Are really sure you want gay marriage?

[Delta4Embassy]

A liberal nation? Have you looked at a political map of the US lately? You guys got your butts kicked last election.

Think that's a trend that will continue thru 2016? Or an expected mid-term shift?

Personally, I see martial law by 2016.

Yeah, that's idiotic, and not gonna happen.

Two reasons it could happen. A economic collapse. Or a rash of terrorist attacks on US soil. Either one is a distinct possibility. If our country loses its reserve currency status, were screwed. Social and economic collapse will be the result. And do you really think that Mexicans are the only ones crossing our southern border? No one really knows how many terrorists are in this country.

Yeah, and Jesus could return as well but try to stick with reality. The terrorists are a little too busy at the moment, taking over their side of the world.

If Jesus "returns" think the first thing he'd say is "What the hell are you doing? I'M gay! Didn't they leave that part in?"

 

[jillian]

It's all about making the homos appear normal

What makes you appear normal?

My husband (who is male)

I see more evidence to prohibit you from procreating than prohibiting gays

amen

 

[bripat9643]

Think about it. I mean, look at the divorce rate. Over fifty percent. Then you have alimony and child support. Speaking of which, how would you decide who pays? It's usually the husband who pays. Which one is the husband? With two guys, I guess it would be the pitcher. But which of the lesbos would be the husband? So, if you really want all the problems of marriage, I can be a good little liberal on this one. I believe in the equal sharing of misery. Have at it.

Alimony and child support is determined by the incomes of both parents, ignoramus. Each pays a percentage equal to their percentage of the combined income.

The reality is that only one pays while the other gets custody. Since generally men make more money than women they always end up paying a lot more than women, and the later almost always gets custody.

That's how our one-sided dysfunctional courts operate.

 

[Skylar]

Think about it. I mean, look at the divorce rate. Over fifty percent. Then you have alimony and child support. Speaking of which, how would you decide who pays? It's usually the husband who pays. Which one is the husband? With two guys, I guess it would be the pitcher. But which of the lesbos would be the husband? So, if you really want all the problems of marriage, I can be a good little liberal on this one. I believe in the equal sharing of misery. Have at it.

Government sanctioned marriage needs to be relegated to the ashcan of history, and replaced by contracts between consenting adults.

If churches want to sanction these contracts after they are signed, by performing a religious rite, then more power to them.

That's pointlessly complicated. Its far simpler and more effective to simply recognize gays and lesbians as part of the existing union rather than scrap all government sanctioned marriages, and the elaborate system of benefits associated with them.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Think that's a trend that will continue thru 2016? Or an expected mid-term shift?

Personally, I see martial law by 2016.

Yeah, that's idiotic, and not gonna happen.

Two reasons it could happen. A economic collapse. Or a rash of terrorist attacks on US soil. Either one is a distinct possibility. If our country loses its reserve currency status, were screwed. Social and economic collapse will be the result. And do you really think that Mexicans are the only ones crossing our southern border? No one really knows how many terrorists are in this country.

Yeah, and Jesus could return as well but try to stick with reality. The terrorists are a little too busy at the moment, taking over their side of the world.

If Jesus "returns" think the first thing he'd say is "What the hell are you doing? I'M gay! Didn't they leave that part in?"

That's some really stupid homo shit

 

[bripat9643]

Think about it. I mean, look at the divorce rate. Over fifty percent. Then you have alimony and child support. Speaking of which, how would you decide who pays? It's usually the husband who pays. Which one is the husband? With two guys, I guess it would be the pitcher. But which of the lesbos would be the husband? So, if you really want all the problems of marriage, I can be a good little liberal on this one. I believe in the equal sharing of misery. Have at it.

Government sanctioned marriage needs to be relegated to the ashcan of history, and replaced by contracts between consenting adults.

If churches want to sanction these contracts after they are signed, by performing a religious rite, then more power to them.

That's pointlessly complicated. Its far simpler and more effective to simply recognize gays and lesbians as part of the existing union rather than scrap all government sanctioned marriages, and the elaborate system of benefits associated with them.

The later is the right thing to do. The former is just a scheme for gays to get government benefits and social respectability.

 

[Mr.Right]

Think about it. I mean, look at the divorce rate. Over fifty percent. Then you have alimony and child support. Speaking of which, how would you decide who pays? It's usually the husband who pays. Which one is the husband? With two guys, I guess it would be the pitcher. But which of the lesbos would be the husband? So, if you really want all the problems of marriage, I can be a good little liberal on this one. I believe in the equal sharing of misery. Have at it.

Government sanctioned marriage needs to be relegated to the ashcan of history, and replaced by contracts between consenting adults.

If churches want to sanction these contracts after they are signed, by performing a religious rite, then more power to them.

That's pointlessly complicated. Its far simpler and more effective to simply recognize gays and lesbians as part of the existing union rather than scrap all government sanctioned marriages, and the elaborate system of benefits associated with them.

Government should have no say in marriage. Or do you like having the government telling you what you can and can't do?

