of opinions here unfortunately none of them are actually true. Just because the court will not misinterpret the Constitution to meet your approval does not mean they got it wrong and it has nothing to do with political beliefs. The only thing you got right is your second to the last paragraph and is the reason why the founding fathers wrote a Constitution and were wise enough to cover all not just Christians as you infer.

  • Richard Gibbard

    Whatever WILL these degenerates do at such time as sharia becomes the law of the land?

    • Nathan51

      Probably allot of screaming for a few seconds as their head is sawed off with a rusty blade!

    • RageFury

      I imagine many would join you when you go grab your guns to change that.

    • Mickey Texas

      When Sharia law becomes law they will murder all you wacko birds. Right away. Be very scared.

      • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

        Actually the muslims will die in ignorance and in great numbers. All of them. Then since you have allied with them you will be next. Unless PETA gets you for hamster abuse.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          It's actually gerbil abuse....size matters.

  • elton123

    Disgusting!!! Disgusting!!

  • Bob

    This happened because the risen Messiah the living Jesus is not our head.

    But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of יהוה (Yahweh.)

    Lamentations 5.
    2 Our inheritance is turned to strangers, our houses to aliens.
    5 Our necks are under persecution: we labour, and have no rest.
    8 Servants have ruled over us: there is none that doth deliver us out of their hand.
    16 The crown is fallen from our head: woe unto us, that we have sinned!

  • Traditionist

    I suspect research would show that fudge packers and mud hens derangement are the product of incest, or bestiality with a Choquaqua.

    • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

      I suspect that you put them at a higher intelligence than they deserve.

    • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

      Hey, don't degrade the Choquaqua.

  • http://www.InformingChristians.com/ DebraJMSmith

    They are disgusting people!

  • gmhunt4

    Alright, when can my wife and I marry our two Yorkies....I need the tax deductions.......

  • MarkusReborn

    I wanna marry my computer.... I spend more time with it than I would if I had a wife.

    • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

      I married my Harley....always glad to see me, easy on the eyes, inexpensive to date, never bitches and does not mind being rode for 8 hours at a time. AND it is not bipolar.

      Buy a Harley.

  • thisoldspouse

    Pro-same sex "marriage" and teaching at a Catholic school?

    How is that even possible?

    • Mickey Texas

      Well why not. 98% of catholic women use birth control. Earth to you guys, against doctrine. Catholic priest teach birth control ok and openly embrace gays. DUH.

  • Albert York

    I would think you would be happy. The Bible is clearly in favor of polygamy and incest. Solomon had hundreds of wives. Who did the children of Adam and Eve have sex with with to produce more children? Not to mention handmaidens, buying wives after rape, etc. The list goes on and on. If you actually lived by the examples in the Bible you would be a horrible person.

    • Don39

      LIAR! Amoral degenerate! Societal leech!

    • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

      And of course even satan can quote scripture.

      • Albert York

        Yes, because scripture contains some pretty nasty quotes. That doesn't mean they aren't there. I noticed that you didn't address any of the things I said. It's just easier to stick your fingers in your ears and go 'I can't hear you'

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          Not really. I will just say that you did a poor job of mis quoting scripture. In other words you are not even a adequate moron to respond to. Your fallacies fall in to the area of a ten year old.

        • Albert York

          And yet you can't address them. So you are admitting that you are no smarter than a 10 year old. Tell me where I have misquoted scripture instead of just bobbing and weaving.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Only a misunderstanding on your part.

          "You don't have a brain." Misquote or misunderstanding?

        • Albert York

          I love watching Christians dance when the reality of their holy book is brought to light.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Let's dance.

          I'll lead and you follow. Think you can keep up?

          Probably not, like most anti-everything liberal atheist, you'll get defensive, shuck the issue, and start name calling rather then provide facts.

          I love watching Atheist dance around the truth.

        • Albert York

          Still waiting for you to point out where I misquoted the Bible ....

          By the way, who created God? And how do you know?

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          DUM DE DO DE DUM DE DOOOO.

          How about you STOP asking questions and start proving your point.

          Are you afraid? Not prepared to back up your "faith" with facts? You don't know what you believe and WHY?

          You're the one that stated the Bible is nonsense, so prove it. I disagree. It's your statement not mine....so prove your point. Don't ask for my help. Convince me and others you're right and stop quoting versus you don't understand. All you're doing is promoting the truth of the Bible; for which you are afraid might be right.

          While you're at it, why not enlighten us with your theory on evolution and birth of the universe...sort of follows your theory the Bible is bogus. Might help your argument.

          We're waiting.

        • Albert York

          I made my point. The bible supports polygamy and incest. All of this running around that you have been doing has been to avoid addressing that statement, because you know it's true. You don't want it to be but it is.

          Since no one has been able to refute it, I will accept that you can't and move on.

          Please don't keep trying to change the subject. It only makes you look even more pitiful.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          "The bible supports polygamy and incest...."

          Stop stating a personal opinion and prove, quote: "my point."

          Are you afraid you might lose? Confused?

          Watch my lips: You made a point, but have proven nothing. Here is a point, "You're a self-serving narcissistic racist." Is that point true, false or just my opinion? Prove it.

          Don't cut and paste versus and expect us to interpret the meaning, or assume we know what the versus mean to you. After all, you're an atheist who believes nothing in the Bible and you've stated that over and over again.....YOU INTERPRET THE MEANING!

          You're the expert Atheist here, prove your point. Enlighten us.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Jong is absolutely right. You are a moron and you're discussing a subject you admit (God and Bible) is false and does not exist. Why should any of us care about your opinion?

          You admit you're not qualified nor educated to discuss God or the Bible....you're an Atheist. Your admission that you don't read, understand nor believe in this subject is proof you know little or nothing about it....logical?

          Try this. As a believer in evolution you have probably read every thing there is on the subject, and you have read everything counter to the theory before making an intelligent and informed decision on which to believe. Right? You'd want ALL the information on both sides of the argument before making a commitment and decision.

          But since the Bible was written by ignorant men (it is a factual history book by the way), how could you make an objective decision regarding evolution? You could be wrong twice....wow.

        • Albert York

          I don't believe in evolution. I understand it. No belief required.

          If you need the fear of punishment to be a good person then you are not very moral, you are just a coward.

          You don't have to read every thing ever written about pink unicorns to know they don't exist.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          "I don't believe in evolution. I understand it."

          Now that is an interesting statement.

          So you don't believe in the theory of gravity, but you understand it. Have you tested your understanding lately by jumping from a 20 story building? I guarantee your "understanding" will become a belief in about 8 seconds after jumping. How about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You don't believe it, but you understand it.

          So if you don't believe in something, yet understand it, that makes it true? Complex.

          You either believe in evolution or you don't....no one understands it...not even those who supposedly teach it in our schools or write the books about it.

          Fear of punishment? Good person? Pink unicorns?

          Just stick to the subject and explain the versus you did not misquote and we'll move on.

          You trying to explain your understanding of evolution would be the best laugh I've had all week, but don't be shy. Go for it.

      • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

        Exactly.

        This guy is trying to discuss a subject as an Atheist he admits he knows nothing about and a person he believes does not exist...go figure.

        • Albert York

          The Bible exists and is just as terrible as i said it is.I have actually read the damn thing. I am still waiting for a response showing exactly where i misquoted the Bible. All you people are doing is doing the old Christian two step - avoiding the truth by attempting to denounce its source.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          The Bible is the Word of God...remember, God does not exist.

          Go read Mad Magazine. Now that exist and is more to your liking.

          You're spinning your wheels.

        • Albert York

          The Bible was written by ignorant men over the course of thousands of years. Can't any of you step up and show me where I am wrong?

          I didn't think so.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Why should you care? None of this exists in your mind, so why are you wasting your time trying to convince us of something you admit does not exist in the first place and is a false teaching written by "ignorant men?"

          You don't sound too mentally well.

          Move on.

        • Albert York

          Just gonna keep dancing huh?

          It matters because ignorant people like you have no right passing judgment on other people, especially about who they have to love. It's obvious that you haven't actually read most of the Bible and you just cherry pick the parts that justify your bigotry. I can understand how you might not want to get called on it. But people are wising up to the BS of religion.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Wait a minute. According to every public survey ever done in this country, you're the ignorant one living in denial. Atheism is a MINORTIY belief in this country.

          The Bible to you is like Mad Magazine..just another cheap read.

          You need a history lesson. Our constitution is based more on the Bible then any other US document...FACT. Now, prove me wrong. It will give you something constructive to do over the next few hours....and you'll learn something.

          Why should you care what "we" as Christians think....what we think and read in your mind does not exist....Disneyland fairytale.

          Go after the Muslims...now there is a religion you should fear. Once they "take over," they'll just chop off your head AND your testicles; talk about judgement. What is scary is, they will get away with it.

          You need to get this straight: Religion is mans way of reaching God; Jesus Christ is the way God reaches man.

          What are you afraid of? Eternity is a long-time to be wrong.

        • Albert York

          I don't care what you think. I care what you do. And what you do is use your Mad magazine to justify trying to control other people. If you were content to practice your religion and leave people alone i wouldn't care at all.

          Don't be so proud of yourself. Christianity has the same history of violence and intolerance that Islam has. The only reason you are not able to chop my head off is because we have laws limiting religion in this country. I have been threatned by plenty of Christians. I have never heard an atheist threaten anyone.

          How do you know that religion is what you think it is? How can you be sure you have chosen the right god? I hear they can be quite jealous. If you are using the Bible, i would refer you to my original post, which you have yet to refute.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          "I have never heard an atheist threaten anyone."

          ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND??? You must be deaf or you live in a closet in your mothers basement.

          You take delusion and simple to a new level of stupid.

          I won't even comment on this....I'm sure you'll be hearing from a number of people on this one.

          Go after the Muslims. They have true hate for the Atheist....especially the perverted ones.

          Christians will forgive you....and so will God. But you need to ask first.

        • Albert York

          Technically that is deflecting, not dancing. But it serves the same purpose.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Keep avoiding the issue.

          You're good at it.

        • Albert York

          Thank you for accessing my skills after reading a few posts. You must be very insightful.

          As i remember, the issue was that i misquoted scripture. Still waiting on that one.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Only a misunderstanding on your part...not a misquote.

          "You don't have a brain." Misquote or misunderstanding?

          Explain a "misquote." What does it mean and why?

          You're just quoting versus without any explanation.

          Here is a great verse. You tell me if I misquoted it or I don't understand it. Then tell me how you would know it is a misquote or misunderstanding and what is the difference.

          " For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

          Good luck.

        • $27564770

          No, Albert, the issue at hand is opening the door to polygamy and incest. Regardless of the opinion of the author, please tell us your opinion of whether polygamy and incest are doable in our society. Isn't that the issue, really? Obfuscating is nice and easy. You seem to be so worried about what beliefs others have in the bible. Really that is not any of your business when it comes right down to it. Just tell us: Are polygamy and incest for you or not, and why?

        • smilee

          I do not see a lot of forgiveness comong from those professing to be christian on this site

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Still trying to change the subject and avoid your explanation....give it up Troll.

        • smilee

          Did not try to change any subject only made a comment based on my observation here and it changed no subject and requires no explanation so none was avoided. YOu do not pay very good attention do you.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          OOPS Sorry.

          Erase that one.

        • Candyman101

          You never heard an atheist threaten anyone? You just aren't paying attention. They are the vilest of the people who threaten people. They also needlessly tie people up in court continuously about issues that really have no real consequence except to their little minds. Threatening people is what most atheists do best. You can't even get your lies straight.

        • David

          No it doesn't have the Same History! Yes there were those who claimed to do wicked things and kill and do evil in the name of God . Just saying so doesn't make it True. But just like everyone God will be Our Judge !!! You are of your father and there is No truth in you !!! You know all about Gods word yet you don't know it was written by "men" led by the Holy Spirit to record His word and his means of Salvation for All Men !!!

        • KentPerry

          Its not that you were wrong about it, its how you think it discredits the Bible that's wrong

        • KentPerry

          I answered you

        • David

          So the Only part of the Bible you read was the Old Testament and You are Ignoring the whole Reason why Jesus came to dwell with US !!! Most of All your just using the pieces of Scripture you want to support your own ignorant comments. So as One who Does Not Believe You are Blind to its Meaning and the Truth revealed in its pages !!!

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          But he does not believe the Word of God is actually from God, as God does not exist. So why is he quoting from a non-existent book?

          So why quote from a book that he admits is essentially another Mad Magazine?

          He admits he does not read it, which immediately suggests he knows nothing about the meaning or message...he guesses for the most part.

          You'll find this guy to be just another lost troll on the road to drug rehab and unemployment.

    • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

      WOW.

      You certainly removed all doubt as to your understanding of the Bible, and your intelligence.

      • ed8101

        Good quote from Paine. so very true. I like NASA's comment about Athiest reasoning. I've often wondered what an athiest cries out when he hits his thumb with a hammer.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          HA. Exactly.

          Me too. They spend an awful lot of time discussing the non-existant. Go figure.

    • KentPerry

      Of course they did because the DNA was still strong back then but then later God advised against incestuous marriages.

    • $27564770

      You just don't keep up.

  • Mickey Texas

    Wacko birds find one quote to back them up. Yea. I'm marrying my dog next week. Salmon marriage. You name it. Wacko birds. Get a life.

    • KentPerry

      The Military just last year have made bestiality legal and several states are also doing the same thing for the civilian sick perverts in America. Get a life? Quit trying to destroy everyone's lives

  • WilliamSpires

    A liberal may soon be able to marry the entire Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader squad. Now there's equality fir you !!!

    • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

      No, there is a MAJOR heart attack, and a divorce settlement that would break the US Treasury.

      Imagine living with the chronic bipolar behavior....you'd just shoot yourself.

    • smilee

      In your dreams and i imagine your the MAN!!

      • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

        Where is your dissertation on the Bible versus you quoted? You
        forget? Afraid to prove your faith? I'd also like to learn more about
        your "understanding" of evolution.

        I see you're active at rambling and avoiding the issues with more name calling and nonsense. More hot air.

        • smilee

          It is you who are rambling and trying to take the conversation in a different direction. Your childish games do not interest me

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Where is your dissertation on the Bible versus you quoted? You forget? Afraid to prove your faith? I'd also like to learn more about your "understanding" of evolution.

          I see you're active at rambling and avoiding the issues with more name calling and nonsense. More hot air.

      • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

        It's YOU'RE not YOUR.

  • Guest

    Total destruction of a civil society brought to you by" SOCIALISM" !

    • RageFury

      Try Liberty.

      "The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life."

      • Guest

        EXACTLY !

        • RageFury

          You would like to try Liberty?

  • Lee Riffee

    The real problem here is that if just one party brings a lawsuit demanding the right to a "plural" marriage, and that suit makes it to the SCOTUS, there is no way that they could rule against it, based upon past cases (the DOMA strike down, and state level rulings). In other words, how on earth could an opponent of polygamy successfully argue against it, when we now have gay "marriages" in many states and also recognized at the Federal level? If marriage is nothing more than a contract between consenting adults (or so they have tried to re-define it), what rationale is there to limit the number of people involved in that contract?

    I would imagine that many employers (including local, state and the fed. gov't) might push back against polygamy from a simple economic standpoint, since they will have to pay for benefits for more than one spouse.
    But even so, based on previous legal rulings, there is really no way a court could deny (especially if it goes to the SCOTUS, unless we get a Republican in the White House and he or she has the opportunity to make the court more conservative) more than two people the "right" to engage in a marriage contract.
    Granted, there is no where near as much demand for "plural" marriages, but hey, all it takes is one lawsuit followed all the way to the SCOTUS to change everything (as we have seen many, many times in the past, since in this country the tail normally wags the dog...).

    • Lee Riffee

      As for pedophilia and bestiality, at least for those we still have the argument for non-consent, but for pedophilia, it is unfortunately possible that the age of consent could be lowered (in a few states it is 14, and a bunch of pedophiles could try to lower it even more, heaven forbid) in a given state. After all, the libtards consider children to be so mature that they want to teach them all sorts of graphic stuff about sex (and have no problems with them having sex with other children), so why would they oppose children having sex with people who are a few years older than they?

      • smilee

        Your post is silly and has nothing what so ever to do with reality it is all garbage.

        • Bentley's Mother

          Just wait till you see the truth and it sets you free. You will realize you're an idiot?

        • smilee

          I have seen the truth and it has set me free to see that you are the real idiot here

        • Candyman101

          Ever heard the expression "dumber than a brick". Go look in the mirror and you might get a clue.

        • smilee

          I am sure it is you I would see in the mirror!!!

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          HEY Dummy.

          Where is your dissertation on the Bible versus you quoted? You forget? Afraid to prove your faith? I'd also like to learn more about your "understanding" of evolution.

          I see you're active at rambling and avoiding the issues with more name calling and nonsense. More hot air.

          Just so I understand, you said the truth has "set you free." What exactly does that mean? You said you believe you are a Christian in another comment, so what does Jesus mean to you and why?

        • smilee

          As your have clearly illuminated about yourself you are not capable of any comprehension beyond your bigoted. beliefs you continually spin here.. I never said I believed I was a Christian I said I was a Christian and as you keep twisting my words an honest conversation with you is just not possible

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          So let me get this straight because I'm not as sharp as you.

          So you're telling me that you believe you are NOT a Christian, but that you were a Christian? How is that possible...you can't lose your salvation.

          Let's discuss twisted logic for just a minute. I think we're back to your, "I don't believe in evolution, but I do understand it" logic.

          How do you know you were a Christian if you do NOT believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ, and the fact in your mind He does not exist....you're a self proclaimed Atheist. Remember?

          So since you were a Christian, why not share with us why you were a Christian and how you knew, versus believing you are not a Christian now...confused? You should be. We are.

        • smilee

          Your baloney:

          How do you know you ARE a Christian if you do NOT believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ, and the fact in your mind He does not exist....you're a self proclaimed Atheist. Remember?

          I do believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ and he does exist, The words above are your words not mine and you know nothing about what you say other than they are all lies made up by you. None of them came out of my mouth. Jesus also taught lying was a sin.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          You apparently don't read or can't remember and understand your own comments.......

          "I never said I believed I was a Christian I said I was a Christian and...."

          You stated you never believed you were a Christian but in fact WAS a Christian. Implication: at one-time you WERE a Christian.

          You also just stated, "I do believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ and he does exist." You also stated, "Jesus also taught lying was a sin." But you also just said he does not exist and never existed, so how could He say these things, and how could you believe in His teachings....I'm confused by your indecision.

          Are you psychotic, schizophrenic or what?

          You state one point, change your mind, restate the first point and then forget what your wrote.

          Just tell us what Jesus Christ means to you and we'll move on.

        • smilee

          Are you drunk now. I said nothing of what you contribute to me and have not changed my mind on anything you just keep saying I did . Sober up and quit lying.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Remember the movie "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest?"

          I think you should consider yourself an inpatient.

          Say hi to the nurses for me.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          He will NEVER see the truth....he is very blind.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Let's see, now what does that mean? Once again you're stating your opinion without proof or contribution.

          "Where's the Beef?"

      • KentPerry

        The LGBTQ has been very busy trying to lower age of consent laws in all fifty states. These people need a BEATING

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Here, let me help with the beating.

      • http://www.facebook.com/aemoreira81 aemoreira81

        The age of consent of 14 usually has an age difference limit attached to it (typically 2 to 4 years). That is, a 17-year, 2-day old and a 15-year, 21-day old would be in the clear, but not a 27- and a 15-year old.

    • smilee

      Your so confused marriage laws all only deal with two people and unless a state rewrites their laws to include more than two the fourteenth amendment does not apply. The reason it applies to gay and straight and gay a like is because the Constitution requires all state laws to give equal protection and equal protection applies to two people only. Marriage is a contract between two people only, no marriage law includes more than two, minors, animals or anything other than two adults so the court will not consider what you suggest unless and until a state writes a law that includes more than two people etc and then only if it is found not to give equal protection under that law.. That has not happened and most likely never will. Your post is silly and has nothing what so ever to do with reality it is all garbage.

      • KentPerry

        Yeah and no marriage laws used to include homosexuals either but now that's changed. So don't assume.

        • smilee

          I am not assuming anything. State marriage laws did not included any gays in their marriage laws but now they are being challenged in the courts which has not been done before and we are finding out that ever since the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868 they are not constitutional and now the courts are starting to enforce that.That is the change you are talking about and it is over 100 years since this was changed so this is way past due.

        • Candyman101

          You are so lost, or unable to read and comprehend. The 14th Amendment had absolutely nothing to do with this issue. Where in the world do you get your ideas, MSNBC?

        • smilee

          No, i got it from the court decisions that have struck down marriage laws based on one man one woman based on the US Constitution's 14th amendment it is the courts ruling that found that and it was so in prop 8 in CA as well and as the SC found the litigants did not have standing so rejected the case and that left the district courts ruling standing thus making gay marriages in CA legal same was true in Iowa and others. It is not my idea it was written into our Constitution back in 1868 and you fail to understand it and it has everything to do with this issue and it is you who cannot comprehend what it means. What part of equal protection requirement in every law a state makes as that is required and this is just enforcement of it over 100 years later.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Yep.

          New RACE of people: The Perverted Race.

          You're kidding?

          Ignorance can be fixed. Dumb is forever.

      • Lee Riffee

        Oh really? I bet that back in the beginning of the 19th century here in the US, no one could possibly imagine that the laws would be changed not only free slaves, but also consider blacks to be not 2/3rds of a person but a whole person deserving of the rights of anyone else. Also, I bet people in that same time period couldn't imagine that laws would be created to ban alcohol.

        So, where do you keep your crystal ball, Karnac?

        • smilee

          The 2/3 rule was for taxation purposes only it did not define them as a 2/3 person or separate any of them in the preamble so I do not know what your post does to respond to mine as it does not

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          Once again wrong. And yes they did consider them to be 2/3 of a person. Now think about it moron. And maybe just maybe I will give you the correct answer.

