Does anyone actually like Hilary?

Post Reply New Topic

All they want to do is get married. People on left don't seem to care if they do. It's people on the right who are freaking out saying we are all going to hell because the US government will let gays marry even though marriage has absolutely nothing to do with government or government entities. The two should be forever separate. Government needs to get out of the marriage business. If they weren't in it to begin with, this issue wouldn't exist. Churches would deal with the matter and we all know there are gay churches so...obviously they would marry gay people. That way no official national government would be "allowing" it, it would be something churches do.

Tell me, is there a Marriage Amendment in the constitution?

Marriage has always been traditionally, in every culture - a bond between a man and a woman. Gay marriage? That term sounds like it doesn't even go together, it's like nails on a chalkboard to hear those two things put together. Call it civil unions, or something else. And no 'legitimate' church has performed a gay marriage. As you can see politics has gotten into our churches, too.

Most Christians I know have no problem with two people who love eachother being together. It's marriage they want to protect. The left is deliberately attacking this. They could settle for civil unions -- but that's not what they want, their aim is to disrupt and break apart marriage, and thoroughly subjugate and undermine the marriage between a man and a woman -- in the west...of course.

I wonder if They allow gay marriages in Israel. I doubt it!

Gay marriage? ... That's for the goys.

^^^

Well, that explains the 'Info Wars stuff', all by ITself.

Only folks with a deficIT in what REAL human empathy IS,
AS IS, ALTRUISTICALLY evolvING, hold the freedoms
of others 'back IN BLACK' through 'conspiracy'
theories generated by culture,

and or religion

propagated by written

abstract human language.

Freedom is a 'GOD Given'

all natural 'place'
that

holds
no

prisons of
human being.

Perhaps one is willing to imprison the will of certain
aspects of the human race that is one family togeThEr
in one game of survival of life, ASoNE reAlly big
GLOBAL TRIBE NOW, per the example
of HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGES;

BUT

i FOR
one WitH ONE

do NOT PLAY

THOSE

ILLuSORY
GAMES

OF
PRACTICAL INTENTS AND
PURPOSES FOR

THE BLACK HOLE 'SON'
OF 'ANTI-CHRIST'
HATE.

Hmm, and heRe's
a theme song
for 'JUST' THAT in 'THUNDER'
'STRUCK' WAY IN 'BACK IN BLACK'!..

That's because, at one time, in most of the world, marriage was thought of as a contract between a man and a woman with the only reason it existed is birth of progeny to prolong a bloodline and to create alliances through such progeny.

Nowadays, in the Western developed world, modern marriage is about a celebration of love two people have for each other. Most people marry because they love each other and many of them aren't even planning on starting a family. They have a big celebration of their love union, invite family and friends to celebrate it with them and it can be between anyone who loves another. Some people are stuck in the Bible, cling to it to the point it becomes their personal idol. They don't have a God in physical form to worship like a statue, so they do the only thing they can, they put the Bible high upon a pedestal and treat it like it's a statue of God. No joke. It's just more Bible worship is all it is and if you know anything about Biblical God, you are not supposed to worship a book in his place. These are the ones who insist on marriage being between a man and a woman and it being a permanent state.

Seriously, if you need to have other people confirm your love that you share with another person... I personally would like marriage be made a completely non-legal issue. I like how my great aunt and uncle did it - they just went and lived together for 50 years (and counting.) Why does everything have to change with a ceremony or a stupid document? The whole idea of making a relationship "official" is insipid and stupid in my mind. I can't understand it.
And seriously, if you want to have a marriage ceremony, why not just have a ceremony? Why do you need to get permission from the government or a specific church to have the ceremony? Why does the government have the right to determine when and how and by whom a couple is married by.

Also, I agree entirely that Bible worship is a form of idolatry in the modern protestant church. And... not all Christians even share the same Bible. Protestants have 66 books while the Catholics and Orthodox denomination tend to have at least 81 books. The Ethiopian Oriental Orthodox Church has a massive bible with more books and beyond that has a broad canon that has never been printed in a single volume.
The homophobic protestant fundamentalists tend to have the most narrow, warped, xenophobic, and ignorant views of Christianity itself, not to mention the world as a whole.

The homophobe heresy tends to follow a rather simple pattern. First, they generally deny the hierarchy of sin and then they elevate homosexuality to being on the worst tier possible in a self-contradictory way. It is obvious heresy.
If homosexual acts are sin, then it is a sin of (positive) passion that is on the tier with premarital sex and a lesser sin than adultery.
Note that I say "positive passion" rather than negative passion.

Finally, I'd like to mention that the state of being homosexual is not a sin, and that it is rather hard to argue that with biblical evidence... although a case could certainly be made for homosexual acts being sins (although I'd decline to agree with that.) To say otherwise is misrepresentation.
For example, the verse Psalm 137:9 (“Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rocks!”) shouldn't be taken as a command, blessing, suggestion, or anything of the sort because it is an imprecation (curse) in the midst of a song of lament to God. In other words, it is the psalmist angrily venting to God a dark desire to do harm against his enemies. God welcomes our deepest, darkest and most intense thoughts and emotions.
This verse could easily be distorted to support infanticide or even child sacrifice, but that would be obvious heresy.
The protestant homophobe cult relies on an equal amount of Bible bastardization.

