Page 7 of 8 [ 125 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Protogenoi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 817

16 Apr 2015, 12:06 pm

ASPartOfMe wrote:
Protogenoi wrote:
em_tsuj wrote:
If she wins the primary, I will probably vote for her Republican opponent. She couldn't run the State Department, so how can she run the whole Federal Government?


What if Bush wins the Republican Primary? Which evil will you choose?


Americans have the right to vote a third party candidate or write in a candidate not on the ballet. While I have not decided on 2016 I have done both in the past and will probably do it again. You will piss off the election workers volunteers if you ask to write in a candidate. Every election is in some way a vote for the lesser of two evils. In some elections I have voted for the lesser of two evils. When I have felt both candidates would be an utter disaster I used the alternative options. What can I say, my brain is wired to think and do what most people would not or abhor. They do abhor you if you don't vote for one of the two major parties. I have gotten way way more anger and contempt for not voting for candidates from the two major parties then when I vote for a major party candidate.

The cliche of the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over failing and expecting things to get better. America has overwhelmingly voted for one of the two parties and the political system has gotten more and more broken. There is nothing in the constitution about a to party system. We have it because that is what most chose.


I also have voted third party, but admittedly you can expect them not to win. Sometimes they do, but they tend to still be ineffective outside of the local level of government.


_________________
Now take a trip with me but don't be surprised when things aren't what they seem. I've known it from the start all these good ideas will tear your brain apart. Scared, but you can follow me. I'm too weird to live but much too rare to die. - a7x


AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

16 Apr 2015, 1:03 pm

Protogenoi wrote:
I also have voted third party, but admittedly you can expect them not to win. Sometimes they do, but they tend to still be ineffective outside of the local level of government.

If my intent was to support "winners," I would become a lifelong Chicago Bulls fan replete with the chav kit. But, when I exercise my constitutional right to vote, I do so in support of whom I believe is the best candidate regardless of any other attribute.

Having been a longtime leader of the Utah Democratic Party, I learned quickly that all political parties analyze election results. They especially watch those straight-party votes which are cast for a cross-over candidate(s) (those who aren't part of the party doing the analysis). The number of such votes is largely irrelevant to the extent that the armchair analysts want to determine which non-party candidate(s) convinced party stalwarts to shift their votes from their own candidate(s) and to the non-party candidate(s). This analysis teaches parties and their candidates to become "more like your opponent" if they hope to remain relevant in the next election. So, for a party analyst who sees five percent of straight-party votes leave the party in support of a non-party candidate, an almost immediate, consequent change results.

In other words, there is a way to change mainstream, major political parties simply by voting tactically. I have seen it. It works. I do it as much as I can in every election.


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,636
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

16 Apr 2015, 1:14 pm

AspieUtah wrote:
Protogenoi wrote:
I also have voted third party, but admittedly you can expect them not to win. Sometimes they do, but they tend to still be ineffective outside of the local level of government.

If my intent was to support "winners," I would become a lifelong Chicago Bulls fan replete with the chav kit. But, when I exercise my constitutional right to vote, I do so in support of whom I believe is the best candidate regardless of any other attribute.

Having been a longtime leader of the Utah Democratic Party, I learned quickly that all political parties analyze election results. They especially watch those straight-party votes which are cast for a cross-over candidate(s) (those who aren't part of the party doing the analysis). The number of such votes is largely irrelevant to the extent that the armchair analysts want to determine which non-party candidate(s) convinced party stalwarts to shift their votes from their own candidate(s) and to the non-party candidate(s). This analysis teaches parties and their candidates to become "more like your opponent" if they hope to remain relevant in the next election. So, for a party analyst who sees five percent of straight-party votes leave the party in support of a non-party candidate, an almost immediate, consequent change results.

In other words, there is a way to change mainstream, major political parties simply by voting tactically. I have seen it. It works. I do it as much as I can in every election.


Of course - why do you think it's called a campaign? It's like planning a battle or a war.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

16 Apr 2015, 1:22 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
AspieUtah wrote:
Protogenoi wrote:
I also have voted third party, but admittedly you can expect them not to win. Sometimes they do, but they tend to still be ineffective outside of the local level of government.

If my intent was to support "winners," I would become a lifelong Chicago Bulls fan replete with the chav kit. But, when I exercise my constitutional right to vote, I do so in support of whom I believe is the best candidate regardless of any other attribute.