        • smilee

          For tax purposes only and that is very clear and it never defined them as being 2/3 a person per say , the preamble does not make any distinction on whom are we the people but is inclusive of all people and it is we the people's government and all people by the Constitution are protected under it, practice however was much different and has in many cases since day one. To get around that the dred scott decision author had to find black people to be the equivalent of being animals thus property and not people or they would have been included in we the people and the bill of rights would have given them due process and protection under it. Be honest you do not have the correct answer here on on any other of your posts as you are one very confused person.

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          Confused??? That is very amusing. You are the confused one with not a bit of sense or what is proper to have sex with. And yes they were defined as 2/3 not by the south but, by the north to give the south fewer voters. Your posts like your liberal friends really do not show a great deal of intelligence you might want to get a education. Then you might understand that being black and being gay have nothing to do with each other.

        • smilee

          You do not address either what I said or what the Constitution says. You just spin it to what you want believe rather than what it actually says. Their are different but must be treated with equal protection under the law as the 14th says any person and any person includes both blacks and gays but I guess your to dumb to understand that. The 2/3 person was for tax purposes only and was a compromise between slave and non slave states so that an agreement on a total package could be made and presented for ratification. It is hard to believe some people are as lacking in knowledge as you are.

        • RageFury

          Seriously, the 14th Amendment is not complicated, it is quite clear. It is like these people don't know what a person or a citizen is, or who they can be. It is like they cannot comprehend that the States cannot deprive any person of Liberty without due process that all citizens have a right to.

          Suppose that is understandable when they cannot comprehend what even a citizen is.

          Fascinating.

        • smilee

          I am in full agreement with you!

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          "And the question is........."

          He keeps the crystal ball in that "special place"

      • Candyman101

        Many things have occurred in our history that fall under the category you describe. The "That has not happened and most likely never will" argument holds no water. I am not that old, but when I was a young man, abortion was something illegal done in back alley chop shops by low class women or women who cheated on their husbands. Homosexuals were labeled as "queer" and the thought of them being mainstream or especially the possibility that someone would be so low as to suggest that two "queers" could marry "has not happened and most likely never will" at that time and you see how that has worked out. Another one is that even 10 years ago, it would have been unthinkable for a President of the United States to be so open about objecting to Christianity and apologizing to the rest of the world for America. You know, it "has not happened and most likely never will" surely didn't work in that area, either.

        • smilee

          The Constitution is the defining document controlling it and as all states limit marriage to two people and the Constitution requires that equal protection under it by the states there then is grounds for that. If they change the number say to five then you could not be married without out five persons involved and do you really think that very many people will go for that, I doubt it so I truly believe it will never happen and it is silliness t think so. The ones you mention in the past are different than what was in the post I addressed. Animals are not equals so that leaves that out and I responded to a person whom totally does not understand how the supreme court works. I will not address all you say as you apparently feel superior to those you mentioned but you forgot before legal abortion those with money went to Europe to those places there where it was legal. It is refreshing to see a President who will defend the Constitutional grounds for this (the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868 so this is long overdue) and not personal feelings and you misinterpret that he was objecting to Christianity as he was not, some Christians do not object to gay pastors or marriages so not all Christians believe as you seem to and it does not appear you respect those who have different opinions than yourself.

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          And the Constitution reads that all rules not made here specifically are reserved to the states which of 33 have outlawed gay Union. If the founding fathers had anything to say on the subject it would be that it is not good and that you need mental help. And yes gays were around in that time period so were people that suffered from all sorts of illnesses

        • smilee

          The Constitution does make this specifically therefore denying the states that right to outlaw gay marriage and every court so far has sid that that has ruled on it and the SC has not yet ruled on it and the recent case with Prop 8 in CA was not decided by them they rejected that case based on the fact the litigants who brought the case did not have standing to bring the case thus the district courts original ruing remains valid and thus based on the 14th amendment the state of CA specifically is denied that authority under the Constitution. The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868 long after all the founding fathers had died but they did leave all later future generations the right and means to change the Constitution when and how they saw fit. How they felt about gay marriages I do not think is known but they did leave it to future generations the right to.

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          The ninth with a gay judge decided what went up and California would not even support what the people had voted on. The 14th does not apply to gays. Nice try but you need to go back to school.

        • smilee

          The ninth courts decision was vacated by the SC it was the district court in CA whose ruling now stands. That court and every court in every state that has ruled on it came to the same conclusion as the CA court which finds that the 14th does apply and therefore in all these states decided by the courts now have to marry gays because of the 14th amendment. The people or no legislative body can make laws that contradict the Constitution so the California prop 8 vote is vacated and gays can now marry there because of the 14th amendment. It is you who needs to go back to school as nothing you said is true because you still are unable to comprehend any of this, The SC has yet not ruled on gay marriage under the 14th amendment and if they do and uphold gay marriage under it as most now think is very likely in the near future (and cases are currently pending) then every state will be required to marry gays. Them is just the facts!!!

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          For sure.

          The objective of the perverts and the courts is to lower the standards and values to a point where all behavior and morals are acceptable...but not to everyone.

          To those that have enough money and perverted lawyers, the laws can be changed to accommodate whatever behavior you want. More laws=less justice.

          The liberal perverts believe that having absolute freedom to do and say whatever they want is great; what they don't realize is that absolute freedom is absolute anarchy....dysfunctional, dangerous and rotten society.

        • Candyman101

          You are right on the money on this one!

      • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

        "That has not happened and most likely never will. Your post is silly
        and has nothing what so ever to do with reality it is all GARBAGE."

        Calling the kettle black....don't you think? We are waiting for your little dissertation on those Bible verses you misquoted. Where is it?

        Nice form.

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          He can not even discern the difference between GOD and State. Making him realize the difference between a hamster and a women and that the same thing is not done with both is beyond him or "it"

      • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

        Once again the state does not have the right to regulate marriage. The state can say that you and your hamster can cohabitate but, it is not marriage. Only a Church of GOD can say or do that. And moron thirty three states have already outlawed gay unions.

  • Val

    HOLY CRAP ! 1 WIFE IS ENOUGH FOR MOST REAL MEN, ANY MAN WHO WOULD WANT MORE HAS MENTAL PROBLEMS. THIS IS WHERE OBAMA HAS TAKEN THIS NATION, GAY SOLDIERS,BOY SCOUTS,SAME SEX "MARRIAGES" SEX BEING TAUGHT TO SCHOOL CHILDREN K-12 ,IN CALIF(TO ME THAT IN ITS SELF IS CHILD ABUSE.)A GAY PRESIDENT . WHAT NEXT ??????????????????

    • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

      Imagine being married to this group, of which at least 70% are probably bipolar. Don't believe women are bipolar....then you're not married, a woman, delusional, or you're a homosexual.

      "HOLY CRAP ! 1 WIFE IS ENOUGH FOR MOST REAL MEN",

      • Edward Ebersole

        Yes, one wife is enough for any real man. The sad fact is I have met and I bet you have, too, a great deal of men young and old whoring around. They are not contempt with just one woman.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Well, they are spreading their love around.

          Marriage is dead in this country.

      • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

        It has been because they are bipolar and I have observed their habits for many years that I will date but, never marry. I am a rational person that does not like or need the irrational female to make my self complete. I also do agree however that one is enough. I am not of course homosexual. As you can not be a Christian and be one. it make me rather ill even thinking of that perversion that goes against both GOD and man.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Well, you're a VERY smart man!!

          As much as I like women, I personally have not been very successful in marriage; fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

          I agree that perverts, aka homosexuals can't be Christians, but can a person have accepted Jesus and "fall out of grace" by practicing homosexuality "now and then?"

          We all sin (premarital sex, bashing liberal perverts, etc) but can never lose our redemption regardless of the sin.

          Great observation....you have my vote!

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          The biggest problem to me is not that homosexuals are sinners for we all are. The problem is that they think that it is not sin and in doing so they deny GOD what he demands. The result is also written in scripture. Something to do with a large warm lake.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          I agree. Believing in God and His Son and falling from grace is one thing, but to deny God from the very onset is an eternal death sentence.

          I understand they've increased the temperature of the lake to more like boiling...super spa.

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          You know more people and they have to keep the heat up.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Yes. The first few million are boiled to death, but the next few hundred million are just scalded.

          It's an engineering issue and I'm sure it will be fixed in time for the grand opening.

  • G W

    Sorry but IF you were right? you would not be on this conservative blog trying to convince the world of a non-existent constitutional right. The 14th amendment was written for the ex-slaves not homosexuals. I realize the gay agenda has been attempting to align their struggle with the Black Civil Rights Movement but that just isn't truth.The Supremos have recently given Gays the opportunity for "marriage benefits" on the Federal reservation but that is for civil unions" only. IF you want to have a civil union? you can now do that in Washington D.C. and in 8 other States but the other 42 States have the Constitutional right to not allow homo-sexual unions nor honor the civil union of another State. The 10th amendment gave all powers not given to the Federal government to the States and the people. Marriage is not one of the powers granted to the Federal government therefore it is up to the citizens of the various States to regulate the moral values of their neighborhoods. In fact, The U.S. Constitution strictly forbids government from getting involved in religious issues. Personally I believe that people for the most part believe in live and let live but that attitude stops when the Gay life-style is forced by government upon the majority who simply find it forbidden by their religious beliefs. If the Gay community truly wants to be accepted by society at large? Then they too must stop the name calling and respect the religious beliefs and feelings of those who disagree with them.

    • Dara

      Well said and Constitutionally accurate....'why can't we all just get along?' That's easy...it's because the left will NOT engage in a 'meaningful conversation' about OUR concerns. They are like children who want what 'they' want - and they want it NOW... the consequenses be damned.

      • G W

        Thank you.

      • phil_in_VA

        What are your concerns? Bakeries and florists who refuse to supply homosexual ceremonies? Kindergarteners being told that homosexuals are normal human beings?

        • Dara

          Personally, I care jack about what consenting adults do private - I just wish they'd keep it private... but, they do NOT.

          Privately owned businesses reserve the right to refuse service - to anyone - and they are NOT required to voice a reason. The gays know this and 'push' to ram their beliefs (or lack thereof) down the throats of everyone 'else' while crying about 'fairness.' Fair for ME but not for THEE is typical pure progressive hogwash.

          'They' go out of their way to FIND a business owner who has voiced his/her beliefs -- and they attack, full well knowing there will be a problem...It's NOT about 'fairness'... it IS all about gaining publicity for their 'cause.'

          YOUR idea of 'normal' and mine might be quite different; the teaching of ALL thing spiritual AND moral is the RESPONSIBILITY of the PARENT.

          Government runs schools have ZERO business indoctrinating MY child.

          Their JOB is to teach!

          Maybe INSTEAD of all this 'Social Justice' touchy feely 'feel good' 'everyone gets a trophy' nonsense - the three R's would be nice! Make that FOUR... we should add RESPONSIBILITY...

          Perhaps then, we'd NOT be graduating SENIORS from high school incapable of READING or doing simple MATH. Kids so lazy and backward thinking they're completely UNEmployable... Their ONLY option? Take out a huge Government loan -- to attend yet ANOTHER indoctrination center.

          You asked for it - you got it. Have a nice day!

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          Of course this is all part of two things. First their mental condition Secondly their agenda.

        • phil_in_VA

          All good points. The only thing I'd take issue with is the paragraph about private businesses being able to refuse service to anyone, regardless of reason. They actually are NOT able to do so, if the customer is suitably attired and well behaved. That is, not since the civil rights acts of the 1960'a. Yes, I would advise against provocation.

        • Dara

          Thank you. You might take issue but I've worked in privately owned service industry (forever). We can and do refuse service to individuals. It's not often, and we don't like to do it - but it does happen. And it's better when no reason is initially stated for the refusal...

          Note: I too would take issue if this was done in prejudice... skin color, sexual orientation, etc - as long as a guest follows the house rules, I don't particularly care if a guy choses to show up in a tu-tu and 9 inch spikes.

          And IF any of my other guests were to act out over that... I'd have NO problem showing THEM the door! THEY know this, so I generally have no problems in this arena : ) House rules!

          For several years, I worked in a brothel (as a bartender) NO women were allowed. Period.

          Under your premise, we'd be forced, under the civil rights act, to abandon a house rule, barring a specific group of people... women... a rule put into place for a very solid reason...

          ie: Most 'houses' are a closed enviroment. Guests ring a bell and are 'buzzed' in. IF we allow a woman in, we have no way of knowing if her husband/boyfriend/etc. might be sitting at the bar or in the lounge wooing one (or more) 'working girl'... could get ugly - did get ugly, occasionally - before the house rule. I guess that one would fall under 'safety' issue.

        • phil_in_VA

          Thanks for enlightening me in that aspect of the business, that I hadn't considered before (and won't be patronizing any time soon... not a morality thing... just age and opportunity).

        • Dara

          Well, IF you should ever decide to visit NV. ('IT' is legal here - in most counties...).. the 'girls' will be more than happy to give you an 'educational tour'... no strings attached... : )

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          Homosexuals are not normal human beings they are rather very ill individuals. They are sick in both body and mind.

        • smilee

          Your opinion and simply not factual

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          Actually quite factual and real. It is not my opinion but, what is proven. Next you will say that gays are genetic something never proven because it is not there. On the other hand with 1-2% of the population committing over a third of the child molestations a direct correlation can be derived from those facts.

        • smilee

          What a joke, you have proven nothing other than what BS is. It is thought that almost 10% of the population is gay and gays commit less child molestation that straights. YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO FACTS JUST BS. Gays say it is generic and as I am not gay so I am not qualified to say either way so I accept their conclusions and unless you are gay (are you?) you can't either. GROW UP!!!!!!!

        • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94rcOVJBMYQ Winston Blake

          born gay = birth defect

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          I would rather say that you can not be born gay (genetics have never proved this and the gays have tried) but, it is a sickness of the mind and body that you pick up going through life.

        • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94rcOVJBMYQ Winston Blake

          Fantasy is their medium of infinitization.

          The Sickness Unto Death... Soren Kierkegaard...

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          Exactly. Now they want to drag us into their sickness.

        • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94rcOVJBMYQ Winston Blake

          Proceeding from the premise of evolutionary theory itself, nobody can be born gay... Mammalian evolution is entirely heterosexual.

          So, born gay = birth defect.

          Birth defect, mental illness, or choice?

          Some people can never make up their minds.

          Nature doesn't care.

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          Some thing that can not or will not reproduce is in for a very short life span. That of course is from their own liberal thought

        • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94rcOVJBMYQ Winston Blake

          Progressive brainwashing permeates the bowels of Bolshevik Marxist thought over there on YouTube, there is no free speech at YouTube...

          Ever since Google took it over, it has been dying a slow strangling death... hijacked by lying, fish stabbing Jews like Rahm Emmanuel, George Soros, Barney Frank, Anthony Weiner, etc... (notice my rhetorical literary allusion of "fish stabbing.")

          All they have are insults for people who might even support them in a blind hatred for their semitic Arab brothers and then expect the same people in the West to defend their Israel.

          I wash my hands like Pontius Pilate, let the wrath of their Yahweh rain down upon them like the rockets of Hamas... Muslims and everyone else could learn a great lesson from observing this... Their Golden Calf has grown up to be a hollow Bronze Bull

          Progressive brainwashing permeates the mentality of Jewry (tikkun olam paganism) as well as the bowels of Marxist thought there at Al Jazeera, which is more like Al Jewzeera with all the goofy homosexual leftist Jews they have writing there.

          Free speech is free speech... Islamophobia, homophobia, xenophobia, etc, etc, are all excuses for censorship and tyranny.

          Anti-racism is a code word for anti-white.

          Where Sampson says in the Book of Judges:

          "With the jawbone of an áss, heaps upon heaps, with the jaw of an áss have I slain a thousand men,"

          ...it wasn't referring to the blabbering, jawing áss John Kerry.

        • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94rcOVJBMYQ Winston Blake

          Judah Maccabees (the Hammer) slaughtered the pagan Greek occupiers and the complicit conspiring Jews right along with them...

          Judaic word fetishism from Jews like the linguist Naom Chomsky always seeks to control a narrowly focused narrative, just like the media does.

          Judah Maccabees (the Hammer) slaughtered the pagan Greek occupiers and the complicit conspiring Jews right along with them...

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          Ah one of my favorite characters in History. We need to do the same with our "greeks" and RINO's . It would be also justified as purification.

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          The Maccabees were always one of my favorites. They also had a treaty with Rome which was violated. Explains why they were so pissed.

    • phil_in_VA

      What is marriage in the United States today (as opposed to say Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Israel)? Answer: a CIVIL UNION. What's another name for civil union in the United States? Answer: MARRIAGE. Get over it.

      • G W

        For most of the world marriage is a religious ceremony performed between a man and a woman and until recently solely recognized by our Federal government as such. Whereas the civil union of two homosexuals is a recent secular phenomenon performed by the State where the citizens have voted for it. Like I said earlier it is not my place to interfere nor judge what citizens elect to do in their area of the Country. I have a choice to move away from what I don't agree and the government does not have a right to make homo-sexuality the law of the land. Government needs to be put in check and made to remember that in the arena of religious beliefs one size does not fit all and it is a personal thing for which government needs to stay out of the debate.

        • RageFury

          "Whereas the civil union of two homosexuals is a recent secular
          phenomenon performed by the State where the citizens have voted for it."

          Not entirely accurate. A simple search online will point you to several Churches that will conduct such a Marriage or leaves the decision up to the individuals that have the ability to conduct one... Either way, it is not as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

          That said, while I myself am not opposed to Same Sex Marriage, I to believe it should be up to the individual States. I don't see the power to regulate it by the Fed Gov in the Constitution and in fact I don't believe the Fed Gov should be involved at all on any level.

        • RageFury

          Yea, that means I disagree with the Black Robed Deities.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          For sure.

        • David

          I am in Agreement with GW's statement, after All Most of U.S. Still claim to be Christians in a Nation Founded and Blessed by those who Came here to Worship God !!!

        • RageFury

          Christian or otherwise, several Churches will conduct such a Marriage regardless. This information is freely available with a simple search.

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          No Church that does this is of GOD and therefore no longer a Church. You can go to a witch doctor but, since GOD gave it not any other he also has the right to make the rules.

        • RageFury

          Unfortunately for you, YOU do not have a monopoly on religion and what makes a Church, a Church of GOD.

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          No however GOD does and he has already expressed his opinion on the matter repeated. And in this case I am right beyond any argument that can be brought forward.

        • RageFury

          Errm wrong again. Your God, here in the US your God is irrelevant and so is your interpretation of your God's will.

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          No actually you are wrong and it is not my interpretation but what is written. Of course since you do not accept GODs word it is of little surprise that you consider it irrelevant.

        • RageFury

          You are still wrong. You don't get to tell anyone your interpretation is the only accepted interpretation. You don't get to tell anyone that YOUR God is the only true God. Sorry bub it doesn't work that way. Different Christians have different interpretations and different religions have different versions of God. Proof? Look around the country, read the 1st Amendment and suck it.

          You lose again and will continue to do so.

        • smilee

          That in effect is what the court did in striking down DOMA and marriage laws are state laws but they now have to start providing equal protection under the law because of the 14th amendment.

        • RageFury

          That would be true if it were just DOMA. They dismissed the Prop 8 appeal which means the Fed Gov is involved and it is not only involved there. It has no business being involved at all. While on some level I think not even the State Governments should be involved, I am ok with other States handling their own business since I don't live there. My State already allows Same Sex Marriage, so I have no reason to chomp at the bit over here.

          That said, Marriage should be between two people and the person that married them, period. The Government has no business in it. Once you are done providing equal protection under the 14th, then you next need to address the issues between Married and Single folk. Why should Married folk be special in the eyes of the State or the Fed Gov and two unmarried people, living together for a long but arbitrary period, are not?

          It is all BS imop.

          Get the Government out of Marriage. One Church or another will Marry anyone already. Thus if Government meddling is removed all this nonsensical hubbub goes away.

        • smilee

          Who is going to administer marriage laws if you take the government out of it, We need marriage laws to insure responsibilities for supporting children, estates and property divisions, ownership of personal property and to oversee divorces etc. You are suggesting a system that cannot work, governments job in part is to provide structure in society under laws and there is no other way to do it. Prop 8 is a state constitutional law in CA and the federal government is not and was not involved unless you are including the SC in it but their job is to determine constitutionality both in state and fed laws and that is what they did. The SC in both these cases kept the fed government out of marriage and state marriage laws. Marriage is between two people and does not include the person who married them. This issue does not involve single persons period it is only about marriage which is only between two people weather straight and gay and equally protected under the law.

        • RageFury

          "Who is going to administer marriage laws if you take the government out of it"
          Don't need Marriage laws. That is part of the problem.

          "We need marriage laws to insure responsibilities for supporting children, estates and property divisions, ownership of personal property and to oversee divorces etc."
          What you need is a Marriage Certificate for those that want something tangible and a Notary Public to make it "official" not that it matters. Next up a legal contract. A contract is easily made by all and solves everything except the supporting of the children. An acceptable contract would also solve the issue of the two single folks living together that get screwed 10 out of 10 times by the Government when they try to pass on their estate.

          You don't need marriage to be responsible supporting the Children, you need a paternity test. How else do you think single dads get nailed with Child Support?

          None of this is complicated.

          "You are suggesting a system that cannot work"
          I suggested a solution above and it would work. Why? Because Marriage is nothing but a contract as far as the Government is concerned. A contract is all Government needs to carry on if Marriage is taken out of the picture.

          "Prop 8 is a state constitutional law in CA"
          Yes I know.
          SCOTUS denied the Prop 8 appeal, the ruling automatically goes back to the 2010 U.S.District Court decision that kills Prop 8. SCOTUS is obviously the Judicial branch of the Fed Gov. Which means the Fed Gov was involved.

          While I support Same Sex Marriage, I do not support the Fed Gov tampering with what I think should be at most a State Issue. However, I much prefer the State and the Fed Gov butt out completely.

          "Marriage is between two people and does not include the person who married them."
          It most certainly involves the person who married them, otherwise they would not be getting married. Someone has to marry them, that is how it works. Otherwise, what is all the hubbub about?

          "This issue does not involve single persons period"
          Sure it does. Married folk get better tax breaks among other things, that single folk don't get. You want equality for all to Marry and I don't disagree, but what about equality between single and married folk? Liberty applies everywhere in this issue, not just on your special part.

          Remove Government from Marriage and you remove ALL the problems.