People have a right to have a wedding ceremony of their choosing. I don't begrudge them that right. For some reason, government is obsessed with marriage, I have absolutely no idea why since marriage itself really has nothing at all to do with the state. Notice it's not in the constitution? It's because it's not a matter for state government. It's a church matter, pretty much, or religious one. The state shouldn't be issuing marriage licenses in the first place. The Supreme Court is right though, marriage is not a matter of the state to decide and they should go a step further and tell the states to stop issuing marriage licenses, too and to recognize church marriages as valid, not grant divorces, let churches handle that, too. Some churches might let divorce take place while others won't. Depends on the religion, too. It all began to foul when government got involved in marriages and now we have people who are completely convinced they are doomed because of this.


And another thing, about stds they test for before issuing a license...it's like, if the state doesn't test, two people with stds will marry and spread it when, in reality, if they are going to spread it, it's likely already been spread. It's not even in line with society's norms so what's the excuse for requiring a marriage license from the state? If people have symptoms of std they go to their doctors, get it treated, they don't wait around for a test from the state to tell them they are ill.

The federal laws are incredibly recent. In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws.” New York didn't have a licensed marriage until 1930. The earliest marriage license I know of was issued in 1844 and that was under local law.
However, the Quakers don't include the legal portion of the ceremony in their ceremony and the documents may be signed at a later date or not at all.

Most of the older marriage laws were created to help regulate interacial marriage, "Oregon Laws of 1866, section 1, page 10 (section 23-1010, O.C.L.A.) prohibiting marriage between a white person and one having Negro, Chinese, Kanaka or Indian blood" made void in 1959. Section 106.210, for example, said that through a marriage license not only is the marriage “validated”, but also the children that issue from the marriage are declared "to be.“ (Made void 2007.)

There are several current problems that arise on account of government marriage licensing.
1. Under a marriage license (at least theoretically), children become the produce of a privilege granted by the state.

2. The marriage license might be construed as a quasi-contract that obligates the parities to obey the issuer’s (i.e., the government’s) rules for marriage and family.

what state does this? not mine o.O

reason for marriage in law is so you get family rights, like being able to visit in hospital or make decisions for your spouse if they are unable to. lot of things one can only do via being married. so I can see why gays would want that too.

anyways if I'm mistaken isn't gay marriage legal in all states now due to obama and supreme court? so why is this still an issue. unless its the left wanting to mandate churches preform the wedding in which case that would be pretty clear violation of the religious freedom.

It's legal in 38 states currently and a few additional localities within the remaining state.

I can see why they want the family rights, but they should already have those rights. Those rights should be already existent without marriage at all if wanted... like they were less than a hundred years ago.

I can't wait for the current generation to get out and a new one to take over. Barack Obama is part of a newer generation. So is Rand Paul. It seems current people are fighting battles of the 60's and 70's over and over again and not focusing on the real problems now. What are we going to do about climate change, infrastructure, education, the working poor, addiction, obesity, the government ignoring the 4th amendment, crazy finances on the federal level?

Sorry...a tangent...but that is one of the reasons I don't want Hillary. She is too old.

I used to vote third party but now I am more strategic. It really doesn't matter who I vote for though because of the electoral college. I live in a conservative state. I never vote for the winning candidate because I think too much outside the box.

Clinton Slips in New Poll, But Stays Ahead of GOP Rivals

If any woman that would have appealed to me as presidential material, it would have been either Bella Abzug or Barbara Bush. Both of them are/were ass kickers extrordinaire.

Clinton II seems likely to govern in her own right, not sure why some assume she's a proxy for her husband.

She'll probably be elected because she's long been publicly groomed for the role (has an undivided but possibly naive base with few if any real challengers within her party) and the recent GOP primaries resemble cockfights (by the time they're done determining a "winner," he's bleeding, covered in mud, and has a divided base). Additionally, while none of the candidates seem especially charismatic this cycle, she's not as prone to the sort of gaffes that have driven the Republican party further and further, stupidly and uncompromisingly right in the public mind on social issues. They're sailing against the wind and not even bothering to tack for fear of looking weak and unprincipled or because tacking requires a lot of coordination, pick whichever you like. I think they're just ruining their sails and are going to have to scuttle the ship eventually, probably take up with the right-leaning one of the two crews that the Democrats will split into if the Republicans ever go the way of the Whigs.

Whoever wins the big chair, I don't especially like Clinton II, as I strongly suspect she'll expand the use of drone warfare and is just as much of if slightly more selective a hawk compared to her GOP challengers. She just seems more likely to get there because of the GOP's lingering image as the party of obstruction, fear, and invasion under false pretenses, which will probably last at least another election cycle.

And after her, the Republicans might have to worry about Cory Booker. I seriously doubt they'll be able to bring anyone up to bat who can match or safely ignore his charisma if he ever chooses to run. They'll have to find some way to subvert his Rooseveltian neo-progressive "man of and for the people" image, and if they choose to subvert but fail, he'll just look better. He's like the Gipper, but not nearly as senile.

...This is a side question, but do you think the GOP could survive decades of losses in the presidential races?