 

[Skylar]

Think about it. I mean, look at the divorce rate. Over fifty percent. Then you have alimony and child support. Speaking of which, how would you decide who pays? It's usually the husband who pays. Which one is the husband? With two guys, I guess it would be the pitcher. But which of the lesbos would be the husband? So, if you really want all the problems of marriage, I can be a good little liberal on this one. I believe in the equal sharing of misery. Have at it.

Government sanctioned marriage needs to be relegated to the ashcan of history, and replaced by contracts between consenting adults.

If churches want to sanction these contracts after they are signed, by performing a religious rite, then more power to them.

That's pointlessly complicated. Its far simpler and more effective to simply recognize gays and lesbians as part of the existing union rather than scrap all government sanctioned marriages, and the elaborate system of benefits associated with them.

The later is the right thing to do. The former is just a scheme for gays to get government benefits and social respectability.

Nope. The latter is a tantrum. The pseudo-legal equivilant of overturning a chessboard because you don't like the outcome of the game.

The former is equal protection under the law. Its cheaper, faster, simpler, and far more effective. By every measure, it works better.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Personally, I see martial law by 2016.

Yeah, that's idiotic, and not gonna happen.

Two reasons it could happen. A economic collapse. Or a rash of terrorist attacks on US soil. Either one is a distinct possibility. If our country loses its reserve currency status, were screwed. Social and economic collapse will be the result. And do you really think that Mexicans are the only ones crossing our southern border? No one really knows how many terrorists are in this country.

Yeah, and Jesus could return as well but try to stick with reality. The terrorists are a little too busy at the moment, taking over their side of the world.

If Jesus "returns" think the first thing he'd say is "What the hell are you doing? I'M gay! Didn't they leave that part in?"

That's some really stupid homo shit

Then as now, Judaism's all about getting married and making lots of little Jews. So a Jew who isn't married but travels around with lots of guys is a tad suspect. Not helped by how one of them say numerous times "it's better not to touch a woman - ever - even if married."

 

[Skylar]

Think about it. I mean, look at the divorce rate. Over fifty percent. Then you have alimony and child support. Speaking of which, how would you decide who pays? It's usually the husband who pays. Which one is the husband? With two guys, I guess it would be the pitcher. But which of the lesbos would be the husband? So, if you really want all the problems of marriage, I can be a good little liberal on this one. I believe in the equal sharing of misery. Have at it.

Government sanctioned marriage needs to be relegated to the ashcan of history, and replaced by contracts between consenting adults.

If churches want to sanction these contracts after they are signed, by performing a religious rite, then more power to them.

That's pointlessly complicated. Its far simpler and more effective to simply recognize gays and lesbians as part of the existing union rather than scrap all government sanctioned marriages, and the elaborate system of benefits associated with them.

Government should have no say in marriage. Or do you like having the government telling you what you can and can't do?

If you want a marriage without any government recognition, obligation or protection, you have access to it. Just have a party with your friends, declare yourself married, and follow any convention you wish.

If you want legally sanctioned and protected marriage, then you have that option too.

So you have everything you want right now. Sounds like a win-win to me!

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Yeah, that's idiotic, and not gonna happen.

Two reasons it could happen. A economic collapse. Or a rash of terrorist attacks on US soil. Either one is a distinct possibility. If our country loses its reserve currency status, were screwed. Social and economic collapse will be the result. And do you really think that Mexicans are the only ones crossing our southern border? No one really knows how many terrorists are in this country.

Yeah, and Jesus could return as well but try to stick with reality. The terrorists are a little too busy at the moment, taking over their side of the world.

If Jesus "returns" think the first thing he'd say is "What the hell are you doing? I'M gay! Didn't they leave that part in?"

That's some really stupid homo shit

Then as now, Judaism's all about getting married and making lots of little Jews. So a Jew who isn't married but travels around with lots of guys is a tad suspect. Not helped by how one of them say numerous times "it's better not to touch a woman - ever - even if married."

It's stupid and you are spewing the homo talking points. You know it and I know it

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Was Jesus gay Probably Paul Oestreicher Comment is free The Guardian

 

[Delta4Embassy]

"That disciple was John whom Jesus, the gospels affirm, loved in a special way. All the other disciples had fled in fear. Three women but only one man had the courage to go with Jesus to his execution. That man clearly had a unique place in the affection of Jesus. In all classic depictions of the Last Supper, a favourite subject of Christian art, John is next to Jesus, very often his head resting on Jesus's breast. Dying, Jesus asks John to look after his mother and asks his mother to accept John as her son. John takes Mary home. John becomes unmistakably part of Jesus's family.

Jesus was a Hebrew rabbi. Unusually, he was unmarried. The idea that he had a romantic relationship with Mary Magdalene is the stuff of fiction, based on no biblical evidence. The evidence, on the other hand, that he may have been what we today call gay is very strong. But even gay rights campaigners in the church have been reluctant to suggest it. A significant exception was Hugh Montefiore, bishop of Birmingham and a convert from a prominent Jewish family. He dared to suggest that possibility and was met with disdain, as though he were simply out to shock.