        • smilee

          It is very hard to believe there are real people like yourself so out of touch with reality and one who believes anarchy can be avoided in a society without governmental authority which mean you must not believe in our Constitution or rule of law either. It is the framework on which all laws are attached. Do it your way and you have created a real mess. This debate is about marriage not singles that is another debate

        • RageFury

          If you actually read my post you would not suggest I support anarchy. Seriously if you cannot read then don't reply to me. Because this is about marriage it includes singles. Can't marry anyone unless they are single. Because you have Government involved in marriage with laws affecting both you have another system of discrimination because one party is treated differently than the other as you would have seen if you actually read.

        • smilee

          Such twisted logic, it makes no sense what so ever. Absence of government equals anarchy, the word is mine but you described anarchy, this is about marriage and not singles, true you are single before you are married but we are not talking about that. Like i said such twisted logic

        • RageFury

          Singles aside I am not suggesting absence of Government.
          That is something you invented.

          I suggest getting Government out of Marriage nothing more, Government still exists. To do that you use legal and binding contracts for the Government to enforce or what have you in place of Government pointlessly legislating on Marriage. Contracts that can be between ANY two individuals on whatever. Contracts that can divvy up the possessions when the two in question split up. Contracts that can be transferred to kin upon a parents death. There is how your Government can still meddle in our business. That leaves people free to Marry whoever and wherever they like and Government still gets to ram its fist up our butts and play us like puppets.

        • smilee

          Get past the silly tald and just GROW UP!!!!

        • RageFury

          Not sure what tald is, but the only one here not acting grown up in this conversation would be you. I gave you a suitable alternative and all you come back with is nonsensical garbage like "GROW UP".

          How about this, you come up with a proper rebuttal that isn't nonsensical or go away.

        • smilee

          When you grow up and are able to understand let me know

          The word was talk, my error but if you had been grown up you probably could have figured it out for yourself

        • RageFury

          I honestly wasn't sure what tald was however my "talk" was not silly. You still have not presented even a shadow of an argument proving it would not function in place of the nonsense we have today.

        • smilee

          WAS TOO!! common sense dictates that lack of law is anarchy so I have proven it, maybe it would be best if we continue this conversation when you grow up and possibly then you could understand it

        • RageFury

          LAck of law, you didn't read what I posted. There was no lack of law in my alternative. Maybe the only one who needs to grow up is you, you could start by reading a post prior to assuming you know the content.

        • smilee

          WHAT!! You advocate no laws governing marriage so how can you honestly say that is not lack of laws.. How ignorant are you?????????

        • RageFury

          How ignorant are you? You can't even read a post and pick up the simple thing that I called for to take it's place, that does indeed come with Laws to keep the Government in our business like you want.

          If you don't know what a contract is just say so.

        • smilee

          You took the government out so you took the law out as only government can write laws your alternative was not government so it is not law. A contract is between two or more people in this case two not you and the government.

        • RageFury

          Who enforces Contracts during disputes when a party seeks legal remedy?
          Who regulates what can and cannot be done via Contracts?
          Government via written Laws and the Judicial System.
          Your absence of Law looks funny. Where is the absence?

          Contract Law is one of the foundations of our Society, there is no reason it cannot be used here since Government treats Marriage as a Contract in many respects already...

          So once again, I would remove Government from marriage and ADD Contracts to the mix. Government still gets to regulate the Contracts and since the Contracts would exist. Law still can be written as needed. What cannot be done then is Laws written like Prop 8 since everyone can sign a Contract without question already...

          The Marriage License in this case would basically become a Form, still need that to keep track of Real Estate, Kin and Government can ensure no incest and polygamy.

          Since the Contracts then exist, there becomes no more need to pass laws on Marriage. It would be redundant and pointless.

          If such Contracts were made contrary to public policy they could be invalidated. Such as Contracts involving Marriages based on Sharia law. Can't have a Contract permitting the husband to beat the wife and so on.

        • smilee

          Now you have changed your mind, originally you said you wanted government out of marriage now you say you want them in marriage but in a different way. Your so confused!!

        • RageFury

          I did not change my mind, I said Contracts and Marriage Certificates as a Suggestion at least 2 days ago in a response to your "What about the Laws" question. After which you kept accusing me of wanting anarchy.

          See for yourself:
          http://godfatherpolitics.com/11757/yes-weve-opened-the-door-to-polygamy-and-incest-we-just-didnt-want-to-admit-it-before/#comment-971957745

        • smilee

          You changed your mind, you never said before now you wanted the government in chargof anything and now you do, without government it would have been anarchy as that is what anarchy isand what you were first talking about

        • RageFury

          I linked you the comment from 2 days ago. It was assumed you understood what a Contract was. Government is even mentioned in my linked post proving Anarchy was not even remotely close to what I talked about...

          As was the fact then and remains so now, you still have not read it.

        • RageFury

          By the way contracts along side Marriage is not a new idea. So we already have workable precedent. Prenuptial Agreements already exist.
          There is no reason we could not have other such "Agreements" that allow for us to move Government out of the Marriage business altogether.

      • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

        Go back to school and learn the difference, A civil union and a marriage are NOT the same thing.

        • phil_in_VA

          When you go to a civil authority, e.g. Justice of the Peace, and take out a marriage license, exactly what does that entitle and obligate you to do? Is it a religious obligation or entitlement? No, it's a civil entitlement and obligation. You may also take on religious obligations if you so wish.

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          It is actually has nothing to do with the state and there fore they have no say in it. It is given by GOD not by man. Anything done by the state is useless in this case.

        • smilee

          The state does and they are now doing so despite what you say. Ca, and IA and a few others have been forced to cover gays under their marriage laws and a few others now have voted to allow that and you want us to believe that came from GOD!!

        • phil_in_VA

          I don't want you to believe that, or anything else for that matter.

        • smilee

          What you want does nothing to change the fact that is what has happened

        • phil_in_VA

          Yes, it has happened, and it was the work of humans, not the Deity. Perhaps God is displeased. Guess we'll find out.

        • smilee

          i AGREE

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          And 33 others have turned you down flat. And yes it comes from GOD. Silly little liberal in less than a year you will see the shift back to the right. Then we will get back with you.

        • smilee

          Dream on silly, will you get back to me if I predicted it right and you wrong. I believe that is the most likely outcome.

        • phil_in_VA

          Then don't take out a gub'mint marriage license next time. No problemo.

        • smilee

          Marriage is a civil union not a religious one, you go to the court house for a license from the state you do not go to any church or religious establishment to get the license and a state license is a civil license. They are thew same

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          Marriage is not a invention of the State sorry. Nor should they have anything to do with it. It is a gift from GOD not from man. Then again history is also hard for you to understand.

        • smilee

          I never said marriage was the invention of the state, I said marriage civil laws were and the Constitution allows that provided the laws give equal protection under all its laws including marriage as the courts are now ruling.

        • RageFury

          "Marriage is not a invention of the State sorry. Nor should they have anything to do with it."
          Great, quit trying to pass DOMA like laws everywhere then. Practice what you preach.

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          I do practice what I preach. And DOMA is still the law in 33 states and that is highly unlikely to change. What will change is the liberal attitude that has brought this about. Then of course we can take the problem to task.

        • RageFury

          DOMA, which was Federal legislation, was struck down by SCOTUS. It is not in effect anywhere anymore. What you meant is 33 other States have their own legislation in its absence.
          The Likelihood of that changing is subject to the Judicial process in which the odds of that crap standing in 33 States are nil.

          That said you DO NOT practice what you preach.

          I quote you: "Marriage is not a invention of the State sorry. Nor should they have anything to do with it."

          In this case the State = Government and you do in fact SUPPORT Government being involved by the fact that you Support 33 States with their Governments and their legislation having something to do with it.

          I however support your quoted words. However, unlike you I would actually prefer the States and the Fed Gov, read all forms of Government, not being involved in Marriage AT ALL. Failing that I am not opposed to letting the individual States handle their business individually.

          If you practiced what you preached, you to would support what YOU said. Thus we could then agree to the following:
          Let the Churches, the Justices of the Peace and whoever else with the ability, Marry who they choose to Marry and for whatever reasons that motivate them.

          What I want is basic Liberty for all, nothing more and nothing less. My State, thankfully, is not among your 33. Here everyone is treated equally under the Law, as is proper.

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          Actually it will stand because the court will not try to over rule the states. And the only reason of 33 states not allowing it is because the state decided to meddle in it to begin with. The gay agenda is near its end and the swing will be back towards the right. Marriage in and of it self is not a state issue but, when gays not normals pressed the issue the people spoke and in at least one state they were ignored

        • RageFury

          Wrong. Not sure if you have been updated on current events. The courts don't care, their purpose is to interpret the Constitution. Sometimes they get it wrong admittedly (Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)) though not in this case as of this writing.

          You see, the courts have already heard the one for CA. The appeal to SCOTUS was denied, meaning the last ruling by the 9th Circuit invalidates the CA Law until SCOTUS agrees to hear an appeal and shocks the world by siding against the Equal Protection Clause.

          So really all any of them have to do, is to get up to the 9th Circuit again and given current precedent, that is all but guaranteed at this point. So the swing is not heading anywhere but to Liberty for once, which is as it should be.

          "Marriage in and of it self is not a state issue"
          You keep saying that, yet you support Legislation on it denying individuals their Liberty. The fact that any legislation exists involving it makes it a state issue unfortunately.

          33 States passed laws in clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause. In at least 17 others they passed Legislation guaranteeing it in some form or did nothing letting the people do as they will. Thus nobody was ignored, debate occurred and the Constitution prevailed in said States.

          Meanwhile 1 of your 33 got shot down unless SCOTUS overturns it, which is unlikely given the current understanding of Equal protection Clause.

    • Edward Ebersole

      I totally agree there.

    • http://www.facebook.com/aemoreira81 aemoreira81

      That's primarily a federalist argument...and I fully agree, except for the part about religious issues. There, the government should only refrain from promoting a religion at another's expense.

    • smilee

      You are wrong on a number of your statements. First the 14th amendment was motivated by the exslavery issues but they did not write it that way, here is what they wrote and it does not mention exslave but sure includes them 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" Here they limit the power of the states in that they are required not to deny any person equal protection of the laws and as marriage is defined in law it applies to it and cannot be unequally applied. And every state that the court has ruled on this cited this as justification for striking down marriage laws that did not include gays, this was why the decision stroke down Prop 8 in CA when it was declared unconstitutional on these grounds by the district court there and the litigants that brought this suit to the SC had no standing so they rejected their claim before the court leaving the district courts decision standing and thus prop 8 is struck down and gay marriages have to be allowed in CA now going forward. The SC has yet to rule on it and if they do and many think they will sooner than later and if they decide the same as all the lower courts then the whole country will have to permit gay marriages going forward. The 10th amendment does not apply here and only applies when the Constitution does not deny the power to the states and the 14th amendment does. Religions are free to marry whom they like and do not have to marry any one under any law other that their own. Religion is not a part of this debate as nothing being done restricts their freedoms other than denying them the power to interfere in the freedoms of other not a part of their religion.

      • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

        The 14th amendment was NOT written for the homosexuals.

        • phil_in_VA

          Guess they forgot to put the ex-slave thing in the text. Oh well, too bad, so sad.

        • smilee

          There is no reason to think they forgot as I'm sure they knew what they were doing

        • phil_in_VA

          OK, they didn't forget, they neglected to, they left it out on purpose, so that we 150 years later could adapt it to our purpose. How thoughtful of them!!

        • RageFury

          Ex-slaves may have motivated the 14th, however it was not written and worded to apply only to them. I challenge you to find any word in it that proves otherwise.

        • smilee

          See my post above where I cut and pasted the 14th amendment and it clearly says that and that is how the courts that have ruled on it all have interpreted it that way, if you cannot comprehend it I can do nothing for you other than quote the exact words of the 14th and I did. How do you explain that CA now has marry gays even though prop 8 said otherwise?????????

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          Because the court is in error and they will reverse it once the logical conclusion is reached.

        • smilee

          Your entitled to your opinion but they will never reverse what has happened they will either reject future cases or hear them and then most likely will strike it down. There are case currently pending coming from some of those 33 states. Probably logical in your mind but that is in conflict with the 14th amendment so dream on silly.

        • smilee

          WHAT A DREAMER!!!!! AND SO IGNORANT!!!!!!!!!

        • RageFury

          Well Genius, if you read my post you would see I actually agree with you. Now run along.

        • smilee

          Sorry This answer was not for your post I did it in error.

        • RageFury

          ok

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          I dare you to find any words that make it "swing" yours. They are just not there. They are only in your agenda.

        • RageFury

          My Agenda is Liberty and it is simple to find because the 14th supports Liberty. It is really quite obvious to any who are not blinded by THEIR own Agenda :P

          The 14th states:
          "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"
          States have passed Laws prohibiting Same Sex persons the opportunity to seek and obtain Marriage from a willing party. Translation: States plan to enforce laws violating the Liberty of citizens of the United States that happen to be of the same sex.

          The 14th states:
          "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
          It says "citizens" and "persons". That means everyone, lock, stock and barrel and Regardless of Gender, Race, Creed or Religion. They shall not be deprived of Liberty. Liberty: "The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life."

          By denying Same Sex folk the opportunity to seek and obtain Marriage from a party willing to conduct it, you are denying them their Liberty.

          Far better that Government remove itself from Marriage period. Let those Churches willing to Marry these citizens do so and let those not willing to not do so.

        • smilee

          You can challenge him but he cannot not comprehend it so he will deny the truth and come back with more of his malarkey.

        • RageFury

          Yea, I have played with him before. It amuses me.

        • smilee

          The court have said otherwise and I will take their word and reject your BS

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          And 33 states refute yours. And will continue to do so.

        • smilee

          They currently do but the trouble for them being that the Constitution trumps state laws when the Constitution denies it to them as in this case and as the SC has not ruled on any of the lower courts decisions whom all have rejected these state laws on this basis and as Kennedy has consistently voted in favor of gay rights and most think the other (referred to by some as the four liberal judges) four most likely will vote for gay marriage many think it is only a matter of time until it happens, Recently I have seen articles by very conservative columnists that say the same. your statement really is only for the near term.

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          Being gay and being black have nothing to do with each other. Sorry to burst your bubble. As for the Supreme's they will not get involved with it. In the end the tide will turn as it has so many times and then you will truly will get the end to the stick that you want and we will be happy to give you . The shitty end.

        • smilee

          Dream on sucker as the writing is on the wall indicting it is only a matter of time until the supreme court rules and they are now expected to find gay marriage legal and all states will have to comply and allow it. Even some Conservative columnists are now writing they expect this to happen some saying within five years..

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          The 14th amendment was NOT written for the homosexuals and their behavior....show me the quote in the constitution that specifically mentions homosexual behavior versus protection of HUMAN rights.

          Discrimination refers to a RACE of PEOPLE not personal PERVERTED BEHAVIOR.

          Homosexuals are NOT a race of people, nor as individuals (people) are they denied any liberties dumbass.

          And I assume you also accept their ruling that it is OK to kill unborn children?

          The Not So Supreme Court does NOT rule this country....the people rule this country, or at least they did.

          With enough money and greasy as$ attorney's you can convince the courts that there is life on the moon....or liberal perverts have morals.

        • John

          whitepowerNASA, you're truly an idiot. Discrimination refers to religion, gender, race, sexuality, etc. Since when does it only refer to race? Seriously, how stupid are you?

          Here is the 14th amendment:

          "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
          protection of the laws."

          Where does it mention race? Where does it mention heterosexuals? Since it doesn't mention heterosexuals, does that mean we can pass laws that discriminate against you? That's the logic you use. Do you see how absolutely stupid you are? You have terminal stupidity I'm afraid.

          PS: ever find any evidence for creationism?

        • RageFury

          "Discrimination refers to RACE not personal BEHAVIOR"

          RACE ehe?

          You seem to be of the Religious variety.
          So that means because you worship a deity we can pass laws banning Religious folk from voting, lowering minimum wage just for Religious folk, increasing vehicle registration fees just for Religious folk and whatever else?
          Religious persuasions are not a race.

          You seem to be a Heterosexual, so does that mean we can pass laws banning Heterosexuals from voting, lowering minimum wage just for Heterosexuals, increasing vehicle registration fees just for Heterosexuals and whatever else?
          Heterosexuals are not a race.
          Not that I would like that much, as I am in fact a Heterosexual.

          What about Veterans? Can we can pass laws banning Veterans from voting, lowering minimum wage just for Veterans, increasing vehicle registration fees just for Veterans and whatever else?
          Veterans are not a race.
          Not that I would like that much, as I am in fact a Veteran.

          Do you even think before you type?

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          HA.....funny.

        • RageFury

          Got nothing to back your absurd position up I see.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          I don't need too. The 14th is about people; not their chosen perverted behavior; homo's attempt to "twist" the constitution to support their behavior at the cost of moral standards. Homosexuality is a behavior....not "people."

          We don't have the same belief, moral or value system. I may as well argue with a Muslim about the existence of Allah and the 72 virgins....it's like talking to a whining spoiled child, or a perverted liberal. Both need a good B**** Slap!

          The majority in the country disagree with you, and disagree is the courts...enough said.

          The perverts will have their time of rule just like in Sodom and Gomorrah....then all hell will break loose.

        • RageFury

          You don't get it. It is specifically because the 14th is about people/citizens REGARDLESS of their chosen behaviors that it DOES apply.

          "We don't...Blah blah blah"
          Deflection.

          "The majority in the country disagree with you, and disagree is the courts...enough said."
          Not enough said, We are a Republic, need I remind you? It is forbidden for the Majority to discriminate against the Minority regardless of the Majority's nonsensical beliefs. As to the Courts, They agree with application of the Equal Protection Clause to this issue. Thus far as the 9nth Circuit has ruled on Prop 8 and SCOTUS has yet to chime in. However given the Equal Protection Clause, SCOTUS is expected to agree if and/or when they do chime in. Pay attention.

          I don't share your beliefs as you stated earlier, so may His Noodly appendage touch you.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          You really aren't very smart are you?

          Actually, you probably are smart. Just delusional.

        • RageFury

          No rebuttal but deflection.

          Does not say anything positive about your own smarts there Genius.

        • smilee

          Want to explain why the courts disagree with if you think your so smart. Reread the applicable part of the 14th: below

          No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
          of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
          protection of the laws.

          It says no state (which means all) and shall not deny to any person equal protection under the laws. That means any person no exceptions. Marriage is a state law and because it is a law it is subject to this. Do you even know what equality is ????????????????

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Where is your explanation of your misquoted versus?

          Why are you changing the subject; better yet, why aren't you answering the original subject questions?

          Great cut and paste.

          So you believe the Supreme Court can't be wrong? If you do, then you're a bigger idiot then I think you are.

          Just because the Supreme Court tells you something is acceptable, you believe it and don't challenge their decisions? Sheep to the slaughter.

        • John

          "Just because the Supreme Court tells you something is acceptable, you
          believe it and don't challenge their decisions? Sheep to the slaughter."

          Just because the Bible tells you something is acceptable, you believe it and don't challenge its decisions?

          See what I did there?

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Yes. You made yourself look stupid....once again!!

          Loser.

        • John

          You mean by using the exact same logic you used?

          So what part of the 14th amendment are you confused about?

          "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

          Tell me- which part confuses you?

      • Kent2012

        what if they were born in kenya???

        • smilee

          WHO??????????????????

      • G W

        Well written BUT ALL your opinion only. If you were right? and your NOT then homo-sexual marriage would already be the law of the land and it is far from it. First of all when the 14th amendment was written it did not mention marriage because "gays" getting married was not even a thought in 1866 and it stayed that way until about ten years ago when Massachusetts became the first State to allow such a thing. Liberals need to stop adding words to documents that state nothing of the kind. Also I lived in California for 50 years and the citizens these have repeatedly and overwhelmingly voted against gay marriage. The real issue in California is Mayor Newsome of San Francisco keeps breaking the law and the 9th court has a gay judge who keeps overturning the the will of 20 million California voters. Finally there is the Old Queen Gov. Jerry Brown, he also has refused to enforce the current marriage law of the State of California which states "marriage" is between a man and a woman. Furthermore, The recent Supreme Court ruling only applies to Federal jurisdictions not the States. Right now the gay agenda is making great strides under the protection of the Obama regime but there will be a moral backlash which will undo all that Obama has forced upon 300 million straight Citizens. Argue the point but if the gays can riot for what they want so can the rest of America.

        • smilee

          I added no words I cut and pasted the ACTUAL words from the 14th amendment and then cited how the courts have ruled on it and all your doing is rejecting that reality and inserting your own take on the matter which is totally in error. Prop 8 was a state constitutional amendment first stroke down by the district court in CA based on it violates the 14th amendment and the 9th appeal upheld it but the SC found that the litigants whom brought the suit did not have standing and rejected the case thus vacating the 9's appeal decision which left the CA District court decision in place thus CA now must allow gays to marry but it is still state law not federal so you totally misunderstand it. Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional to but we had them for about a hundred years too and the now gay marriage is catching up with the Constitution too just like Jim Crow laws did and there are other examples. .Your are so confused and not able to comprehend the reality of what has happened I will say nothing more about your post because the balance of your post I did not comment on is so ridiculous and incorrect.

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          Perhaps not words but, your understanding of it is incorrect. Then again gays have been twisting things for years. This is no surprise.

        • smilee

          If my understanding is incorrect then so it the courts but yours sure is not. The gays had no more part in the law suit than their opponent and the difference being the court agreed with them and rejected yours and theirs take on it and their decision counts and is law your words count for nothing of any real importance.

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          My knowledge is not only from the law but also from theology. And to say that the gays had no part in the law suit larger than their opponents prove my point. The ninth circuit judge has extreme problems in that he is vocal in his support of gays. And for no importance maybe not where you live but, where I do we do not allow gay union of any kind and are unlikely to .