Having been a longtime leader of the Utah Democratic Party, I learned quickly that all political parties analyze election results. They especially watch those straight-party votes which are cast for a cross-over candidate(s) (those who aren't part of the party doing the analysis). The number of such votes is largely irrelevant to the extent that the armchair analysts want to determine which non-party candidate(s) convinced party stalwarts to shift their votes from their own candidate(s) and to the non-party candidate(s). This analysis teaches parties and their candidates to become "more like your opponent" if they hope to remain relevant in the next election. So, for a party analyst who sees five percent of straight-party votes leave the party in support of a non-party candidate, an almost immediate, consequent change results.

In other words, there is a way to change mainstream, major political parties simply by voting tactically. I have seen it. It works. I do it as much as I can in every election.

Of course - why do you think it's called a campaign? It's like planning a battle or a war.

Thank you ... you distilled all I wrote into a concise statement! I wish I could do that, sometimes. :lol:


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


Whathappened
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 17 Aug 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 107
Location: Texas

16 Apr 2015, 11:16 pm

It is incredulous that you all assume I pulled this information from infowars, and blithely carry on as if the assumption is presumed fact...making statements and this and that.

The information for Soros' campaign donations is freely available to the public - it's not hidden or classified information. For gods sakes I didn't know people had lost this faculty to reason to this degree. He has many campaign contributions and poured in a massive 33 million in far left socially liberal campaigns. He is a known agitator of race and society in this country, and an absolutely despicable man.

That those on the left know about him and what he's about, and don't seem to mind, well that just shows the level of absolute evil we've gotten to in this country, and depravity.


Btw, most infowars readers are well more informed on actual issues than mindless American sheeple -- still caught in the Hegelian dialectic of Fox News and CNN.

I rest my case.



AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

17 Apr 2015, 8:48 am

Whathappened wrote:
...most infowars readers are well more informed on actual issues than mindless American sheeple -- still caught in the Hegelian dialectic of Fox News and CNN....

Infowars.com "the radio show" is bombastic (starting with its founder and lead radio host, Alex Jones). It is hostile to opinions that disagree with it. It is homophobic and hateful in several other ways....

But, Infowars.com "the news reporting" is almost always very factual in citing and referencing original source material as much as it can. I have read many of its reports where there are more than a dozen citations and references within a three- or four-paragraph report. They don't make up much.

So, it takes a special kind of person to put up with the Infowars.com "show" for the sake of its "news." It is, at the end of the day, a very credible news source. In fact, mainstream media routinely cites and references it, but without attribution. Gee, I wonder why?!?


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


Whathappened
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 17 Aug 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 107
Location: Texas

17 Apr 2015, 5:30 pm

It is not homophobic, and can we please stop using terms invented by these lib-fascists?

It opposes tyranny, in my opinion homosexuals and people with homosexual desires, and just homosexuality in general is being used by the left as a weapon. That is his platform. I believe it is true. He openly has stated he is not against gay people, but that they, like blacks and minorities ...and everyone else, is being used by the left as tools and instruments.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

17 Apr 2015, 6:21 pm

Whathappened wrote:
It is not homophobic, and can we please stop using terms invented by these lib-fascists?

It opposes tyranny, in my opinion homosexuals and people with homosexual desires, and just homosexuality in general is being used by the left as a weapon. That is his platform. I believe it is true. He openly has stated he is not against gay people, but that they, like blacks and minorities ...and everyone else, is being used by the left as tools and instruments.

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?



Whathappened
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 17 Aug 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 107
Location: Texas

17 Apr 2015, 6:37 pm

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.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,077

17 Apr 2015, 7:15 pm

^^^

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'!..;)


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

17 Apr 2015, 9:32 pm

Whathappened wrote:
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.


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.



Protogenoi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 817

17 Apr 2015, 10:58 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Whathappened wrote:
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.


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 they 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.


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.


_________________
Now take a trip with me but don't be surprised when things aren't what they seem. I've known it from the start all these good ideas will tear your brain apart. Scared, but you can follow me. I'm too weird to live but much too rare to die. - a7x


ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

17 Apr 2015, 11:18 pm

Protogenoi wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Whathappened wrote:
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.


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 they 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.


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.



Protogenoi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 817

18 Apr 2015, 12:26 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Protogenoi wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Whathappened wrote:
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.


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 they 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.


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.


_________________
Now take a trip with me but don't be surprised when things aren't what they seem. I've known it from the start all these good ideas will tear your brain apart. Scared, but you can follow me. I'm too weird to live but much too rare to die. - a7x


sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

18 Apr 2015, 3:30 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
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.



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.



Protogenoi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 817

18 Apr 2015, 9:01 pm

sly279 wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
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.



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.


_________________
Now take a trip with me but don't be surprised when things aren't what they seem. I've known it from the start all these good ideas will tear your brain apart. Scared, but you can follow me. I'm too weird to live but much too rare to die. - a7x