After much reflection and with certainly no wish to shock, I felt I was left with no option but to suggest, for the first time in half a century of my Anglican priesthood, that Jesus may well have been homosexual. Had he been devoid of sexuality, he would not have been truly human. To believe that would be heretical."

 

[bripat9643]

Think about it. I mean, look at the divorce rate. Over fifty percent. Then you have alimony and child support. Speaking of which, how would you decide who pays? It's usually the husband who pays. Which one is the husband? With two guys, I guess it would be the pitcher. But which of the lesbos would be the husband? So, if you really want all the problems of marriage, I can be a good little liberal on this one. I believe in the equal sharing of misery. Have at it.

Government sanctioned marriage needs to be relegated to the ashcan of history, and replaced by contracts between consenting adults.

If churches want to sanction these contracts after they are signed, by performing a religious rite, then more power to them.

That's pointlessly complicated. Its far simpler and more effective to simply recognize gays and lesbians as part of the existing union rather than scrap all government sanctioned marriages, and the elaborate system of benefits associated with them.

The later is the right thing to do. The former is just a scheme for gays to get government benefits and social respectability.

Nope. The latter is a tantrum. The pseudo-legal equivilant of overturning a chessboard because you don't like the outcome of the game.

The former is equal protection under the law. Its cheaper, faster, simpler, and far more effective. By every measure, it works better.

Nope. Gays already have equal protection under the law. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. There's no reason to provide any legal sanction for a union between a man and a man. The later union is incapable of producing children and therefore it has no desirable social implications.

Being "cheaper, faster, simpler" are all the wrong reasons for passing a law. As for being "more effective" one has to ask "effective" at what?

 

[Mr.Right]

Was Jesus gay Probably Paul Oestreicher Comment is free The Guardian

If you believe that crap, then you have a choice. Repent and be saved, or spend eternity in hell. Your choice.

 

[g5000]

Two reasons it could happen. A economic collapse. Or a rash of terrorist attacks on US soil. Either one is a distinct possibility. If our country loses its reserve currency status, were screwed. Social and economic collapse will be the result. And do you really think that Mexicans are the only ones crossing our southern border? No one really knows how many terrorists are in this country.

Yeah, and Jesus could return as well but try to stick with reality. The terrorists are a little too busy at the moment, taking over their side of the world.

If Jesus "returns" think the first thing he'd say is "What the hell are you doing? I'M gay! Didn't they leave that part in?"

That's some really stupid homo shit

Then as now, Judaism's all about getting married and making lots of little Jews. So a Jew who isn't married but travels around with lots of guys is a tad suspect. Not helped by how one of them say numerous times "it's better not to touch a woman - ever - even if married."

It's stupid and you are spewing the homo talking points. You know it and I know it

Blue Jesus: I want you to listen to me. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Magdalene...

Red Jesus: I have a wide stance!

 

[jillian]

Was Jesus gay Probably Paul Oestreicher Comment is free The Guardian

I think it's more likely that he was married to mary...

 

[g5000]

The devil offered Jesus the whole world and Jesus turned him down flat.

If Jesus could refuse bread after starving for 40 days, what need did he have for sex?

He was not here for gratuitous sex. He was here to pay our debts for a host of sins. Serious business.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Was Jesus gay Probably Paul Oestreicher Comment is free The Guardian

I think it's more likely that he was married to mary...

Article mentions no scriptural evidence for that.

As a Jew who doesn't marry, teaching love is the greatest commandment certainly feeds the 'gay' hypothesis. Since that was forbidden and punishable by death, one can easily see a gay Jewish rabbi emphasizing love is the most important thing. Even if he could never act on his love for men if that were the case.

 

[Skylar]

Think about it. I mean, look at the divorce rate. Over fifty percent. Then you have alimony and child support. Speaking of which, how would you decide who pays? It's usually the husband who pays. Which one is the husband? With two guys, I guess it would be the pitcher. But which of the lesbos would be the husband? So, if you really want all the problems of marriage, I can be a good little liberal on this one. I believe in the equal sharing of misery. Have at it.

Government sanctioned marriage needs to be relegated to the ashcan of history, and replaced by contracts between consenting adults.

If churches want to sanction these contracts after they are signed, by performing a religious rite, then more power to them.

That's pointlessly complicated. Its far simpler and more effective to simply recognize gays and lesbians as part of the existing union rather than scrap all government sanctioned marriages, and the elaborate system of benefits associated with them.

The later is the right thing to do. The former is just a scheme for gays to get government benefits and social respectability.

Nope. The latter is a tantrum. The pseudo-legal equivilant of overturning a chessboard because you don't like the outcome of the game.

The former is equal protection under the law. Its cheaper, faster, simpler, and far more effective. By every measure, it works better.

Nope. Gays already have equal protection under the law. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

As Loving V. Virginia demonstrated, the restrictions placed on marriage have meet constitutional muster as well. And same sex marriage bans fail those standards utterly. They have no rational purpose, they don't meet any valid legislative end, and they don't serve a compelling state interest.

They just 'are'. And that's not good enough.

Which might explain why in 44 of 46 cases heard by the federal judiciary, gay marriage bans were overturned.