        • smilee

          The ninth court decision was vacated by the SC so it does not apply to anything now. It was the supreme court that ruled that the opponents had no stranding to bring this suit and dismissed it thus vacating the ninth as it gave standing to them in error, because you are so ignorant and lacking in knowledge on this subject your making all these inaccurate statements saying the ninth has a say so when it no longer does in this case on prop 8. Theology plays no part in Constitutional law and is often in conflict with it. Gays cannot now be denied marriage in CA. If the SC takes it up and rules the same as all the lower courts then the whole country and every state will have to allow gay marriages. I guess i will have to happen before you will wise up and believe it.

        • RageFury

          Pardon my apparent ignorance or inability to properly read what you wrote here, but I had assumed when the SCOTUS denied the appeal, the last ruling prior was the ruling that stands? Are you saying this was not the case for Prop 8 and that the Appeal denial means Same Sex Couples still cannot marry in CA?

        • smilee

          The SC found that the litigants did not have standing and the appeals court gave them standing but agreed with the district court so that vacated the appeals court ruling because they errored in giving them standings and that then left the district court ruling in place and it struck down prop 8 based on the 14th amendment so now CA has no choice but to allow gays to marry. Does that help?

        • RageFury

          Yep, appreciated.

    • Kent2012

      same kind of crap that the clowns puke out about "women's right to privacy" therefore murder on demand...............

    • John

      The 14th amendment says:

      "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
      privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
      State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
      process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
      protection of the laws."

      What part of this are you confused about? Do you have trouble understanding the words "citizen" and "person"?

      • ONEPISSEDOFFCITIZEN

        For all of the TWITS out there dragging up the 14th amendment to the Constitution as ""Proof" of their supposed "right" to "marry" someone of the same sex.
        "Marriage" has meant a Union between a man and woman, for thousands of years. In some societies, men have been allowed many wives, (as a currently married man, I can not imagine for the life of me why one would desire such torture!) but it has never been construed, until recently, as applying to same sex couples.
        Now, if you are "gay" you have EXACTLY the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as I do, nobody is ever going to deny you that right. Just because you don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex, is not society's problem.
        Get over it!
        And in the words of Henny Youngman: "Take my wife, PLEASE!"

        • John

          And marriage used to mean blacks couldn't marry whites. I don't see how citing tradition is a good argument. Marriage is protected by the 14th amendment. So why wouldn't the 14th amendment also protect gay marriage? If a church wants to marry 2 gay people, who are you to say they can't? And why do you even care? Why is it your business?

          Oh, thank you, gays have the right to marry people they aren't attracted to. So gays don't get the whole "pursuit of happiness" thing. That only applies to heterosexuals. Weird that it isn't mentioned like that in the 14th amendment.

          Can I take away your rights and tell you to "get over it"?

        • ONEPISSEDOFFCITIZEN

          No one is taking away any rights from you, that's all there is to it? Can I just make up rights from thin air, disregarding all that history shows me, what works, and what does not.
          You cannot take away any rights from me, or anyone else. The government cannot take rights from me, the governments (original) purpose, was to guarantee those "inalienable" rights, given by God.

          No one has "taken" any rights from you.

          What "Gays" are doing is claiming some right, out of thin air. It has nothing to do with love or commitment. It has to do with "benefits" nothing more, and nothing less.
          I've known "gay" leaders in San Fransisco, and they told me this up front, it was all about who could get insurance for their lovers with AIDS. They figured this was the way to accomplish that.
          The 14th amendment says not one word about "marriage" for former slaves, or "gays".
          Get over it.

        • John

          Hahahaha. Ah man, this line of reasoning is always funny. How about you go to China and tell them you have all these god given rights and let me know how that goes, ok?

          It has nothing to do with love or commitment? How do you know? Are you gay? Do you have a gay lover? Is that why you know all this? Or is it that you are a homophobe who loves to oppress others?

          LOL. You know gay leaders in SF? Hahahahahahaha. Why is it always that the most hateful people always have some "friend" in the circle of people they hate, who happen to confirm everything the hater believes? Pretty suspicious, don't you think?

          Hey, I have this really dumb, redneck friend. He says that homophobes like yourself hate gays because you are suppressing homosexual desires. Guess it must be true, right?

          And yes, the constitution does address marriage. There are many cases which have established this, here are some recent ones:

          Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

          M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996) “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

        • ONEPISSEDOFFCITIZEN

          Sorry, I didn't notice that it was "John" again. Not wasting anymore bandwidth.

        • John

          Damn straight, run away you coward. Run, instead of defending your beliefs. It's the conservative way.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          It is Patrick Star.

        • RonMar

          How racist of you to mix race and Blacks with homosexuals engaging in perverted acts - abomination - condemned in both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible.
          FYI, the 14th Amdt says nothing about homosexuals or murder by abortion.
          Further fyi, Sect. 5 of the 14th Amdt says, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article" - the Congress, not an overreaching, activist Supreme Court or temporary Executive - the current, pretend president.
          No legitimate church of the Lord, God, Jesus the Christ, or legitimate minister of God's church will marry people engaging in perverted homosexual acts.
          I care and it is my business because you and people like you are degrading the society at large.
          Homosexual perverts have no right to marry or even to engage in their perverted acts by laws of the God who gave all His creation freedoms and rights. The laws of God are supreme over anything human made.
          Yes, you can try to take away my God-given, confirmed in the US Constitution freedoms and rights, but you do so AYOR.

        • John

          It's racist of me to say that blacks and homosexuals deserve the same rights as you and me? Are you stupid? Do you not know the definition of the term racism?

          Why are you trying to control what churches do? Haven't you heard of freedom of religion? If they want to marry gay couples, they are allowed to, and many are doing just that.

          What will you do when you have no one left to control? Why are you so focused on homosexuality and not other sins? I'm sure you sin just as much as any person, so can I take away your rights and say it's because God doesn't approve? That's what you do, so it would only be fair.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          OOPS. The dummy is back.

          Homosexuality is a behavior, not a "people".....do you understand.

          What is the constitution about and what does it protect?
          People...not their behavior, nor their marriage rights.

          Perverts are protected under the constitution. What part of the constitution are perverts prohibited?

          I understand not only are you a homosexual but you're probably a pedophile; next you're going to tell me your rights as a pedophile are protected under the constitution? How about your drug dealing business? How about when you raped that white girl; is that also protected?

          So what behaviors should be protected? Are you telling me the constitution is about protecting behavior and not people?

          You are fantasizing about what the founding fathers wanted....if they were alive today, we'd have a lot more fertilizer, and a lot less AIDS.

          You and Ragefagot should meet for a rectal exam...that is protected under the constitution.

          I anticipate all perverted and immoral behavior will become legal based on the history of the courts rulings and the apathy of the Christians.

          So bask in your glory....this too will pass.

        • John

          No, I don't understand, maybe you can explain. If homosexuality is a behavior then so is heterosexuality. So I guess we can start passing laws against heterosexuals, according to your logic.

          Pedophilia is a crime. Homosexuality isn't.

          Can I clear anything else up for you today, whitepowerNASA?

          I ask again, what part of the 14th amendment don't you understand?

        • RageFury

          The Constitution is a limit on Federal Powers, however it does contain a bunch of Amendments that guarantee various things from being violated by Federal and State Governments alike, like the Right to Bear arms, Freedom of Religion among others and something you apparently cannot comprehend called the Equal Protection Clause.

        • RageFury

          Oh and not to long ago I saw you post something about the Liberal tossing insults because they have no argument, yet here you are "OOPS. The dummy is back."
          How Christian like of you. You do Conservatives a disservice.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Well guess what? My opinion of you has nothing to do with my belief in Christianity.

          Let me clue you in...unlike you, Christians are NOT perfect, and unlike you, we are forgiven. Think about it.

          Once again you're off on a tangent trying to put the proof of the issue on me....it's your belief, your values and your morals.

          As Christian I am directed to forgive....not suppress my opinion of atheists and people who make wrong life choices.

          You're right, I'll stop calling you stupid and dummy, words you can understand. I'll substitute the word that Jesus uses....FOOL.

        • RageFury

          What an impeccable Christian you are. What about the Golden Rule hmmm? Not a true believer are you?
          I am Not an atheist. Try again.

          I love your nonsensical deflections from the issues, they amuse me.
          Though my "beliefs", "Values" and "Morals" are irrelevant to Liberty and other Citizens Liberties.

          As to the burden of Proof, all I need is the Equal Protection Clause that you cannot seem to grasp to prove my points here. What you have failed in doing, since the beginning, is to prove that it does not apply. While all I have to do is to say Homosexuals are persons, citizens and laws exist in several States that prevent them doing something that Heterosexuals can legally do. That is all I have to say and do to satisfy the burden of proof. Nothing you can say or do will change the wording in the Equal Protection Clause. Thus nothing you can say or do will prevent it from applying to this issue.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Spend your free time trying to satisfy your frustrated burden of proof and not me.

        • RageFury

          I didn't try to satisfy my burden of proof, I DID satisfy it and your childish deflections have not proven otherwise.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          OK. Please pick-up your prize at the door.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          ".......my "beliefs", "Values" and "Morals" are irrelevant."

          You can say that again.

        • RageFury

          Yet you try to impose your beliefs, values and morals with the specific aim to deny Liberty. Its almost as if you think your beliefs, values and morals are more important. Its almost as if you think they give you the right to deny another their Liberty.

          Sounds to me like you are a Lover of self in the not so good sense.

        • John

          Oh poor whitepowerNASA, you're just getting schooled left and right these days. Not too fond of the 14th amendment, are you? It kind of goes against all the discrimination you support. So the real question is, why don't you live by the constitution? Why are you so anti-American?

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Not too fond of the 14th amendment, are you? It kind of goes against all
          the discrimination you support. So the real question is, why don't you
          live by the constitution? Why are you so anti-American?

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          "So the real question is, why don't you live by the constitution?"

          Not the one you propose gay boy...HA.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          "Thus nothing you can say or do will prevent it from applying to this issue"

          I think we all know where you can "apply" your issue.

          Equal protection applies to PEOPLE not their lifestyle choices....pervert.

          You're way to simple to understand the difference between what people are versus their lifestyle choices.

          Have a "gay" time.

        • RageFury

          You are way to simple to understand that lifestyle choices do not stop people from being persons or citizens.

          It is precisely because you legislate in favor of one lifestyle choice over an alternative one, that the Equal Protection Clause applies.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          I think you've made your case.

          Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

        • RageFury

          "I think you've made your case."
          Thanks, I agree.

          By the way I love your self portrait.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          "What an impeccable Christian you are,"

          Thank you!!!

        • RonMar

          It does not matter much what Obama and the "twits" do or say about marriage. Holy Matrimony is of God, and God defines who can and cannot engage in sexual relations, marriage, etc. No acts, words, laws of mere men are superior to God, no matter whether people believe in God or not. He is, or as He said, "I am."

        • RageFury

          And the 1st says those who do not share your Religion don't have to follow it in kind.

          Cheers.

        • RonMar

          Who asked you for your wrong opinion? I didn't. Prove your assertion by copying, pasting and posting here that the "1st [Amdt] says those who do not share [my] Religion (sic) don't have to follow it in kind." You don't even know what my religion is.

          Besides, good sense prohibitions against engaging in homosexual acts with same sex partners deals largely with biology, physiology, anatomy, etc. - sciences. So you don't believe in science or religion apparently.

        • RageFury

          You post in a public place with an OPINION that is not shared by all, so expect to get a reply. Otherwise shut up and keep your irrelevant Religion based opinion to yourself.

          So show me where I am wrong?

          You: " Holy Matrimony is of God, and God defines who can and cannot engage in sexual relations, marriage, etc."
          Where in the Constitution does it state I must follow your religion whatever it may be, or your decrees based upon it if I don't share your religion or your opinion? Oh yea and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
          That means Friend: those who do not share your Religion don't have to follow it in kind.

          "Besides, good sense prohibitions against engaging in homosexual acts with same sex partners deals largely with biology, physiology, anatomy, etc. - sciences. So you don't believe in science or religion apparently."
          I believe in the freedom to do so. I don't share an opinion one way or the other on it. I certainly don't give a crap if people who are not me engage in it. It is none of my business, nor is it yours.

          What this means is your assumptions are as meaningless as they are pointless.

        • RonMar

          You want to act all tough - tell me to my face to shut up and to keep my religion to myself. FYI, I have a God given right to freedom of speech, affirmed in the US Constitution, also to freedom of religion. I have defended those rights in combat and am perfectly willing and able to do it again.
          So come on Internet hero, let's see your chicken butt your gator mouth has overloaded.
          I have shown you where you are wrong. You rejected it. God's law prevails over all laws of mere humans. Did you get it this time? You will some day, I assure you.
          You didn't answer my question: Do you believe in and accept science or not? Yes. No. That's all. Nothing else you said matters.
          I explained to you why it is my business. That it is not your business is your problem, not mine. You work on it or not. You will answer for your decisions about it some day, I assure you.
          I assume nothing. Facts, truth are meaningful and most seriously have points whether you like it or not, and again I assure you that you will find out some day.
          Until then I am not interested in your problems anymore. I have told you. You have rejected. Goodbye and good luck.

        • RageFury

          "You want to act all tough...Blah blah blah"
          You were the one crying about my opinion, suck it up tough guy. You were first trying to limit my speech were you not? Yet it is you, the Christian, who thinks violence is the solution. Amusing that.
          What about the Golden Rule? Not very devout of you. You will be judged by your God, fear not. I surely won't lose any sleep over it.
          What about the Constitution and that Freedom of Speech you Fought to protect? You don't seem all that understanding of it, to have fought for it.

          News flash bub, you are not the only veteran in this lopsided conversation or in this thread. I profess no specific religion and I never threaten another over their speech, unlike you.

          Again, if you don't want a reply when you spout off about your Religion and your Decrees, then shut up and keep your irrelevant Religion based opinions to yourself. Otherwise, as I have demonstrated once more, you will get replies like it or not.

          I care not what threats you make from your chair, not a single one will ever be fruitful, so blow it out your arse.

          "I have shown you where you are wrong."
          You have done no such thing. All you did, besides froth at the mouth, was quote a Religion I don't subscribe to. I love the 1st. Though, no Religion applies here and definitely won't in any ruling the Courts make on it. See the 1st Amendment.

          "God's law... blah blah blah. Did you get it this time?"
          Good luck getting that to fly in any Court of Law. It won't. YOUR God does not apply here. See the 1st Amendment you fought to protect bub. Get it this time?

          Or did you mean Judgement day? In that case that is a different discussion but it still has no business here. Though, his Noodly appendage will accept me and you just fine regardless.

          "Do you believe in and accept science or not? Yes. No. That's all. Nothing else you said matters."
          Science does not matter here either. Homosexuality is not on trial here, discrimination against a group of citizens is. Science in this case doesn't bring crap to the table. Even if you tried, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 US 558 (2003) and United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. (2013) are definitive. Private consensual sex between adults is a fundamental liberty and DOMA is toast at the Federal level. What makes you think a State Level DOMA is going to survive the scrutiny of SCOTUS? It certainly fails at the 9nth Circuit and the Court the below it. The chances are slim to none. Sorry, but Homosexuality is not something you can discriminate against whether your God justifies it or you think Science justifies it.

          Thus nothing you said matters.

          "I explained to you why it is my business."
          I explained to you why the 1st Amendment don't give a crap why you think it is and makes it clear nobody else has to give a crap either. Certainly the Courts won't and have not to date.

          "You will answer for your decisions about it some day, I assure you."
          Pffft. Go threaten a child bub, because I am quite sure I do not fear your invisible man.

          "I assume nothing."
          Yea ya did and you still do. Your biggest assumption is that your Religion means crap to me or to the Courts, even in the face of the 1st Amendment you supposedly fought to protect.

          "Facts, truth are meaningful and most seriously have points whether you like it or not, and again I assure you that you will find out some day."
          I agree and fact is your Religion and decrees do not mean squat here and definitely don't mean squat to me, right along with your impotent threats.

          "Until then I am not interested in your problems anymore."
          That's nice, but then I don't have any problems. You seem to have a few though, the biggest being the 1st Amendment and forcing your Religion on the country.

          " I have told you."
          You have told me nothing really, because nothing you have stated means crap and certainly will never mean crap in the Courts. When a Court takes a case on Liberty, they cannot base their decisions on "because someones irrelevant God said so". Amusing, but that is all your nonsense is.

          "You have rejected."
          I did reject your nonsense and so would any Court in the Nation.

          "Goodbye and good luck"
          You too.

        • RonMar

          I was going to let you and your obnoxious behaviors go, but you could not keep your mouth shut being wrong as you are.
          I posted to someone else. You stuck your nose into the conversation "crying about my opinion." So you "suck it up tough guy" and learn to deal with truth, facts, real history and current events. Otherwise you make a fool of yourself on a worldwide-available, public site for all to see.
          No, I was not the "first trying to limit [your] speech." You even told me to shut up, then coward that you are have backed down on letting your gator mouth overload your chicken butt. You are sidling sideways crablike and lying, trying to change the record. Go up and review the posts to see the truth as any reader here can.
          You tell me to shut up, then you blather about "Christian," "violence [being] the solution," "the Golden Rule," blah, blah, blah. Where is the violence, guy? I applied the Golden Rule as you applied it to me, as if you even know what the Golden Rule is.
          FYI, being a Christian in no way means I or any other Christian has to put up with you or anyone like you. Jesus did not, has not and will not. You will know that for sure some day.
          I am perfectly willing to be judged by God. I doubt you are.
          So you are now claiming you are a military veteran, of combat? Prove it. Tell me something convincing, like, what service, when, where, what military specialty.
          I didn't threaten you. You are showing your cowardice and fear. You told me to shut up. I replied to you. Get over it, "bub" baby.
          "Then shut up and keep your irrelevant Religion based opinions to yourself." Again you're welcome to come try to shut me up or try it right here. I will not put up with your abuse and orders. I don't have too. You are nothing and nobody to tell me what to do about anything.
          Your obnoxious aggression followed by your wussy wobbling speaks loudly about exactly how FUBAR you are - F=Fouled, as in SNAFU for you.
          "So blow it out your arse." - Really? Nice mouth, little boy, talking all big, using obscene words must really make you feel tough.
          That's enough from you of your nonsense, whistle britches. You could have saved yourself a lot of wear and tear on your tender fingers with your running off at the mouth post.
          You sound like a little girl pitching a fit, ready to pull some body's hair, try to scratch out their eyes.
          What a sissified, total waste you are based on your posts. Grow up. Learn to behave, be decent, civil, learn some things meaningful in and to your life, and try not to get sick or die from your behaviors.
          Don't post to me anymore. It will be nothing but harassment and your being an Internet troll making ad hominem attacks on other posters with your obscene trash.

        • RageFury

          "No, I was not the "first trying to limit [your] speech." You even told me to shut up"
          I don't care who you posted to originally, you posted claptrap and I called you on it.

          Needless to say Incorrect. Here is the truth and the real history bub, I opened with: "And the 1st says those who do not share your Religion don't have to follow it in kind." I would have left it at that had you not been so obtuse.Yet You acted as if I had no business exercising my 1st amendment right in an open forum posting to you.

          I then told you expect a reply OTHERWISE shut up. I stand by that. That does not say you have to do anything, it is your Liberty to choose whichever. Just don't act all outraged if you get more replies that call your claptrap out.

          Secondly the order and wording is indeed there for all to see I shouldn't have to remind dolts like you, how it happened.
          Got it now?

          "You tell me to shut up...Blah blah blah...Don't post to me anymore. It will be nothing but harassment and your
          being an Internet troll making ad hominem attacks on other posters with your obscene trash."

          TLDR 90% of that and don't rightly care about irrelevant ranting.

          You're the Religious Zealot with the self proclaimed right to set decrees based upon said Religion, I offered no violent threats like you. My first post attacked solely your argument and nothing more. I told you to expect replies otherwise shut up (you do know what "otherwise" means right?) after you came back all indignant.

          Secondly you are the one who keeps replying expecting I will just sit idly by and accept your nonsense. I submit it is you who is the troll making ad hominem attacks on others with your hypocritical decrees. It is you crying about other people's opinions, while not addressing anything with substance.

          Myself, I addressed your arguments and your nonsense both. I am not scared to do both.

          So cry me a river bub, you don't want me talking to you, then it is simple. Don't reply to me with nonsense or just don't reply at all and we are through. You would get no more replies from me.

        • RonMar

          Rant on in your long RageFury posts sweetie. You just proved me right in all that I said.

        • RageFury

          Wishful thinking oh and Nice ad hominem.
          Hypocrite much?

        • RonMar

          Obviously you haven't got it yet - you do not matter one whit to me nor your half-vast opinions about me or anyone, any thing else. Go away please. Stop wasting your time and making a fool of yourself online by posting to or about me.
          Just to close, no I am not a hypocrite, and if you imagine there is an ad hominem attack on you in "Rant on in your long RageFury posts sweetie. You just proved me right in all that I said," please explain how you see that as an ad hominem attack.
          Also there is no wishful thinking in that post I made to you. Apparently you can't get anything right in your off topic, ad hominem, stupid, childish posts.

        • RageFury

          Still ad hominem and still a hypocrite. Let me help you.

          ad hominem:
          "Attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain."

          That is all you have done since I kicked your argument in the nuts with my 2nd post. It is not my fault my very 1st post was correct and my 2nd post confirmed it.

          The quality of your posts have steadily declined after that, however I address them anyways even though they have ALL been irrelevant ad hominem deflections. That is ok though. I debate with all types, makes no difference to me.

          To summarize, ad hominem is what you accused me of after I addressed your argument and your nonsense both. Neither scare me. ad hominem is not what I have done here, though you have multiple times and continue to do so.
          That makes you a hypocrite then and now.
          man up and address the argument or continue this ad hominem fallacy of yours, it makes no difference to me.

        • Esther

          Newsflash! The Colonel is simply offering advice in a military way. Nicely, as a matter of fact, compared to some.

        • RageFury

          Bub's post was not advice. Bub's post was a decree from a God I don't share, that is contrary to the 1st, with a threat.
          Nothing he stated contained the military way.
          The military way does not include threats and it does not force one's religion on others.

          Thanks for your input.

        • Esther

          Here is what I get from Rage when I reprimanded him w.r.t. your conversation. ... he said you gave him a decree from God!

