Christian activist judge orders Alabama officials to disobey the law

#551
#551
govols/cc said:
I get that. Them getting hitched doesn't bother me as much as government being involved to begin with and if they're gonna change that to give them those special privileges that come with marriage then everybody should get those privileges.
Click to expand...

The government got involved because we couldn't settle it amongst ourselves
 
#554
#554
Vol8188 said:
Seriously? The panthers would have been a good comparision. What crimes has the NAACP committed?
Click to expand...

My comparison was fine. But we can use yours. The Black Panthers openly put a bounty on George Zimmerman's head. Nothing happened to them or the idiot who said it. Let the kkk put a bounty on Rev Al and see what happens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#557
#557
SpaceCoastVol said:
I can agree to that. It's none of your business unless it causes you harm. But... that is MY problem with abortion. I couldn't care less if you want to go kill unborn babies. I DO care if you use my tax monies to do it. A woman who has one has to live with it and it is between her and God... Forcing me to be a part and party to that is what's wrong. But overall, you're right.
Click to expand...


I imagine you also object to them using tax dollars to teach kids that the Earth is round and is more than 10,000 years old.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#560
#560
And for those that don't care to look up John 13:34

"I give you a new commandment. Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another"

There is no asterisk beside it
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#561
#561
govols/cc said:
Sounds like you resolved your own issue already but don't want to accept it.
Click to expand...

It isn't my issue. How can a woman be married to the Church? How can a man also be married to the Church? With my definition, it makes perfect sense. If your definition is "one man and one woman," then you are claiming several of the patriarchs in the Bible with more than one wife weren't really ever married.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#562
#562
Mtntrout said:
It isn't my issue. How can a woman be married to the Church? How can a man also be married to the Church? With my definition, it makes perfect sense. If your definition is "one man and one woman," then you are claiming several of the patriarchs in the Bible with more than one wife weren't really ever married.
Click to expand...

Better question is how can a man marry a man or a woman marry a woman.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#564
#564
"No one should be forced to compromise their morals to accommodate someone else's."

Depends on the morals. In a similar vein as this discussion, below are quotes from highly-moral people against inter-racial marriage. I'm glad the government decided to "overreach" and not let these highly-moral people decide the laws of this land.

----------

State v. Jackson. Missouri (1883): "They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid the intermarriage of blacks and whites."

Scott v. Georgia (1869): "The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results. Our daily observation shows us, that the offspring of these unnatural connections are generally sickly and effeminate [...]They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good."

Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924: The law's stated purpose was to prevent "abominable mixture and spurious issue." It "forbade miscegenation on the grounds that racial mixing was scientifically unsound and would 'pollute' America with mixed-blood offspring."

Senator James R. Doolittle (D-WI), 1863: "By the laws of Massachusetts intermarriages between these races are forbidden as criminal. Why forbidden? Simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."

Scott v. Sandford (1857), Chief Justice Taney: "Intermarriages between white persons and negroes or mulattoes were regarded as unnatural and immoral."

Lonas v. State (1871): Attorneys argued that intermarriage was "distasteful to our people, and unfit to produce the human race in any of the types in which it was created." Tennessee's court agreed, saying that "any effort to intermerge the individuality of the races as a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us."

Bob Jones University, (1998): "Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says that races should not intermarry, the whole plan of God as He has dealt with the races down through the ages indicates that interracial marriage is not best for man."

From a submitted briefing to the Court on Loving v. Virginia: "I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose [this type of relationship] as 'prejudiced' is in itself a prejudice," a psychologist said. "Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#570
#570
DinkinFlicka said:
He's been suspended like 4 times already, mostly stemming from exchanges with me. Now, he has me on ignore, but regularly addresses my posts.

I'm just saying, I dunno how Mav got permabanned but this fool sticks around. At least Mav was entertaining.
Click to expand...

Volprof can get pretty nasty when he's drinking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#571
#571
SpaceCoastVol said:
I can agree to that. It's none of your business unless it causes you harm. But... that is MY problem with abortion. I couldn't care less if you want to go kill unborn babies. I DO care if you use my tax monies to do it. A woman who has one has to live with it and it is between her and God... Forcing me to be a part and party to that is what's wrong. But overall, you're right.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with this.... Totally
 
#572
#572
bamawriter said:
While I'm not completely disagreeing you with you, can you explain what difference universally legal gay marriage would make in your life, or in the life of any other straight citizen of this country?
Click to expand...

Probably not much and while it's not my belief I'm not that adamantly opposed. It's less for the religious aspect and more in opposition of the government bs. If two homosexuals can get married and receive special privileges then you may as well just offer it to everybody.
 
#573
#573
Mtntrout said:
Are you saying you don't mind if I murder someone as long as I pay for it on my own dime, or that you don't think the unborn are fully people?

Honest question, I feel like there is an inconsistency here.
Click to expand...

That's not really what I am saying, but what I am saying is that I cannot save the world. People are going to kill other people whether they be fully formed or not. I admire your desire to protect the unborn. I think that is noble. If a woman is going to have an abortion she is going to do it, and making it illegal will do what all illegal things do.. drive it underground. Different debate. Since you brought it up though, I see an inconsistency in the right's argument that abortion should be illegal... and here's what bothers me... except in the case of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother. Are those children not innocent too? Should they not be saved?

But to answer your question, my problem with the left is their desire to provide taxpayer funded abortions. That is not fair to YOU as a right to life person. Now if someone kills a baby, then they have to deal with the consequences of that action whether it be with God or their own conscience (assuming you have one)
 
#574
#574
govols/cc said:
Probably not much and while it's not my belief I'm not that adamantly opposed. It's less for the religious aspect and more in opposition of the government bs. If two homosexuals can get married and receive special privileges then you may as well just offer it to everybody.
Click to expand...

What special privileges are you referring to? And who is "everybody"?

Right now, because the majority of Americans are straight, the majority of Americans enjoy to benefits and protections of State-sanctioned marriage. Extending those benefits and protections to gays would, at least in my view, be ensuring that all citizens have equal access to them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#575
#575
lawgator1 said:
I imagine you also object to them using tax dollars to teach kids that the Earth is round and is more than 10,000 years old.
Click to expand...

And how does that relate to my position? I am not a creationist, nor a evolutionist. I honestly have no idea how we got here and really haven't given it that much thought. I do find it interesting that a benevolent God would allow for so much confusion and require a decision in the relative blink of an eye that will determine eternity...

I do object to tax dollars not teaching kids how to make change at a cash register without the calculator, or how to form a coherent sentence. .gov schools are exemplary in their incompetence.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top