        • RageFury

          Thanks for pointing the obvious out. However your forgot a part: It was a decree from A God I don't share.
          You can read the decree here if you have trouble figuring it out:
          http://godfatherpolitics.com/11757/yes-weve-opened-the-door-to-polygamy-and-incest-we-just-didnt-want-to-admit-it-before/#comment-973450492

        • RonMar

          You did have a speech, a long rambling, nonsensical one. WTG, goober.
          AYOR you've rejected far more than my posts but you are for sure no lawyer, except maybe a jailhouse one waiting to happen.

        • RageFury

          I rejected nothing, the 1st amendment did it for me.
          I am not a Lawyer, however I understand that not you or anyone else can force their religion on any other and definitely not in a Court of Law.
          That is just common sense and excepted understanding of the Constitution.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Ronmoron, John the troll, and Ragefaggot.

          This is great!!

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          RonMoron is tuff.....you should meet him.

          Bring all of your friends. He is usually armed.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          GO GET EM RONMORON, AKA, PLASTIC PREACHER!!

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          That's right.

          Go get-em.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          DO DE MUMMMY DUM DE DODO.

      • G W

        Just go away. Keep trying to make the 14th amendment something it is not. It in no way offers protection to homo-sexual marriage. You are the one fighting the system Skippy so the real question is what part of the word NO don't you understand?

        • John

          Really? Did you follow the DOMA ruling at all? Damn straight I'm fighting the system. Just like those before me who fought for interracial marriage. Bet you were against them too, huh?

      • RonMar

        See my post to you above. Obviously you are not a lawyer competent in the US Constitution and its following body of laws. Nothing in the 14th Amdt or any part of the US Constitution gives anyone the freedom or right to engage in perverted homosexual acts of any kind.

        • John

          Hahahahaha. Yes I saw your post above, and I responded to it.

          The 14th amendment gives you life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Just because you think it's perverted doesn't mean everyone does. That's why you're entitled to your opinion but you aren't entitled to restricting other's pursuit of happiness, ESPECIALLY because it is based on religion that not everyone believes in. Keep your religion to yourself, thanks!

        • RonMar

          Get real please. Your own quote of the 14th Amdt does not mention "the pursuit of happiness." You can't change the words to suit you.
          Homosexual sex acts between same sex partners is perverted. That's not an opinion, it is a fact.
          It is based more on biology, physiology, anatomy, etc. - those are sciences - than religion.
          It is none of your business what I do with my religion, and it requires me not to keep it to myself. So your can stow that bit. Who do you imagine you are anyway trying to give me orders?

        • John

          Really? It's fact? According to who?

          Your religion wouldn't be anyone's business if you weren't using it to restrict other people's rights. How would you like it if we started to force women in your state to wear burkas? Would you like that? Not very good with the golden rule are you?

          Giving you orders? Are you serious? You don't see the irony? You support unconstitutionally restricting other people's rights. All I'm doing is expressing my first amendment rights here. Got a problem with that?

          Again, what about the 14th amendment don't you understand? Are homosexuals not persons? Are they not citizens? Tell me Ron. How hard is it for you to understand? Are you dumb? Blind? Both? What is it?

        • RonMar

          Facts are facts son, and stubborn, troublesome things for people like you.
          I am not using my religion to restrict anyone in any way. "Business" you say? Are you a male prostitute?
          You nor anyone else has a right to engage in perverted behaviors of any kind. Get some clues. We are a people under God of His laws, all of us, including you.
          You are welcome to try forcing anyone in my family, town, county, state or country to do anything. You'll get my answer then, not to some childish hypothetical straw woman you gin up stupidly trying to use propaganda and failing at it.
          Did I give you an order? No. Did you try giving me an order? Yes. Did it work for you? No.
          The 1st Amdt right to freedom of speech does not apply online and is restricted in many other ways. Along with your other so obvious lack of education you do not know or understand at all the provisions of the US Constitution including the Bill of Rights or to what/whom it applies, where and when in what ways.
          We have already discussed the 14th Amdt. You lost that discussion too.
          I understand quite well, am not dumb, blind or in any other way impaired but you sure are as you show in your posts. The more you post the more foolish you make yourself look on a worldwide-available, public site.
          I suggest you quit while you are way behind but not completely buried in your own ignorance going to stupidity.

        • John

          Indeed, facts are facts. Sadly, they aren't in your favor.

          "You nor anyone else has a right to engage in perverted behaviors of any kind."

          Sure you do. You can do whatever you want as long as it is not illegal. Some say that masturbation is perverted. Some people say anything but missionary sex is perverted. Shall we make laws against those people as well? Ron, if you stopped being a slave to your religion and thought for yourself once in your life, you would realize that.

          The first amendment doesn't apply online? Wow, Ron. I didn't think you could say anything to make you look more ignorant than you already are. You proved that wrong. So you're saying you don't understand the first or the fourteenth amendment. What others don't you understand?

          Are homosexuals persons? Yes. Are homosexuals citizens? Yes. I think it is YOU who doesn't understand the 14th. Why? Because you want to push your religious laws on everyone. You're no different than the Muslims pushing Shariah law.

          Keep your religion to yourself. See? I did it again.

        • RonMar

          Argue with yourself and take it up with God when your time comes. You are wasting your time posting your nonsense to me. Don't do it anymore. It is only harassment and attacks on me and my beliefs. I won't put up with being attacked in that way. There are many legal ways to stop you. So govern yourself accordingly.

        • John

          You've got to be kidding. You are replying to my posts with your free will. You are welcome to stop but you don't. Then you want to threaten me? Haha - are you serious?

        • RonMar

          I am not kidding. I am serious. Obviously you don't know the difference between a threat and a request or promise.

          I believe you started posting to me, attacking me and my beliefs, so, yes, I replied to your posts. You have become boringly repetitive, arguing endlessly with your misunderstandings of the subject.
          That constitutes harassment and your behaving like an Internet troll. I have asked you to stop. You will not, thus proving your intent to harass.
          I'll try this first, then if necessary we'll go from there.

          To: Godfather Politics and Discus managers
          I have asked the poster known as John to stop harassing me with his posts attacking me, and my beliefs. I will appreciate your precluding him from posting to me any more. Thank you.

        • John

          You believe wrong. Just look at this page, go up 5 posts and you can see that you posted to me after I responded to GW. How are you so stupid Ron?

          Is this how you end most of your conversations when you get proven to be an idiot who has no idea what he is talking about? You make stupid bogus legal threats against people on the internet? How has that strategy worked for you Ron?

        • RonMar

          Blah, blah, blah, goodbye and good luck, childish name calling loser.
          Oh, be patient young 'un, you'll know soon enough how things work for and with me and others who live within the bounds of the US Constitution and its following body of laws.

        • John

          I like how you call me names in the same post where you try and criticize me for calling you names. You're good with the hypocrisy Ron.

          So were you able to photograph the reaction of any legal expert you have asked to help you with this?

          Why do you even talk about the Constitution. You admit not understanding the first or fourteenth amendments.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          EVERYONE CALLS YOU NAMES DUMBASS!!

          Why is that? RonMoron is right...you really are an idiot.

          Now go tell RonMoron you're sorry.

        • John

          Easy. Because you guys are uneducated, redneck white trash.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          RonMoron threatened to kill you. What do you think about that?

          I don't think he likes blacks.

          His motto has always been: "If black is beautiful, then I just s*(& a masterpiece."

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Right. John is a fool, much like you, but I think there is the possibility of a beautiful relationship here.

          By the way, I asked you to tell me what Jesus means to you and why. Where is that comment?

          As a self proclaimed preacher, missionary and giver of the Word, you should be able to answer this question.

          Now, spend more time correcting John, aka Patrick Star. I don't think he is as smart as you, so it will be easy to lubricate him up for the big-one.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          That's it RonMornon....get right in his pants. He loves it.

          Keep pushing the little faggot. Soon he will become angry and start calling you names....then you know you've won the argument.

          Good job.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Go get em Patrick.

          RonMoron is a delusional preacher and missionary. Use that.

          He'll start calling you names then you'll know you've won the argument; but you need to keep pushing.

          Soon he'll lube up and be ready for you.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          "Don't do it anymore. It is only harassment and attacks on me and my beliefs. I won't put up with being attacked in that way. There are many legal ways to stop you. So govern yourself accordingly."

          I think RonMoron has one-up on you.

          He really is much smarter then you.

        • John

          "He really is much smarter then you."

          Children learn the difference between than/then by 6th grade. Where were you?

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Got to love a great circle jerk, with the jerks of the world.

          John and Ron live on stage.

          Now, which one is the girl and which one is the boy? I guess the one "in the rear" is the male.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          John told me you are just a pile of S^&* and would love to "meet you outback" for some behavioral modification.

          He is mostly all talk as fighting from a wheel chair is difficult for him.

          I'd hold him accountable. He has shown you nothing but disrespect.

        • Glen S

          John, you should feel honored that the great Ronald Marlar (sarcasm intended) deems you worthy of his arrogant, repetitive, childish, and completely absurd attacks. He has been making the same ridiculous threats toward anyone who will not bow down and worship him.

        • RageFury

          I have noticed that as well.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          YEP.

          Go get-em.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          HA.

          The great RonMoron. Winner of souls world-wide.

          He, Ragefaggot and John have a lot in common, so let the games begin.

          I can't wait to see which one has the best name calling talent and lack of education. One of them will win the title of: KING OF THE TROLLS.

          I think John is far and away behind the curve and will probably bail out due to hurt feelings. Ronmoron is on the emotional level of a 17 year old female with her "period" and Ragefaggot is a follower...I think he'll coat tail John and team up on RonMoron....he never is very original and loves to cut and paste.

          Well fans, let the games begin. It's "Faggot" versus "Want-to-be-preacher" versus "Nonsense man".

        • RonMar

          No, I'm not kidding. You started posting to me; of course, I replied to your claptrap. I'll stop when I'm good and ready - "free will," you know. I'll also do all I can legally to stop you from harassing me and attacking me, my beliefs and rights and freedoms. "See, I did it again," promised not threatened you, sweetie.
          I'll start with this -

          To Godfather Politics and Disqus Managers/Moderators:

          Please block the user name John from posting to me with his harassing, cyberstalking and Internet troll posts. Thank you.

        • John

          Ron, you are a pathetic little drama queen. You are just as responsible for having a conversation with me. You responded to me multiple times when you could have stopped. So when I respond, it's harassment, but when you respond, it's fine, right?

          Just like you, I'll stop when I'm good and ready. Your absolutely pathetic and childish threats to sue me or hold me legally accountable for posting on a forum are a JOKE. Really, I can't stop laughing at how pathetic of a threat that is. I really really hope you contact an actual person to ask about this so they can also laugh at you in your face. Take a camera with to document him/her laugh at you and send it to me, please.

          In conclusion, you are pathetic.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          You tell him...don't let the little pr*(& get away with that.

          He calls you all sorts of names and claims you "can't shut him down" regardless of who you write.

          I could not sleep at night knowing this little pervert might be outside my window watching me.

        • RonMar

          NASA, I tell them as I see you do too. Most of them are wasted effort. They don't, won't and maybe can't listen they are so lost, corrupted and perverted, in the grip of Satan. So after awhile with one, another, another, I shake the dust off my feet and move on, always hoping some will hear and receive they Good News Gospel message of Jesus crucified, resurrected thus defeating death and risen into Heaven to prepare a place for those who believe on Him.
          They do not understand Christianity or Christians. Among other things they do not realize many of us are not martyrs, many of us are soldiers in the Army of God resisting them by any and all legal means available to us.
          If the "little pervert" shows up "outside my window" that is likely to be his final act before he goes to hell.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Yes.

          Go get em!!

          You can't let losers like this continue to comment without accountability.

        • fliteking

          Can you still post pics?

          I can't on godfather.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Mine disappeared!

          Guess not.

        • fliteking

          Oh well, was fun while it lasted.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          YEP.

        • fliteking

          How'd you get the Pic up?
          I just tested one, no go.
          Naming issue?
          Funny as hell though.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          You got me. Some go through, others don't.

          Did they change policy or is it the content?

        • fliteking

          Testing again. . . . weird, it worked. Dropping some packets maybe, or they are filtering us but filter has some flaws.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          For sure. I like the picture.

          You're right they might be filtering, but 99% of the pictures are innocuous.

          Pictures are worth a 1000 words; saves time having to type...HA.

        • fliteking

          John is gonna need to look "innocuous" up . . . . with some help.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          HA. For sure.

          BIG THUNDERSTORM GOING ON NOW!!

          Was going for another ride; guess I'll stick around and see what losers show up for a beating.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA
        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA
        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          I'll try another picture and see what happens.

        • fliteking

          Don't know. was able to repost your pic.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          YEP.

        • RonMar

          Yep, I have not done so for years, and I have no intention of letting up on them now. They are pushing hard, but I know and believe you do too that we - the good - will prevail over them - the evil - eventually. Good has always prevailed over evil, but they don't even know what good is, so can't know that good always prevails over their evil.
          On the prophecy timeline we are well into the time when good is called evil and evil is called good.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Yes.

          Now back to your issue: What does Jesus Christ mean to you and why?

        • RageFury

          I noticed they resort to ad hominem when they get curb stomped. They have no argument so they resort to threats and claim harassment, though in fact they are replying to you.

          Pathetic really.

        • Glen S

          It is worse than that really. They (Mary, a.k.a Esther; Ron, a.k.a RonMar; & Andrea, a.k.a msamericanpatriot) begin with ad hominem attacks from the start. Any "evidence" they present is a pretense for the attacks.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Ragefaggot is just another liberal clown who is John's close butt buddy.

        • RageFury

          Last I checked I was a Heterosexual, very Pro 2nd Amendment, very Pro 1st Amendment, for balanced budgets, low taxes smaller Government, for a strong National Defense, against Amnesty, for getting the Feds out of Education, for following the Constitution and above all else, for Liberty.

          Quite often I find myself arguing on the side of you Christians. Mostly my beliefs align with most Christians, except on the topic of Gay marriage and obviously Religion.

          I normally don't debate Religion past the freedom of Religion. The Wife is Christian after all and that would create strife in the marriage.

          For example, I oppose stripping the word God from public.
          I oppose restricting the free exercise thereof, in any way.
          I oppose removing God from the Pledge.
          I oppose the assault on Christmas.
          I opposed removing the 10 commandments from that Court, wherever it was.

          What part of any of that do you disagree with, aside from Gay Marriage? You sure we really disagree there?
          My biggest concern in that regard is Federal and State involvement, Marriage should be left to the Churches. That is my core belief.
          Only that is not what we have today and why I assert the Constitution must be applied in Marriage Law, as it is in all Laws concerning all Citizens of this Nation.

          I don't come to godfatherpolitics because I disagree with Conservatives, I come because I agree 98% of the time.
          I just have this thing for Liberty, following the Constitution and not being called a Hypocrite when I try to stay true to my beliefs. Thus when I see something that makes me think Liberty is being challenged or against the Constitution as applied to ALL Citizens equally, I respond.
          After all, none of the Constitution was written for any Sexual Behavior. We cannot allow legal Sexual Behavior to dictate when the Constitution does not apply. If we do, we set precedent to Discriminate based on ANY Behavior and that just doesn't pass muster on any level.
          You can oppose Same Sex marriage, that is your right. However this argument you choose to disallow it could threaten all of us, it is dangerous to our Liberty. We have enough dangers to our Liberty already.

        • John

          Yea, it's embarrassing. I don't know how they keep doing it day after day, especially after people like us point out their errors.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          "If the "little pervert" shows up "outside my window" that is likely to be his final act before he goes to hell."

          RonMoron threatened to kill you....I would not let him get away with that.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          RonMar

          John

          4 days ago

          Argue with yourself and take it
          up with God when your time comes. You are wasting your time posting your
          nonsense to me. Don't do it anymore. It is only harassment and attacks
          on me and my beliefs. I won't put up with being attacked in that way.
          There are many legal ways to stop you. So govern yourself accordingly.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          GO GET EM RONMORON....YOU TWO SHOULD HAVE A GREAT TIME TOGETHER.

          Neither you nor John will have any idea what the other is talking about, and even if you did, you'd just ignore it, change the subject to your own agenda and continue to circle jerk.

          I'm glad you're around Ron....John really needs someone equal in mental illness to converse with.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          John the Troll is a self professed lawyer....really. Much like you're a self professed seminary trained minister.

          You two have a great delusion running here...use it to YOUR advantage.

          John, as a self proclaimed pervert and homosexual believes he was born that way. He also believes he is part of a "race" of homosexuals, like blacks, and therefore deserves special treatment under the constitution.

          Don't let the faggot get away with this RonMoron. Hold him to task.

  • James White, M.D.

    The Lone Ranger and Tonto are upon a hilltop, long ago, and see the imminent attack of a large indian raiding party. Kemo sabe turns to Tonto and says "what are WE gonna do, Tonto?" Tonto answers: "what do you mean, 'WE', white man?"

    Having now infuriated some readers for using an old story like the one above--but caring not one whit--I now propose a similar question from the title of the article: "what do you mean 'WE' didn't want to admit it before.?" Some of us have been preaching and shouting this inevitable consequence since day one.

    The meaning of the movement to approve perversity in its many forms (of which homo-marriage is but one example) is actually the destruction of human existence and civilization upon this planet. God, after creating the world, and Adam and Eve, put the plants and animals here, for the enjoyment of humans and to provide nourishment for the ones He made in His image.

    Furthermore, God explains in The Bible, that perversity is an abomination. Animals are for the hummingbird feeder, or the grill, not the bedroom; in the same way that "man" is for "woman." Period. Following the word of God is our sacred duty. Let those who ignore the word of God do so at their peril, for "we" who follow it are many, and "we" will not go away quietly, rest assured. Dominus vobiscum. PS There is no "slippery slope", as mentioned in the article. It is a "free fall" to hell.

    • Kent2012

      the new book apparently is call "if it feels good, do it"....even the scum commies in roosha do not condone it publicly.....I wonder what they think about government sponsorship, through money stolen from taxpayers, for abortion on demand??

  • DrZarkov99

    I'm amused by all the back and forth about gay marriage. Marriage is a commitment of faith (despite the idea of "open" marriage, where faithfulness is meaningless - not sure how that qualifies as marriage), and most feel the commitment is made stronger by a religious ceremony.

    Once the SCOTUS declared homosexual relations could no longer be declared illegal, the question of gay marriage as a moral commitment between two persons became moot, as there are any number of religious establishments that will readily perform any ceremony between any two people. The issue is now reduced to taxes and benefits. If we do away with the income tax, and replace it with a consumption tax (like the Fair Tax), the tax issue is now moot, since marriage-related advantages disappear. Benefits should be assignable to a working party and his/her dependents, period. The only restriction should be that adult survivors have to share, and get no benefit (such as Social Security) larger than what would be granted to a single adult survivor. That cures one motivation for polygamy.

    Once the tax and benefits issues are settled, marriage does in fact, become one of personal commitment. As to the silliness of who gets to see a sick person at a hospital, I think that should be up to the one hospitalized, and everyone would do well to make up a legal document identifying which friends and relatives one wishes to be allowed to visit and make medical decisions.

    Incest rings a big alarm bell, however. The problem with allowing incestuous relations between adults of consenting age (which many states do, de facto) is that it opens the door to arguments about the age of consent. Pedophile promoters already argue that it's simply another form of sexual attraction. We've already gotten ourselves into a lot of societal hot water by giving up on teen sex (with some parents enabling it, convincing themselves they're somehow better able to control their children's behavior), and the pedophiles would argue that we're just debating the age of the child's lovers. Eventually this will degrade to only sex with prepubescent children as pedophilia, which will then open a new can of worms with a debate about whether a child was sexually mature or not. There are already mental health professionals that argue children are sexually aware long before pubescence, and that restrictions on their sexual behavior may be "inhibiting" their social growth.

    I hate to say it, but we already live in Sodom, and are just arguing about how to decorate the neighborhood. Maybe we need to think about restructuring the U.S. to enable different regions that have more legal freedom, as things are quickly losing touch with any kind of moral basis.

    • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

      "Maybe we need to think about restructuring the U.S. to enable different regions that have more legal freedom."

      Too much trouble. Just stick around, God's going to burn it all down sooner then you think.

  • Backgammon

    I am thinking of getting married to my son. Why not? He lives with me, I support him, I love him, we have common ideas. I could use the tax advantages. Makes perfect sense to the Supremes.
    One deterrent, I will have to move to another state as (thankfully) my state has voted against gay marriage. Did it dawn on anyone that it will always be "Gay Marriage" and not just Marriage?

    • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

      By the way, that argument has already been presented, and it is NOT too far fetched. It's not about marriage between a man and woman, so you could in theory marry your son.

      There are huge tax and inheritance advantages.

      It will interesting to test it out in court...I guarantee it will. Be the first to see if you can pull it off....I need a really good.."I told you so"

      • Ruggedlark

        Funny you should post the thought.

        I knew a lesbian that was married to a gay man, for the purposes of obfuscation. They were in the military. It kept up the pretense of normalcy, while still allowing them the freedom to be with their "partner".

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          There are a lot of contract "marriages" in the military. I had no problems slamming those that did it as a company commander.

        • Ruggedlark

          Thank you for your service.

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          And you are quite welcome.

        • Ruggedlark

          Just so you know, jong, I live in a place that I see lots of old men wearing caps, that spout the company and or division of the unit they were assigned to.

          Usu. I don't engage. Sometimes I just thank. But I engaged a man recently that was stationed in Germany during the Korean war. He was in 3 years. He doesn't like what's going on in the world and doesn't trust our government. It was an interesting conversation.

          so, as a company commander, feel free to share...

    • Kent2012

      can you wear each others clothes....??

    • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

      To me you call call it anything but marriage for that was given by GOD and not man.

  • DouglasDauntless

    It's communist doctrine, destroy tradition and instill the new thinking. It's all about destroying the normal family structure of a women is Mom and a male is Dad. The Demo-rats and Rhino Republicans tried this concept out on the Black people and they did indeed it worked and destroyed the Black Family structure, and that is one of the main reason the Government can control and use the Black Community as they want. That is they their Leaders and our Government push Rachel Hatred and Chaos so they the Federal Government can keep every one at each others throat so the people don't pay attention or see how the Federal Government is destroying us. If we the people got along, and doesn't mean that Black people and White people have to marry each other. It means that the Federal Government would not be able to control the population and we the people would be in control. The Federal Government is the enemy of we the people and our freedom.

    • LeslieFish

      Get real. The Black family structure was ruined by slavery, long before Marx was even born. Black culture has been recovering from that ever since. "Tradition" is the enemy there. Some traditions are thoroughly worth destroying.

      --Leslie < Fish

      • notislam

        The Arabs got it going and are still doing it . They are enslaving all sorts of races for their disgusting culture.

        • Kent2012

          ssh, do not let that out.......kenyan boy's supporters will have a hissey fit......

        • https://me.yahoo.com/a/CfsINEYDoex3fXYF.FLFCPOcXaFQros-#f30f8 jong

          Just imagine him and Larry Sinclair arm in arm with the wookie and her girlfriend Kagan.

        • Kent2012

          more images that cause poor sleep habits..........

        • darlingrats

          And have been doing for MANY centuries,then when MohaMAD was contacted by an evil spirit in the 600's, created demonic islam it's gotten even worse...them and their convert or die crapola, if ppl do convert,they are still treated as 3rd class citizens, have to pay the jizya tax.or as i call it the jism tax..they can promplty shove all that up their demonic azzes.go cry to their demonic moon god allah and their demonic pedo master mohaMAD

      • Susan

        No it wasn't. You obviously are not well read. Read Thomas Sowell's books on culture. He is Black. BTW, slavery existed way before Traditions of "White Man" reached the African "culture". It was "Christian Ethics" which ended the "Idea" that Slavery, Pederasty, Polygamy, Sodomy, Child Sacrifice is evil. All were common in Africa/the Pagan/occult Ancient Cultures.

        Marxists/Pagans are trying to return us to the "morality" of the Satanists/muslims/occultists/atheists where there are no "God-Given Rights", so the State can become "god" and determine Good and Evil and take our unalienable Rights away. They are making you a slave. Natural Law Theory is the basis of Christianity---which Founded the USA...it created the Age of Reason/Science---but you wouldn't understand the "Laws of Nature" if you are a Marxist who "believes" any lies like sodomizing others is a "Right" from God. Here is what YOU advocate---a return to the elimination of Christian Ethics--the most Reasoned/Free Ethical system in the history of mankind--proven by history....... http://www.examiner.com/article/afghan-pedophilia-a-way-of-life-say-u-s-soldiers-and-journalists

        • LeslieFish

          Where on Earth did you get the idea that Pagans are Marxists? Nearly all the ones I know are Libertarians.

        • Susan

          Surely, you are not so ignorant as to not have read "Plato's Republic"---which describes a utopian pagan society, exactly like what Marx envisioned. You really need to read some Classical literature and jump off the Leftism/Marxism Rousseau-ian Bandwagon--we can perfect man without God-- mantra.

          The Laws of Nature are fixed---Christians know that---There are Universal Truths (God) which is denied by Marx, who wants to take the sledge hammer and make us all exactly the same---male and female---interchangeable---obliterate concepts of mother and father---so no unequal loyalty to anyone but the State (god)-----Read the Communist Manifesto while you are at it, like I did.

          or if you are intellectually lazy, read Brave New World or 1984---or the Hunger Games---all are about totalitarian governments which is what Marxism is---no God-Given unalienable Rights---just those which the State grants you---and they decide what and how your children can think---and what they will be and do).

          Just like they do now with Marxist indoctrination of our little boys like Jerry Brown does---- that they *need* to take "Pride" in anal sex and pederasts such as evil Harvey Milk.

          Think what my father (WWII Christian Vet) would have "thought" if teachers tried to teach his three little 5 year olds to take "Pride" in perverted, unnatural, irrational use of their body parts in irrational sick ways--and put such twisted, unnatural inhumane ideas into their little heads. My dad would have killed anyone who perverted and warped the "thinking" of his little boys, and it would have been "cheered". There is nothing more evil and twisted than warp and corrupt the worldview of little boys---like they do in Afghanistan today where "Up is Down" like the Marxist world which destroys dignity in all human beings because it removes Virtue. http://www.examiner.com/article/afghan-pedophilia-a-way-of-life-say-u-s-soldiers-and-journalists

        • LeslieFish

          Plato based his "Republic" on observations of Sparta, which was successful for a time before getting corrupted, and collapsing. A few ancient kingdoms tried putting Plato's "Republic" into practice, but soon abandoned it on finding it unrealistic and unworkable.

          Since the "Republic" was written first, and a classical education in Marx's time included reading it, it's MUCH more likely that Marx stole ideas from Plato -- as he stole ideas from just about everybody else; the only original concept in "Das Kapital" was Marx's theory of history -- which was dead wrong.

          Marxism had nothing to do with ancient Paganism, and has about as much to do with modern Paganism as the Phlogiston Theory.

      • Kent2012

        no the black family was destroyed by the democrats and the great society. get you nose into the books that have the real history of culture of Americans of color............

        • LeslieFish

          I have read actual accounts of former slaves, which speak of fathers, mothers and children being sold away without warning, of plantations where slaves weren't allowed anything like marriage and the parents of children weren't even allowed to live together, of farms where Blacks were treated like livestock with a few males kept as studs to service the females and the rest often gelded, of families that didn't even eat meals together, and other miseries guaranteed to destroy Black families. These practices were common long before the Civil War.

        • darlingrats

          You got it, even when Abe freed the slaves, alot had to stay on as paid servants b/c that's all they knew how to do,and it was illegal to teach them to read and write..their own tribal leaders in Africa sold them into slavery,nm every race under the face of the sun has been a slave to some other race/ culture all throughout history.The dems have done nothing but hold them down,let them sit on their pity pots for many many yrs while telling them you are entitled to this,that and the other,you dont have to be responsible at all, we will give you just enough to keep you down while you still represent, give too,join the dem party and ignore the evil reps(not rinos) who believe in responsibility, smaller less intrusive govt amongst other things

      • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

        How long can we expect this "recovery" to last? For another 150 years?

        • LeslieFish

          Look, when the Civil Rights Act made it legal for Blacks to make something of themselves, half of them jumped at the chance -- got good educations, good jobs, housing in good neighborhoods -- and began class-climbing. Half didn't; they *chose* to remain in De Ghet-to, refusing to learn Whitey English, or history, or science, or mathematics ("Whitey mathematics"? Go figure), or enough of Whitey culture to get jobs, work hard and save their money -- they *chose* to "niggerize" themselves.

          Now the half that chose to follow the American Dream and class-climb can be found today in Congress, the Supreme Court, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and even the White House -- not to mention high places in private industry. The half that chose to Niggerize themselves... Well, maybe one in a thousand gets anywhere near rich on drug-deaing, pimping or Rap music; the rest wind up on Welfare, in prison, or dead. Which half do you think is growing, and which shrinking?

          I'll give you a hint; breeding like rabbits doesn't offset dying like flies.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Gotta love it!!

    • Kent2012

      and the idiots are sucking it up like candy.............

      • darlingrats

        that they are

    • darlingrats

      You are exactly right, our forefathers even knew modern day society would blow it, and we are. So long as groups of ppl are being pacified by welfare,foodstamps, housing vouchers, commodities, getting into colleges that would reject them based on just their scores,getting jobs they certainly are NOT qualified for ( a friend of mine who has a Master's Degree that she actually EARNED was constantly being passed over for promotions, her supervisors at best only had a GED) giving them mortgages they cannot afford...The list is endless...People are choosing pets instead of kids, i read that only 4million human babies celebrated Mother Day BUT the pet industry is BOOMING, PROFITS IN THE billions of dollars and growing .No wonder i read from various sources on how the US WILL FALL

  • DouglasDauntless

    The Federal Government under the leadership of Barrack Hussein Obama, B.O. opened the doors polygamy and incest, not we the people.Since the take over of the Dem0-rats and Rhino Republicans, laws are now what is right is wrong and what is wrong is right. It's all about destroying we freedom loving people and our Country. But most of the people in the United States are brain dead, or brain washed by watching subliminal messaging on TV.

    • darlingrats

      our forefathers, the bible predicted every bit of this.

  • LeslieFish

    Oh get real! The US will never legalize incest (no matter how many pious southern rednecks practice it) because of the provable harm it does to children. The US will never legalize polygamy because of history; a century and a half ago the US *declared war* on the Mormon church, precisely because the Mormons refused to obey a Supreme Court decision and give up polygamy. Getting soft on polygamy would give power to the Mormon church, and the fed. govt. will never do that. Gays, married or not, are no threat to the public at large or the govt.'s power. That's what it comes down to.

    • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

      Wrong. If you have enough money and greasy a#$ lawyers, you can pass any law and approve any behavior the courts (lawyers) deem acceptable. If the morals and values are low enough, then any behavior goes. That's what the liberals want...their definition of morals and values. Unrestricted Freedom=Absolute Anarchy.

      And who would have imagined:

      1) Gay marriages
      2) Illegal to issue a fake Weather Bureau forecast
      3) Homosexual behavior and endorsement in schools
      4) Fined up to $1,000,000 for partaking in the act of Genocide
      5) In the United States it is illegal to operate a train that does not have an “F” painted on the front
      6) In America today it is illegal to milk your cow and sell the milk to your neighbor.
      7) In Washington D.C. it is illegal not to recycle cat litter.
      8) In the United States it is illegal to sell natural cures for cancer – even if they work.
      9)There is a federal law that makes it illegal to be "annoying" on the Internet.
      10) All over the United States lemonade stands run by children are being shut down because they do not have the proper permits.

      We are a nation run by a bunch of liberal control freaks that do not care about our liberties, Christian morals and our freedoms.

      This is not what our founding fathers intended, and this is not what America is supposed to be about.

      • RageFury

        Liberal Control freaks of today are the anti-thesis to real Freedom and Liberty.

        Are you actually suggesting that Liberals who would have you taxed at the point of a gun to pay for that Illegal's education in CA, want "Unrestricted Freedom=Absolute Anarchy."?

        I am not sure you have articulated your thoughts properly.

        • LeslieFish

          "Anarchy" comes from the Greek "an-archos", meaning "without government". It says nothing about lack of social organization, or morals, or philosophy, or anything else -- just government, and thereby government-made laws. That is certainly NOT what our present administration wants!

        • John

          Government represents social organization.

          Even in a commune, you have elders. Someone who is "above" the others. That's the same thing.

        • LeslieFish

          No, not the same thing. The difference between a "government" and a collection of elders or expert advisers is *power* -- the ability to *force* others to do your will. A government is a monopoly on power within a geographical area. It's perfectly possible to have social organization based on nothing but agreement. What else is a fandom, or any club, or a church group for that matter?

        • John

          People give the government power. People give the elders power. People vote for their representatives. Agreement = rules. Rules come from people who make them, thus power. Any club has rules and a leader. Any church group has rules and a leader.

        • LeslieFish

          But the ability of the people to bestow or take away power is a helluva lot more limited with a government than with a club or church group. It's been a long time since any church had its own army that it could send out to massacre people.

        • John

          Well yea, in a group of 20 or 50 people, it will be easier to regulate power than in a group of 300+ million. That isn't really saying much. Your point about armies has nothing to do with anything we are talking about.

        • LeslieFish

          When America began, the army was supposed to be drawn from the state militias. The Founding Fathers knew the new govt. couldn't avoid having a "standing" Navy to maintain its ships, but they were very cautious about national standing armies. Each state set its own standards for its militia, which often varied considerably. When they were called up to fight in concert, the commanding general had to know the characteristics of each militia pretty well.

          Now women fought in the front lines in America's battles as early as the Revolution. Look up the name "Molly Pitcher" sometime; she started out as a water-carrier, and wound up manning (womanning?) a cannon. Later they often disguised themselves as men; there were several cases of this, on both sides, in the Civil War. All that the modern military has done is make women's participation official. All we're arguing about now is whether or not women should even be allowed to try for special forces or front-line positions, which is laughable when you look at history.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Just like ALL of your comments.

          Where is your dissertation on the origins of the Universe?

        • John

          Scientists don't claim to know everything about the origins of the universe. So why are you asking for something that no one claims?

          However, your religion DOES claim all the answers for how we got here and how the earth and universe was formed.

          So where is YOUR evidence?

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          So where is YOUR evidence?

          This is NOT about me.

          Tell me what you believe and why. Prove it. Or are you just too simple?

          RonMoron is right. You are a special kind of stupid.

          Everyone is laughing at you.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          So where is YOUR evidence?

          How did evolution start and why? Let's read your Ph.D dissertation.

        • RageFury

          Elders had power back in the day. Some could even send others to their deaths.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          No one is "listening" to you, and for sure no one cares.

          Just to back to sleep.

        • RageFury

          If you did not care you would not respond. Thanks for listening.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Right.

          Thanks for the same old boring cut and paste diatribe.

        • RageFury

          See, as you continue to listen.

      • LeslieFish

        Hey, you think that's nuts? When I was a kid, in New Jersey we had a law which said: "When two railroad trains approach each other on adjacent tracks, they shall both come to a halt and neither one shall move until the other one has passed." The present age has no monopoly on crazy laws.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          For sure. They are just crazy.

          Now go tell the perverts how crazy they are...not that they already don't know.

        • darlingrats

          In New Orleans,it is legal for 18,19,20 yr olds to buy booze BUT it is illegal for said age groups to possess the booze that they can LEGALLY BUY.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Go figure.

          In my state is legal to own a suppressor, but illegal to use it.

          Incest was invented by lawyers.

        • darlingrats

          also,and you're gonna LOVE this 1,it's illegal to tie your gator to a fire hydrant lol..first off, its illegal to own 1 unless you hve a permit, second...tying it to a fire hydrant? lol

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Well we just can't have these gators being tied up just anywhere...suppose there was a fire?

          Wonder what they do about all the pet badgers?

        • darlingrats

          lol right....and nutria

    • Kent2012

      bestiality next, marry your favorite pig, or horse, if you are real tall....

      • LeslieFish

        There's a barrier to that in place already; an animal cannot give *informed consent*. Dead in the water.

      • darlingrats

        yup, and already you can look all over the net, see porn of women having sex with dogs,horses and so forth. men doing the same,and it's on here for alot to see including children.

    • http://pastorsb.com/ Doug Roy

      This is not the same country with the same people. Those people had much more fear and respect for God's moral laws. Removing the moral laws duplicated in state laws, against homosexuality (this has been happening since '62) and all deviant sexual behavior (Sodomy) has opened Pandora's Box to all forms of deviancy. Keep in mind that Great Britain has been allowing marriages of close family members within their ungodly Islamic communities because their "prophet" okayed this deviant behavior. The resulting mental disorders has been studied and documented, but "religious liberty" evidently overrode the moral laws of God in Britain.

      Certain Mormon sects still push for polygamy and in the name of "civil rights" they will follow suit with homosexuals to obtain their right to polygamy.

      The moral laws of God are for all people in the human race, not just "religious" people. When any society throws out these restraints the judgment of God will soon follow.

      I would note that deviant courts, state, federal, and supreme, have been chief activists in reshaping our society, contrary to the will of the people.

      • LeslieFish

        Anthropologists can tell you -- quietly, in private -- that the Muslim custom of allowing first-cousin marriage for 16 centuries has caused some serious inbreeding problems among the Arabs. A disturbing number of them have substandard intelligence, which of course fundamentalist mullahs make use of. This explains a lot.

      • darlingrats

        This certainlyisnt the same country with the same ppl. It's coming, no doubt.there was already a case in Germany of a blood sister and brother (same mom,same dad for the ones that cannot grasp that) who " fell in love" had a child,perfectly accepted by alot of ppl. When that polygamy sect here in the us was reported by the 16 year old girl,the govt had to give ALL the kids back,return everyone,everything back to their original status, polygamy, incest and all,the ACLU took up their cause. So the chances of incest becoming legal is the us has a big chance of becoming true.

  • Kent2012

    Boy I can not wait.....we want to be like africa and the euro scuz....and when the opportunity arises, we can get some new laws on bestiality......I do not know that we have to wait considering some of the pigs I have seen on the streets.....

  • http://pastorsb.com/ Doug Roy

    The enemies of the United States within are using the strategy of Baalim, the prophet of God who sold out his soul for money and power during the days of Moses. He taught the enemy king how to make the Israelites to fall into sin so that God would turn on them and destroy them. Fortunately, a righteous loving priest named Phineas, took a javelin and thrust through two of the sinners (an Israelite prince and a daughter of a chief leader of Moab or Midian, I believe) who were committing fornication in the Israelite's tent. His righteous indignation stopped the plague sent by God on the whole camp.

    Will an American man stand up in the midst of our plague?

    • darlingrats

      It's looking pretty iffy isnt it? and " The Greatest Generation" is dying off at a rate of several thousand a day.

  • http://pastorsb.com/ Doug Roy

    Here are the laws of God regarding sexuality. These laws are for all mankind. The following is the moral law of God in regards to sexual behavior found in the Bible:

    10 "If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and woman shall be put to death. 11 If a man sleeps with his father’s wife, he has defiled what is his father’s; both the man and the woman must die, for it is their own fault. 12 And if a man has sexual intercourse with his daughter-in-law, both shall be executed: they have brought it upon themselves by defiling each other. 13 The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have brought it upon themselves. 14 If a man has sexual intercourse with a woman and with her mother, it is a great evil. All three shall be burned alive to wipe out wickedness from among you. 15 "If a man has sexual intercourse with an animal, he shall be executed and the animal killed. 16 If a woman has sexual intercourse with an animal, kill the woman and the animal, for they deserve their punishment. 17 "If a man has sexual intercourse with his sister, whether the daughter of his father or of his mother, it is a shameful thing, and they shall publicly be cut off from the people of Israel. He shall bear his guilt. 18 If a man has sexual intercourse with a woman during her period of menstruation, both shall be excommunicated, for he has uncovered the source of her flow, and she has permitted it. 19 "Sexual intercourse is outlawed between a man and his maiden aunt—whether the sister of his mother or of his father—for they are near of kin; they shall bear their guilt. 20 If a man has intercourse with his uncle’s wife, he has taken what belongs to his uncle; their punishment is that they shall bear their sin and die childless. 21 If a man marries his brother’s wife, this is impurity; for he has taken what belongs to his brother, and they shall be childless. 22 "You must obey all of my laws and ordinances so that I will not throw you out of your new land. 23 You must not follow the customs of the nations I cast out before you, for they do all these things I have warned you against; that is the reason I abhor them. Lev 20:10-23 (TLB)

    • John

      You forgot these passages:

      "Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own
      house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and
      will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad
      daylight."

      2 Samuel 12:11

      “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and
      lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall
      give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she
      shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her
      all his days."

      Deuteronomy 22:28-29

      • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

        You don't believe in the Bible. Why are you quoting it?

  • servant1jkb

    IF, all humanity followed their lead, there would be NO births, and in one generation humans would become extinct!
    Who knew, that this sin, was also very prevalent in ALL western civilizations of Babylon, Assyria, Egypt, Greece and Rome's two empires, right up to the 1990's with their priests? THINK, if you are still....able!

    This is exactly what Satan desires! He'll do anything, promote anything that hurts humans and thus Christ Jesus!

    Isaiah 5:2. "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

    Leviticus 20:13. " If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
    The death IS the SECOND DEATH of Revelation just before every knee shall bow, including Satan' s!
    http://www.longlifechoices.blogspot.com
    [email protected]
    http://www.blbn.org

    • MAL

      INDEED..... and AMEN, AMEN!!!

  • mar1950

    The modern sexual revolution began with "the pill" in the early ’60s. It inadvertently produced so many unwanted babies that abortion on demand was legalized by the Supreme Court in 1973. The homosexual revolution began in 1969 and we can now say it is nearing complete success with a dozen states legalizing gay “marriage”. With the Boy Scouts capitulating and the Supreme Court set to rule the Feds position on the matter, and organizations such as Exodus International which attempted to treat same-sex attractions by "reparative therapy" going out of existence, I think we can agree that the gay revolution has prevailed. Where to now? Any guesses? I don’t know but anything is possible.

    Try this when you have a minute: Google "pedophilia caused by gene". See if that gives us a clue as to what is next on the road to total depravity. A half century ago we crossed the rubicon when we discarded the norm of sexual activity confined to the bonds hetero-sexual marriage.

    Since, we have done everything morally and financially that has brought civilizations to an end. Predictably, clergy and social conservative politicians are warning that moral collapse is coming. Not so. Moral collapse has long since occurred. Economic and societal will follow. We can now only pray that it happens before the pedophiles also get their "rights".

  • wwlee4411

    Does this really surprise anyone? That's exactly what it was intended to do, with no end in sight. ANY marital combination you can think of. ANY! will push for acceptance now!

    • RageFury

      2 men, 2 woman or 1 man and 1 woman. You have one of 3 choices to think about. No other choice is valid under the Law and it is applied equally across the board in the absence of DOMA. If applied equally it cannot be challenged with any hope of success.
      Though at the State level, as Jong likes to quote, 33 States do not apply the Law equally. So 33 States will see their days in court eventually. Though CA was denied appeal by SCOTUS on Prop 8. So as I understand it the last ruling that invalidated Prop 8, applies for the moment.

      • wwlee4411

        That's now. There are going to be legal challenges that are going to push down all restrictions. After all, why should the be any restrictions on what constitutes a marriage?

        • RageFury

          As I have stated, If applied equally it cannot be challenged with any hope of success.
          If it is, then the challenge(s) will fail. They will have no standing.

        • ONEPISSEDOFFCITIZEN

          If you can redefine what "marriage" has meant for 1000's of years, once, you can redefine any word, as many times as you (or I) want. You may not like the way I want to redefine some words...
          Be careful, It's a slippery slope out there!

        • RageFury

          Good luck getting that written into law. The current challenge is asking for equality amongst two individual adults regardless of sexual persuasion. If you can redefine the number two, the word "adult" and sexual persuasion, then you might have something.
          Otherwise all you have is "The Sky is falling" chatter.

        • John

          No, it isn't. Only for bigots like yourself. You know they said the exact same you are saying now back in 1967 against legalizing interracial marriages.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          CLOWN.

        • John

          Because of consent.

          Animals can't give consent.
          We also have age of consent laws.

          Anything else?

        • wwlee4411

          Nor can they object.

        • John

          That is what consent means, in case you didn't know. Being able to say yes/no.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Animals don't give consent?

          So you've been violating your teenage pet sheep without he/she giving you permission? Outrageous!

          What you don't get now, and probably never will, the greasy a## perverted and liberal lawyers can pass any law they want given enough monetary and political support from your perverted community. This not about right or wrong. It's only about money and control.

          If you had you're way, all behavior would be permissible.

  • K. Ulmer

    JUDGEMENT, that is the word to remember here....as we are deeply and completely facing the major judgement of God. MANY people and nations in the past also faced judgement and were destroyed. Do we think we are BETTER than they? Not in God's sight. Unless we repent of our sins, God will not listen to us. His word tells how he feels, and we are so stupid to not heed what it says..

    • MAL

      AMEN.... The USA is becoming a replica of ancient Egypt, Persia, Greece, Babylon, Rome ... and anyone who is slightly in tune with God's Word knows how that ended... literally.... and how it was prophesied in the books of prophesy in the Old Testament.... Biblical prophesy has been 100% accurate if people would take the time to read it. The Book of Revelation, although not very often studied by most 'reveals prophesy' and it is right on target.... WATCH !!! Jerusalem will NOT fall....

  • Babylonandon

    NAMBLA will be thrilled.

  • williaml

    Separation of Church and State.

    The State has stepped in it now

    (Prov 14:12 KJV) There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

    (Prov 14:34 KJV) Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.

    • John

      Not really. The State only regulates legal recognition of marriages. It doesn't control which churches can or can't perform marriages. It's actually the other way around. Some churches DO want to marry gay people, but the state won't recognize it.

      • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

        "The State only regulates legal recognition of marriages. It doesn't control which churches can or can't perform marriages."

        You're so FOS.

        The State most certainly controls which churches can and cannot perform marriages.

        If a church refuses to preform a marriage for the perverts, the church is usually sued for discrimination by the perverts with the blessing of the "state." Since when is having a choice to refuse service to the perverts not an issue with the "state?"

        Remember, you're "special." No one is allowed to refuse the perverts a service without fear of being prosecuted.

        Go after the Muslims. They really hate perverts and discriminate against you all the time.....no fear!

        Take them to court for refusing to preform a perverted marriage.

        • John

          Wrong. Churches have the choice to reject ANY marriage. Be it heterosexual or not. If a church official decides they don't like you, or the reasons your give for getting married, or anything at all, they can refuse to marry you. If you were previously divorced, a church can deny your marriage. If you have cohabited before marriage, a church can deny your marriage. If you are acting like an idiot, a church can deny your mariage.

          Show me an example of a church refusing to marry and being sued.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          You're delusional.

        • VT Patriot

          Having been a JP in VT, I can assure you that we had to 'marry' all sorts of loons, gays, and just about anything but polygamy, BY LAW. Look it up.

        • John

          I have looked it up, that's why I know you are wrong.

          Like I said, a church official can refuse anyone's marriage for any reason. It happens all the time. Look it up.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          "I have looked it up, that's why I know you are wrong."

          Well that settles it. You looked it up, probably in Mad Magazine or Instinct so that's how you know.

          Did you ever take a logic class? Can you spell logic or do you just ramble hoping to make sense by trial and error?

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          "Churches have the choice to reject ANY marriage."

          At the risk of being sued by the perverts being married.

        • John

          Prove it. Show me a case.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          RonMoron thinks you're just another a@# hole incapable of discussing a subject.

          You should be ignored.

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94rcOVJBMYQ Winston Blake

    gay marriage = religious faggotry

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94rcOVJBMYQ Winston Blake

    born gay = birth defect

    • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

      No such thing.

      It's been shown one cannot be born a pervert...it's a choice.

      • John

        Really? Who showed this?

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          No such thing.

          It's been shown one cannot be born a pervert...it's a choice.

        • John

          Then prove it.

          What causes a person to have a particular sexual
          orientation?

          There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          No such thing.

          It's NEVER been shown one is born a pervert...it's a choice that is influenced by environment and not genetics.

        • John

          Really? How do you know it's a choice? Have you chosen to be one?

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          No such thing.

          It's NEVER been shown one is born a pervert...it's a choice that is influenced by environment and not genetics.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality is Not Genetic

          Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way. Leave a message...

        • John

          Prove it.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          "You gonna cry? So what was it like when you chose to be homosexual, aka pervert?"

          Please share with us your perverted mentality.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Thank God you can't reproduce!!

        • Breezeyguy

          Predisposition doesn't matter. Temptation is no excuse. Plenty of pathologies are rooted in genetics. So what?

          Please try to think. Do you know what it means "to think"?

        • John

          What are you ranting about now? Mad I totally proved you wrong and exposed you for the bigot you are?

        • Breezeyguy

          Men have a strong sexual appetite. But that's no excuse. And if somebody is tempted to the wrong gender, that's no excuse either. We all have to overcome our temptations and appetites.

          John is really a nutcase. He may have a demon.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          No question about it. He is demon possessed.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Thank God you can't reproduce!!

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94rcOVJBMYQ Winston Blake

    I'm frankly tired of our country being run by rave party fúck pigs like Megan McCain... All men are born of a woman... married or not.

    Even evolutionary theory and the Book of Genesis agree on this.

    Pretending a change of nature in your consecrations is nothing extraordinary, it is merely an incantation or conjuration whereby you would have men believe something contrary to the testimony of sight and all the rest of the senses.

    Nature does not need human permission, and if you are a religiously inclined person, no matter the sect or faith, you have to admit that God's laws are indelible in the natural world...

    Babies will continue to be born and people will continue to die.

    This idea of 'eternal love' in marriage is an impossible immortality of a kind, it is not immortality for the persons of men, lest any man should boast.

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94rcOVJBMYQ Winston Blake

    The Russians have a better view of this than the Americans do... Russia does not have gay pride marches in their army and they know a Marxist when they see one.

    The central focus of the US State Department for the last five years has been some kind of a fággot jihad...

    The attempt by our own State Department to steal the Russian elections for their comrades in the Russian Communist Party through non-profit NGOs was soundly beaten by Vladimir Putin (love him or hate him). This is why Russia cracked down on non-profit groups. The homosexual attack on the Orthodox Church by the queer punk band Pússy Riot, who were on the payroll of State Department funded NGOs, is another reason. Lesbian weirdo Madonna was also flown in as a provocateur...

    While Leon Puñettas was busy with gay pride celebrations at the Pentagon, he forgot there was a war, a U.S. Ambassador was murdered and Navy Seals were completely abandoned to their deaths... all because everyone was being so fúcking gay...

  • John

    You're basically linking something that says the same thing I posted. I said scientists aren't sure what determines anyone's sexuality. This guy says genetics are a minor factor, so the way you are born does play a role in it. Do you think at all about what you post? Do you actually read it then think?

    You know what's funny? There is no proof that heterosexuality is genetic either. ALL sexuality is a combination of many things that scientists don't fully understand.

    And none of this proves that sexuality is a choice. It just says other factors like are at play, including genes. I guess that doesn't stop the bigots and homophobes from adding their bit on "choice".

    And you know what is a choice? RELIGION.

    • ezekiel22

      I wished you would provide the links you refer to. You have danced around the figures provided in studies that do show an abnormal difference arises when nurture and nature are compared to the other. This does lead one to conclude that a choice is made. The preponderance of evidence does seem to support nurture over genetic influences.

      • John

        Uh not at all. You are shaped by your culture in environment in ways that you have no control over when you are young. Choice does not enter into it like the way that you claim.

        Nurture does not mean choice. And I don't know what "preponderance" of evidence you are talking about. Want to link some?

        The source of my quote comes from the APA.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality is Not Genetic

          Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that
          way.

          GAYS ARE NOT BORN THAT WAY!

        • John

          Actually, they don't come to that conclusion. The identical twins studies says genetics plays a factor.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          No....wrong again.

          Bend over. You're screwed.

          GAYS WERE NOT BORN THAT WAY.

        • John

          According to your own post, it did. Isn't it bizarre that you edited that part out of your post? The part that said genetics played a minor role. Hahahaa- whitepowerNASA, don't you feel pathetic? I'm embarrassed for you.

          Here is an article by Whitehead: http://www.mygenes.co.nz/Phoenix.html

          The contribution of prenatal sex hormones to OSA or SSA is not 100% as many have believed but is about 25%; a minor contribution. In that sense one is not born gay or straight or transgender.

          Here's another which reinforces this comment: http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead2.html

          No scientist believes genes by themselves infallibly make us behave in specified ways (HINT: HETEROSEXUALITY). Genes create a tendency, not a tyranny.

          So, like I said before, there is no scientific agreement on what creates our sexuality. So if it's a choice for gays, it's also a choice for heteros. Did you choose to be heterosexual?

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality is Not Genetic

          Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: GAYS WERE NOT BORN THAT WAY!

          What don't you understand?

          GAYS ARE NOT BORN THAT WAY!

        • John

          You gonna cry? So what was it like when you chose to be heterosexual? Did you have many gay partners before you made your decision? Is that why you have so many homoerotic pictures saved on your computer that you post on this site?

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality is Not Genetic

          Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.

          At the tone, leave a message:

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          "You gonna cry? So what was it like when you chose to be homosexual, aka pervert?"

          Please share with us your perverted mentality.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          "The 14th was written for a sexual behavior"

          You're as dumb as a box of rocks!!

        • ezekiel22

          John the opposite would be for you. Did you choose to be gay? If the answer is no then what made you gay? If the answer is no then why the issue over genetics? If genes were the major player in ones determining sexual preference then one would have no control. If genes do not have a major role in deciding ones sexual preferences then why did they choose a lifestyle away from the accepted norm?

        • John

          I'm no more gay than you are ezekiel. whitepowerNASA himself linked a scientists who said that we aren't born with any predetermined sexuality. We don't know what makes us gay, straight, bi, trans, etc.

          You have yet to link to the studies you claim proved genetics aren't a factor. That was weeks ago. Why haven't you linked anything yet? I'm starting to believe you are a liar.

        • ezekiel22

          John linking with you has proven fruitless so why bother when you do not take them seriously. I don't depend on NASA for links either, But if you have studied as much as you seem to indicate then you would know the studies we have talked about even to the minutest detail. You see the studies I have checked also went into the biographies of the participants and found unintended consequences of looking into their histories.
          You see the reason that the gay community has to believe that their lifestyle is genetic is then they have a reason for their behavior and do not need to take responsibility for such. If being gay is a choice it means that there is an ability to take responsibility and change. No that does not mean you just wake up and say I am gay. There are other reasons that some people do adopt that lifestyle most are not pretty either. I won't tell you how I know as it wouldn't do any good. Politically the entire LGBT movement has everything tied into the genetics argument no matter the truth.
          You can think I am a liar but you know I speak the truth if you have studied both sides of the argument so I won't waste time or call you names. If i have offended you I apologize.

        • John

          Ezekiel. Who are you trying to fool here? Really. Do you think I can't see right through you? You ask me to link studies to back up my points, and I do so gladly. Why are you immune to this? Why do you constantly make up excuses? What is hard about linking the name of a study, the name of a doctor, or giving ANY piece of information. Instead, all you have is your prejudiced opinions and you trying to rationalize them. Why do you even bother responding to me with them? Do you think that with no evidence at all, I'm just going to believe you? I have posted evidence that has directly contradicted the things you have posted here today. And you even responded to those posts. So I don't get you, why do you try so hard to shut your eyes in disbelief and keep repeating your falsities to yourself over and over?

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          "You are shaped by your culture in environment in ways that you have no control over when you are young."

        • John

          No control is the opposite of choice.

          "In that sense one is not born gay or straight or transgender."

          - Dr. Whitehead

          http://www.mygenes.co.nz/Phoenix.html

          So at what age did you choose to be a heterosexual, whitepowerNASA?

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality is Not Genetic

          Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: GAYS WERE NOT BORN THAT WAY.

        • fliteking

          Just a reminder of the caliber of guy Johnnie is.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Tried to post a picture....we'll see....nope. No picture.

          John gets the Darwin award.

        • fliteking

          I think he is 1/2
          Trilobite

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Exactly.

        • fliteking

          ok

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          John the Trolls hood.

          No picture....again. Go figure.

        • fliteking

          test test one two . . . no pic. Oh well, perhaps we wore out our welcome.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          No. If anyone has worn out a welcome it's the four perverts....Ragefaggot; John, aka Patrick Star, RonMoron and /.murphy.

        • Guest

          Ragefaggot; John, aka Patrick Star and RonMoron..nope. No picture.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          ZERO caliber.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          "John has not really studied the homosexuality issue from a scientific point of view. The studies trying to link being gay to genetic development or to brain dysfunction have all showed the nurture is more
          of an influence than they want to admit.

          The way a child is raised influences their decisions later in life. When a child is beaten down to the point that they feel they have no other choice than to accept
          those that will accept them is quite logical even though it is wrong. This explains a lot in that the adoption of the misnomer "gay" to describe themselves in spite of them being very miserable and lonely people. It
          also explains the open hostility towards straights especially fundamental Christians.

          John can't and won't offer any real solutions to any issues on these boards as if he would he might be
          challenged and proven wrong. He is deathly afraid of that. Instead he has a pretend world built up that he revels in as if he were god."

        • John

          Real solutions? How about giving homosexuals the same constitutional rights that you enjoy? That is a real solution. Or do you not believe in the constitution and the 14th amendment?

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          "How about giving homosexuals the same constitutional rights that you enjoy?"

          Which constitutional rights as a perverted person are you denied?

        • Guest

          Which constitutional rights as a perverted person are you denied?

        • John

          I'm not denied anything, other than living in a society where people are not unconstitutionally discriminated against.

          Homosexuals, however, are denied the right to marry, protected by the fourteenth amendment. You know, the one you can't seem to understand.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          "I'm not denied anything."

          Marriage is NOT a constitutional right...it is a privilege.

          You're not discriminated against anything.

        • John

          You don't know anything. Why do you bother posting?

          Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

          M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996) “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          You don't know anything. Why do you bother posting?

        • John

          And to think you're a grown man. Pretty sad.

        • RageFury

          NASA thinks you can deny Citizens their Liberty based on their Sexual behavior. He does not understand that to disallow even one Liberty, using his argument (the 14th was not written for a sexual behavior), sets a precedent. That precedent would allow denial of Liberties under every other Amendment and set another precedent, to deny Liberties based on a behavior.
          Thus NASA does not understand that his argument would set the Stage to deny Heterosexuals their right to bear arms.
          After all, no part of the Constitution was written for a Sexual Behavior...

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          "The 14th was written for a sexual behavior"

          You're as dumb as a box of rocks!!

        • RageFury

          My bad, I misquoted you. I fixed the error.
          The argument based therein however, is flawless. Care to disprove it?

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          "The 14th was written for a sexual behavior"

          You're as dumb as a box of rocks!!

        • RageFury

          Go back and re-read it bub, I corrected the error I made quoting YOUR argument. Then tell me I was wrong in the rest of my post, with some proof...

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          "The 14th was written for a sexual behavior"

          You're as dumb as a box of rocks!!

        • RageFury

          Still wrong.

        • RageFury

          Why are you misquoting me now?, I wil make it easy for you:

          "NASA thinks you can deny Citizens their Liberty based on their Sexual behavior. He does not understand that to disallow even one Liberty, using his argument (the 14th was no written for a sexual behavior),
          sets a precedent. That precedent would allow denial of Liberties under every other Amendment and set another precedent, to deny Liberties based on a behavior.
          Thus NASA does not understand that his argument would set the Stage to deny Heterosexuals their right to bear arms. After all, no part of the Constitution was written for a Sexual Behavior..."
          I even bolded the key word to make it easy.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          GAYS ARE NOT BORN THAT WAY!

        • RageFury

          I wouldn't know, nor do I care.

        • John

          He would need the ability to understand in order to not understand. I don't think we've established he has that ability.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          READ MY LIPS: Minor: Lesser in importance, seriousness, or significance; lesser or smaller in amount, extent, or size.

          Just think about your penis and the definition of MINOR and SIZE should become clear.

          hahahahahahahaha

          GAYS ARE NOT BORN THAT WAY!

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          "Prenatal hormones play only a minor role in making anyone gay, straight or transgender."

          Please explain why you would post a topic discussing prenatal hormones.

          You are one stupid person!!!

          GAYS ARE NOT BORN THAT WAY!

        • John

          Because it reinforces the idea that no one is born with any sexuality, it's a combination of genes and environment.

          Don't be mad you're wrong, it's okay.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          ".....no one is born with any sexuality..."

          You're right. We evolve into whatever sexuality we want.

          Dumb really is forever.

        • John

          “At best genetics is a minor factor,” says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD.

          Remember when you said that? Hahahahahahahaha

          hahahahahahahaha

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          "....minor factor."

          READ MY LIPS: Minor: Lesser in importance, seriousness, or significance; lesser or smaller in amount, extent, or size.

          Just think about your penis and the definition of MINOR and SIZE should become clear.

          hahahahahahahaha

          GAYS ARE NOT BORN THAT WAY!

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          GAYS ARE NOT BORN THAT WAY!

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          GAYS ARE NOT BORN THAT WAY!

        • John

          Then why does Dr. Whitehead say genetics play a factor? You said it yourself.

        • John

          HETEROS ARE NOT BORN THAT WAY! Guess we can start discriminating against heterosexuals.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Around and around we go, and where it stops, no body knows.

          It's OK. You made a choice to be perverted and that's fine; however your stupidity is genetically linked and that can't be fixed.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Dr. Whitehead's study:

          Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.

      • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

        "Pervert" John cannot provide links to any studies that support his position...which is usually "doggy style."

        The genetic connection has long been disproved, yet the perverts still cling the notion they were born this way....WRONG! They are delusional.

        If they can prove a genetic link, they believe people will be more tolerant of their perversion and accepted as a genetic aberration/defect; much like mental illness is the result of a genetic aberration.

        See, John is one big jerk-off trying to argue more nonsense.

        Choice can be influenced by any number of factors; family, environment and friends. If a child is brought up in a perverted home, there is a greater chance he will grow up with a perverted way of thinking; versus those that are not brought up in this environment; however, he can choose. Children raised in a alcoholic home have a greater propensity toward drinking....simple.

        Now, perverted John will attempt to bring up the genetic link again and ask to prove environmental influences. This is his attempt to misdirect the subject and ignore the facts....John hates facts that disagree with his reality.

        John the pervert states, "You are shaped by your culture in environment in ways that you have no control over when you are young." This is absolutely true. Environment and culture is responsible for a persons character, belief system, morals, values and lifestyle.....it is not about genetics. John just shot himself in the A## by making this statement.

        You're a pervert by CHOICE!

        • John

          You proved a genetic link yourself with Dr. Whitehead's study. Then after I called attention to that, you edited your post.

          How does it feel disproving your own arguments? I bet you feel pretty damn stupid, huh? Too funny.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality is Not Genetic

          Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way. Leave a message at the tone:

        • ezekiel22

          John has not really studied the homosexuality issue from a scientific point of view. The studies trying to link being gay to genetic development or to brain disfunction have all showed the nurture is more of an influence than they want to admit.
          The way a child is raised influences their decisions later in life. When a child is beaten down to the point that they feel they have no other choice than to accept those that will accept them is quite logical even though it is wrong.
          This explains a lot in that the adoption of the misnomer "gay" to describe themselves in spite of them being very miserable and lonely people. It also explains the open hostility towards straights especially fundamental christians.
          John can't and won't offer any real solutions to any issues on these boards as if he would he might be challenged and proven wrong. He is deathly afraid of that. Instead he has a pretend world built up that he revels in as if he were god.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          His entire life is pretend. A fantasy in his own mind.

          He is a living recessive gene that never left his mothers lap or breast.

          He replaces "our" reality with his own....he is just another angry and frustrated pervert.

        • Guest

          Just a reminder.

        • John

          Hahahahahahah. That was a good one.

        • fliteking

          Johnnie! Look what your BFF's are up to!

          Ahhhh . . . . but you did not see it on MSPMS so it can't be true!

          http://clashdaily.com/2013/07/muslim-thugs-throw-acid-on-mom-with-twins-news-doesnt-mention-theyre-muslim/

        • John

          Do they announce the religion of every other criminal on TV?

          No. Otherwise you'd hear Christian, Christian, Christian.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Most of them are wasted effort. They don't, won't and maybe can't listen they are so lost, corrupted and perverted, in the grip of Satan. So
          after awhile with one, another, another, I shake the dust off my feet and move on, always hoping some will hear and receive they Good News
          Gospel message of Jesus crucified, resurrected thus defeating death and risen into Heaven to prepare a place for those who believe on Him.
          They do not understand Christianity or Christians. Among other things they do not realize many of us are not martyrs, many of us are soldiers in the Army of God resisting them by any and all legal means available to
          us.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          SAME SEX MARRIAGE IS ONLY LEGAL IN 9 STATES IN THE USA.....

          But sex with a horse is legal in 23 states in the USA.

          GOOD GOING AMERICA

    • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

      DUMBASS.......

      Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality is Not Genetic

      Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.

    • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

      Now the pervert is going to change the subject to religion.

      It's NEVER been shown one is born a pervert...it's a choice that is influenced by environment and not genetics.

      • John

        Well, it is your religion that informs your opinion on homosexuality, so it wouldn't be changing the subject.

        Influenced by environment does not equal choice. You were born an American, right? That is your environment. Did you have any choice in that? According to you, yes, it was absolutely your choice.

        You fail as you always do. Keep spamming the same thing though, it's very effective in getting your message across. You totally don't look like an imbecile, I promise.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          DUMBASS.......

          Dr. Whitehead's study:

          Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality is Not Genetic

          Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.

          Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. No-one is born gay. The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.

          A significant twin study among adolescents shows an even weaker genetic correlation. In 2002 Bearman and Brueckner studied tens of thousands of adolescent students in the U.S. The same-sex attraction concordance between identical twins was only 7.7% for males and 5.3% for females—lower than the 11% and 14% in the Australian study by Bailey et al conducted in 2000.

          Numbers of people who have changed towards exclusive heterosexuality are greater than current numbers of bisexuals and homosexuals combined. In other words, ex-gays outnumber actual gays.

          The fluidity is even more pronounced among adolescents, as Bearman and Brueckner’s study demonstrated. “They found that from 16 to 17-years-old, if a person had a romantic attraction to the same sex, almost all had switched one year later.”

          “The authors were pro-gay and they commented that the only stability was among the heterosexuals, who stayed the same year after year. Adolescents are a special case—generally changing their attractions from year to year.”

          Good old John the simpleton: Bottom Dweller.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          Studies Prove Homosexuality is Not Genetic

          Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.

          WATCH MY LIPS: Gays were NOT born that way.

          There is your answer, so you can stop with all the other links, quotes and nonsense.

        • ezekiel22

          John you do realize that there is more than one environment in the U.S. right? Within those environments there are many additional environments. It is how the individual reacts to those environments that is the major determining factor as to how they turn out. That is why people can grow up and be successful whether or not they were raised in slums. Check out Walter Williams for one example. Yes, homosexuality is a choice of the individual. Just like being a prostitute is a choice.

        • John

          hahahahahahahahahahahaaha. what are you rambling about?

          Still waiting for you to show any evidence whatsoever for this statement: "Genetics have been dismissed as a cause."

          Any day now.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          "Genetics have been dismissed as a cause."

          It has been proven....over and over again. It's also been proven that your sickness can be cured, so you have no excuse to continue with your perverted behavior.

          You choose to live by YOUR reality...it's a mental illness.

        • Breezeyguy

          Genetics doesn't matter. Sociopathy is genetic. Rape is genetic. Kleptomania is genetic.

          Change your behavior to what is good and natural and just, and stop using your genetics as an excuse.

        • John

          Rape is genetic? Interesting. How can a sexual act be genetic? That makes no sense. Kleptomania is genetic?

          Where do you get yours facts?

          There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Just because you don't like it or you think your religion think it's a sin, doesn't mean the rest of the world thinks like that. Your religion also says that if a man rapes a virgin, he must pay her father 50 sekels of silver and marry her, never to divorce. So please, maybe you shouldn't take the word of God so literally all the time?

          “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days."

          Deuteronomy 22:28-29

          One thing that does come from your parents is stupidity. That is genetic. And you're right, you have no excuse.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          You're wasting your time, and that's fine. If you expect this loser to ever acknowledge the fact you might be right, you're just kidding yourself.

          Remember you're discussing science. Something John can barely spell much less defend. Although the experts all agree that genetics plays a "minor" role, which is like saying it plays NO role, John will cling to that one in a trillion (mathematical impossibility) chance that a recessive gene is responsible for his perversion.

          Remember, this is the same loser that believes the universe was formed from nothing, and evolution by chance; no matter how much evidence is presented, he chooses to ignore the facts...especially the math. He failed math.

          John believes that there is no such thing as a mathematical impossibility. He is delusional and lives in his own reality.

          He could no more understand the following discussion then he can explain the Theory of Relativity.

          Try to imagine phase space… of the entire
          universe. Each point in this phase space represents a different possible way that the universe might have started off. We are to picture the Creator, armed with a ‘pin’ — which is to be placed at some point in phase space. Each different positioning of the pin provides a
          different universe. Now the accuracy that is needed for the Creator’s aim depends on the entropy of the universe that is thereby created. It would be relatively ‘easy’ to produce a high entropy universe, since
          then there would be a large volume of the phase space available for the pin to hit. But in order to start off the universe in a state of low entropy — so that there will indeed be a second law of thermodynamics —
          the Creator must aim for a much tinier volume of the phase space. How tiny would this region be, in order that a universe closely resembling the one in which we actually live would be the result?

          The conclusion is that the ‘Creator’s aim’ must have been accurate to 1 part in10 to the power of 10 to the power or 123, that is 1 followed by 10 to the 123rd power zeros.”

          Even though the mathematical number of the universe (or evolution) originating by chance is a number, which would be impossible to write out in the usual decimal way, because even if you were able to put a zero on every particle in the universe, there would not even be enough particles to do the job.

          We can expect John to come back with more ramblings, nonsense logic and questions. He'll now try to discount the facts and replace it with his reality and junk science.

        • ezekiel22

          Sorry it took so long to get back. When it comes to being gay John will never admit anything but genetics. He has too. But I figure that there are "gays" out there that do surf and do want out of that lifestyle. I want them to know that they do have a choice to get out. John will just hand them a rock. He has proven time and again the hollowness of his claims.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          For sure. The rocks are in his head.

          Homosexuality can be cured...that's been proven; just as it's not a genetic link.

          This goof-ball is looking for an excuse for his perversion...sorry. God would NEVER give a person a gene that would dam their soul to hell.

          He even dresses funny...they must have pulled my picture.

        • Breezeyguy

          It doesn't matter whether it's genetic or environment or how much of which. Sociopathy is genetic too. So what? To be good and just, human beings need to steer themselves towards goodness and justice independently of their genetic dispositions and natural temptations.

          Your arguments are all failures.

          You believe in free choice? So if I crap on the table and call it ice cream, is it ice cream? Two men does not a marriage make.

        • John

          And what is wrong with homosexuality?

          Who says two men can't get married?

    • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

      Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality is Not Genetic

      Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.

      Because identical twins are always genetically identical,
      homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. No-one is born gay. The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and
      not in the other have to be post-birth factors.

      • Breezeyguy

        There's no point arguing about it, Nasa. It doesn't matter. Psychopaths are born that way, but we don't legalize psychopathic behavior, and we certainly don't call it marriage.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          I understand.

          I enjoy playing "John the Video Game," although I can't win.

    • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

      Thank God you can't reproduce!!

    • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

      Keep spamming the same thing though, it's very effective in getting your message across. You totally don't look like an imbecile, I promise.

      • Breezeyguy

        I see what you mean Nasa. This John nutjob just can't quit.

    • Breezeyguy

      All human reproduction is heterosexual. The real losers, as marriage is destroyed more and more thoroughly by thick quizzlings, are the children. Every child has a mom and a dad, and has a right to that mom and that dad. That was what marriage was about, in every culture and nation and history, before evil people took to destroying it.

      • John

        So you think having children is a requirement for marriage?

        Does that mean you think we should forbid people from getting married who:

        1. Don't want children
        2. Can't have children

        Because that would cover a lot of people.

        • Breezeyguy

          No. But performing the act that creates children is required for marriage. It's called consummation, or "the marriage act". That requires a man and a woman. Two men cannot perform the marriage act.

          Please try to think.

        • John

          Wait, a second ago you were talking about children. What happened to that line of thought? I guess you just jump around each time I prove one of your arguments false?

          1. There are more definitions of marriage than the Christian one. So your consummation argument is bogus.

          2. Gays couples can have sex too. They can also consume the marriage.

          3. The concept is a religious rite. No one can check if you have or have or have not consumed the marriage.

          Why do you want to discriminate against these people? What have they done to you?

        • Breezeyguy

          Yes, I was still talking about children. Notice the word "children" in my first sentence.

          1. It's not about the Christian definition. It's about the Man+Woman definition that causes children. Homosexual acts don't cause anything but disease of the colon.

          2. Strictly speaking, no they can't. Human beings reproduce sexually, not asexually or homosexually. Without a male and a female, there is no actual sexual engaging. There is just mutual masturbation.

          3. Why do you keep bringing up religion? Many cultures still check for virginity before marriage. Actually, Kate and Diana both had to be checked. Pretty sure the husband is going to check on the consummation. Refusal to consummate is grounds for nullity. Not in Christianity, but everywhere. Every dad everywhere has always known these things. How has the modern era become so ignorant? Answer: slowly but surely.

          What have the liberal politicians done? They have become the enemies of marriage and family life. They have become enemies of humanity. They have striven against the Natural Law, and they strive to force me to agree. You and they are wrong and will always be wrong until you change your mind.

          PLEASE TRY TO THINK.

        • John

          No, you weren't. You were talking about the act of sex, nothing with children. But now you're bringing it up again, I see. Did you not learn the first time around?

          1. Having children is absolutely no way a requirement of ANY KIND to get married. At all. None. Zero. Like I said, infertile people get married, people who don't want to have kids get married, etc. Your argument is stupid and I've already gone over this.

          2. What are you talking about? Again with reproduction. If the man doesn't ejaculate into the women, the whole idea of reproduction is out. It's just the man using a vagina to get off, and the woman using a penis to get off. Mutual masturbation, as you put it.

          3. I keep bringing up religion because that is what you are basing your prejudice on.

          Many cultures still check for virginity before marriage.

          Really? Like which ones?

          And no, Kate wasn't checked, and it's out that she isn't a virgin. See? Times are changing, old man. Your pathetic degrading ideas are slowly dying off.

          "Refusal to consummate is grounds for nullity."

          Only if the couple wants to do that. And no, that's not true for everywhere.

          You want to know who has become the enemies of marriage and family life? The heterosexuals who are divorcing at a 50% rate. Shouldn't you be more worried about that? Why are heterosexuals destroying the sanctify of marriage and ruining family lives? You worry about gays but look what happens in your own back yard! Pathetic!

          How is anyone forcing you to agree? Please explain that.

        • Breezeyguy

          You are dense. Sex causes children. That is the nature of human sexuality. That is the nature of mankind. Wake up. I am not even going to read your ridiculous questions anymore. You are so far down the path of denial that you can't even see anymore.

        • John

          Reproduction is in no way a requirement for marriage. That is the way it is, so stop trying to make up these bogus arguments to disguise your plain and simple bigotry against homosexuals.

        • Breezeyguy

          Marriage is and always was a license to have sex, which causes children. Whether or not children arise from a particular couple is irrelevant. What has NEVER caused children and CANNOT cause children is homosexual acts.

          Relations between male and female are normal healthy natural. It is what their bodies are made for: they are made for eachother and they produce offspring.

          That has always and everywhere been obvious to EVERYBODY. It was even obvious to Elton John in 2008. Elton John has since changed his mind, but the truth is still the same, and Elton John is now wrong.

          I don't hate homosexual. I used to visit AIDS patients. The one I visited the most hated what he had done, and the memory was repulsive to him. I don't hate homosexuals. I DO hate stupid arguments and evil errors and the stupid evil liberals who can't think straight and love to twist words. What you are thinking and saying is stupid and un-natural. It is positively EVIL of you to want to tear kids away from one of their parents. It is SICK. Downright SICK. Why do you HATE children so much???

          Please try to think. Argue with yourself before you waste my time with such stupid arguments.

        • John

          Many people have sex without having children. No one needs to get married to have a license to have sex, those ideas have died a long time ago. If you want to live by 2000 year old rules, you're allowed to, just don't try and force others.

          Today, two people get married. What they do with their life is their business. If they don't want to have kids, that's fine! They can still get married. If they can't have kids because of infertility issues, that's fine! Still can get married.

          Don't you understand that your marriage requiring reproduction makes no sense? Since many many many people marry without being able to or wanting to produce. Yet their right to marriage hasn't been restricted.

        • Breezeyguy

          Many people steal. Therefore by your logic it should be legal. Actually, by your logic stealing could be called marriage!

          So you admit the "rules" are thousands of years old. Yes, and America started heavily abandoning them only a few decades ago. So much so that it has come to the point that people are so ignorant that they don't even know what marriage is anymore. Well I know what it is and what a man is and what a woman is, and how kids are made and how marriage is for kids. You hate kids. You want to see kids torn from their mothers and handed over to two men.

          "What they do with their life" is NOT entirely their business. Every couple is potentially and actually the source of the next generation of humanity. You hate humanity.

          Any particular marriage doesn't "require" children, because that is something that nobody can guarantee. Marriage is a promise to take care of the kids that result from the sex of that marriage. It is no guarantee that the particular marriage will result in kids.

          The U.S. and much of the liberal west has been destroying marriage and family law for decades. Porn, contraception, divorce, abortion, surrogacy, in vitro fertilization..., common law, and now the wholesale denial that is "same sex marriage".

        • John

          You know you have lost the thread of the conversation when you start comparing marriage and theft.

          I hate kids? Where do you get this? I said that you can get married but not have kids if you want - IT'S YOUR CHOICE.

          Like I said earlier, you should be concentrating your efforts on the heterosexual couples who are getting divorced in one out of two marriages.

          My god, you are such a drama queen. Please, get a grip.

          "Marriage is a promise to take care of the kids that result from the sex of that marriage"

          No it is not. At all. Have you been to a wedding before? Do you listen to what they say? It is about being there for your partner, to love, to live, until death. That is it. No mention of children. Again, you're wrong.

          Again, you are a drama queen. Yea, blame everyone but yourself. People you know, in your city, your friends, have committed divorce, adultery, and worse. So stop mixing in other people's business and fix your own mess.

        • Breezeyguy

          I say you hate kids because you don't care that they will be taken from their true parents.

          Why can't I compare marriage with theft? You compare it with sodomy which is worse than theft.

          So you admit marriage is until death, hey? No fault divorce was legalized in the 70's. Nope, not "until death" anymore is it? One more foundation of marriage destroyed.

          According to your logic, adultery is fine, cuz hey everybody does it and what business is it of anyone else anyway and who cares if a baby come along. Just legalize polygamy right? That's exactly what this article is about. There is nothing left to marriage. Polygamy fine, why not? Incest fine, why not? Bestiality fine, why not? Necrophilia fine, why not? Marry a cocker spaniel, why not? Marry myself fine, why not?

          Yes, I agree "heterosexual couples" should net get divorced. It should NEVER have been legalized, and it never was by the people but rather by the rogue SCOTUS.

          Please try to think.

        • John

          Why are you again talking about children? Haven't you learned anything? You are USING children to fight against gay marriage. Aren't you ashamed of that?

          If you don't understand why comparing marriage to theft is stupid, you are lost. Marriage is a life long commitment of love and support. Why are you so hung up on the sexual aspects of it? Are you a kid or something?

          You know what's funny though? Your argument that you can't legalize gay marriage without considering polygamy, incenst, bestiality, etc.

          Do you know who used that argument? The racists in 1967 who didn't want interracial marriage to be legalized. Are you also against that kind of marriage? Here is their argument that was given against legalizing interracial marriage in the Loving vs Virginia case, tell me if you recognize anything in it.

          "It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent."

          1. Nothing like that has happened, which they said it would. How come?
          2. The exact same arguments against legalizing interracial marriage are being used today to fight against legalizing gay marriage. Pretty interesting isn't it?

          Feel shame, bigot!

        • Breezeyguy

          Ha!!!! Dude, you're funny. Several threads ago you accused me of NOT talking about children. Now you attack me for talking about children. Are you one person, or legion?

          I'm not "using" children. I'm showing you how marriage was made for the protection of children especially, and how an assualt on marriage is an assault on the rights of children.

          I'm not comparing marriage to theft. I'm comparing sodomy to theft. You're the one who thinks sodomy constitutes consummation. Please try to think.

          It doesn't matter if someone else used an argument badly. Man, please try to think.

          You feel shame, idiot. You're the drama queen, attacking everybody for simply being rational and understanding the age-old and unchangeable truth that marriage is between a man and a woman. Particular laws governing marriage vary place to place, and some may be just or unjust. That doesn't change the NATURE of marriage.

          You need to study human anatomy and biology, and LOGIC.

          I bet you're pro Planned Parenthood aren't you? Even though Margaret Sanger was a rabid racist and eugenicist.

        • John

          No, I accused you of changing the subject once I proved your reproduction/children argument bogus. Did you not understand what I've been saying to you the entire time? Here, for the 4th or 5th time:

          There is absolutely NO requirement to have children if you want to get married.

          Can infertile people get married? Yes, they can. And with that goes your entire argument about children. Infertile people also adopt, are you attacking them? Do you think they should not get married? Do you know that about 10 percent of the US population is infertile? What about those who CHOOSE not to have children? Should they not be allowed to get married?

          So how does it feel using the same arguments that racists used back then? Don't you see? It's not about the issue at hand, it's about trying to restrict the right of marriage, plain and simple.

          There is no "nature" of marriage. It is whatever those in power say it is. It used to be that dowries were the way marriages were done. It used to be that when women married, they lost control of all of their property as it shifted under the husband's control. That was the nature of marriage. A contract. No love, no nothing. How come we don't have that definition of marriage anymore? BECAUSE WE MOVED ON. WE PROGRESSED AS A SOCIETY. Women get more rights, they got the right to vote, they become full citizens and not just baby and home makers. Heck, not even 50 years ago blacks couldn't marry whites. But we progressed beyond that. Just like we are today, with gay marriage. And neither anatomy or biology play any factor, so please, you're embarrassing yourself here.

          If you want to live in the past, be my guest, don't try and force anyone else to do the same. They have rights protected by the constitution. Check the 14th amendment.

        • Breezeyguy

          Your argument is just as bogus as ever. And I already dealt with your straw "requirement" man.

          First comes love.
          Then comes marriage.
          Then comes baby in a baby carriage.

          The requirement is that if you want children or want to do something that causes children, then you should get married.

          Stop bothering me. You aren't capable of simple logic, and are way too emotional.

        • John

          "The requirement is that if you want children or want to do something that causes children, then you should get married."

          If it were a requirement, you would have to. Yet you say should. Meaning you THINK they should have to. Meaning it is your opinion, not a requirement.

          For the 6th time, there is no requirement to have children to get married.

          You know this. I know this. So what are you constantly blabbing about? Why do you enjoy showing everyone how stupid you are? I really don't understand. You think childhood rhymes is going to help you? Hahaha, are you serious?

          I know you think it's no big deal to you that Americans are being denied their constitutional rights. Not only do you have yours, but you actively seek to keep certain people from getting theirs. Then when people complain about this behavior, you call them emotional. Haha, you're disgusting. Do you not believe in the constitution? Why are you so un-American?

        • Breezeyguy

          You are tedious and obtuse. The requirement is conceptual relating to marriage generally. The CAUSE of kids is required, ie, the marriage act which is sexual intercourse, in every particular marriage. That is why a marriage was never legally complete until consummation.

          You hate the natural rights of children to their parents.

          Rights did not originate in the Constitution. They originate in the creator, whom you hate. That is why you also hate marriage and children.

          I already told you to stop bothering me.

        • John

          Yes, it is tedious proving all your stupid arguments wrong over and over again. I notice you're trying to string fancy sounding words together. It doesn't seem to be working out for you. The requirement is conceptual relating to marriage generally? That sentence doesn't mean anything.

          Again, you are wrong about consumation. If you use a condom, there is no "cause of kids" argument. Are you saying consummation requires unprotected sex? Because it does not and so with that, you are wrong.

          What natural rights of children to their parents? Shouldn't you be geting mad at the people who give their children up for adoption? You know, the heterosexuals who give up their kids? Instead, you are mad at those who choose to adopt these children who have been given away. Why? Why don't you think? Should these children live in foster care their whole life? Would you prefer that?

          Rights do originate in the constitution. Try going to another country and telling them you have the same rights, let me know how it goes.

          No one is forcing you to respond, so don't act like a drama queen.

        • fliteking

          "I hate kids? Where do you get this? "

          Dam chief, you don't have the capacity to think of children rationally . . . a famous "John" quote . . .

          http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/05/lgbtbigotry-when-not-saying-anything-is-saying-something/comments/#comment-909464317

          John Said
          Two consenting children should be able to do whatever they want. Do you stand around and regulate your childrens sex lives? How does that work for you?

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          HA. John is a psycho and pedophile. We all know this. Too bad we can't inform the authorities and have him locked up.

          By the way, went fishing yesterday (8/10/2013). Too warm so we only caught ONE trout and a bunch of small perch and bass; actually my little girl caught her first trout. Only 14 inches, but I cooked it up anyway for her....love good trout. Off to fish for Stealhead and pinks later this month...they are starting to run.

        • fliteking

          Still sounds like a great day out, I still have memories of Dad cooking up my first trout along Singing Creek in 1967 . . . had both grandsons to the weekend, we did a little fishing and swimming and then wore the battery out on the "Godzilla Jeep" in the back yard.

          Both being 3 yo, two giant toads were the hit of the weekend.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          It's the little things.

        • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

          You're wasting your time with John, aka Patrick Star.

          He gives new meaning to the word, "simpleton."

          He argues only to read himself in publication. He is an idiot.

          I use the example of, you could be standing in a thunderstorm with this loser and he'd argue that it's all in your imagination; it's really sunny and warm.

          If you enjoy a really good "cluster" then circle jerk with this pervert....he is a self proclaimed pervert by the way.

  • Annette Rose Giesbrecht

    Ironically polygamy and incest happened in ancient times and same-sex marriage is a modern idea. Just shows one how things have turned around when something that the ancients did not think of or practice is considered a 'right' by certain people who debase the word, 'love'..

  • BobTrent

    Why is polygamy associated with incest? Many of the great men of the Bible were polygamists, some reluctantly. Never in the entire Bible is polygamy condemned. Warnings are given by word and example, but so they are for monogamous marriage.

    The prohibition of polygamy is a cultural matter, not moral. Polygamy appears when there is such a disparity between marriageable men and women that in a monogamous society many women cannot get husbands. The Romans forbade it due to inheritance considerations. A man was permitted to have but one legal wife but any number of concubines that he could manage. The concubines' children had no right to inherit.

    Today we are experiencing the result of large numbers of marriage-age women who either cannot get, cannot keep, or do not want, a husband. They produce children anyway, a large portion of whom fill our courts and prisons.

    This is not caused by the prohibition of polygamy; polygamy was the method by which the problem of unmarried women was reduced in former times.

    Polygamy has nothing to do with incest. Incest is sexual intercourse between male and female of a prohibited degree of natural relationship, usually ancestor-descendant, sibling, uncle-niece and aunt-nephew. Polygamy is marriage of one spouse with two or more of the opposite sex, usually one man with multiple wives (polygyny). Polyandry is quite rare, usually two brothers sharing one wife.

  • Bristler

    There is an annoying commentator here who insists that our rights come from the Constitution. But if that were the case, then how could the Declaration have stated 11 years earlier that The King was making "invasions on the rights of the people" or that men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"?

    Some of our rights are ACKNOWLEDGED in the Constitution and the Amendments, but that is not where they come from. Otherwise, what would the 9th Amendment mean "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."? What "others"?