Ben Carson: Vomits more homophobic crap

[theDoctorisIn]

Even Satanic Priests perform marriages in the US

So? By what percent of the total marriage rate in America?

That's far from true - I have performed weddings, and I'm not a Pastor.

So, that makes you an authority on marriage? That statement is nothing but an anecdotal argument.

Not to mention, there are plenty of denominations of Christianity that have no problem performing same sex marriages.

Thus my point. If Christianity is so homophobic and bigoted, then it serves as an irony that they would get married under it's precepts and commandments.

Imams

Sure, but doesn't Islam condemn homosexuality outright?

who perform marriages all the time.

I'm looking for statistics here, not unsubstantiated assertions. Given that over 75%of America professes to be Christian, it's natural to assume most of the marriages are performed by those who belong to Christianity. We call it a plurality.

Statistics on Religion in America Report -- Pew Forum on Religion Public Life

In case you forgot what you had previously claimed, you said that Christian Pastors are the "only" people who perform marriages in the US. Now you're moving the goalposts.

.

Well it's not as bad a creating a law and then ignoring it.

Huh?

I have no idea which random unrelated talking point you're trying to change the subject to.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

the bible is no longer acceptable.

Said Mao

If fecal faggot fiend communists want to make war on the scripture, just know that the scripture has encountered your kind before.

You were defeated in the past, and you will be defeated again.

There are no significantly large groups of Christians or Jews enacting Leviticus 20:13 for you to be at war with the Bible.

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.

Question to you though hazlnut

Why do you have a Muslim symbol over your gay pride flag, when they actually do enforce Leviticus 20:13?

 

[Political Junky]

Carson is sounding a little desperate pulling out all the Far Right stuff.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is not a Christian government, dumbass. That's the whole point. I don't have to believe in your version of God, and you don't have to believe in mine.

And? Do we have to condone homosexuality? We don't have to believe in your version of morality either. You leave us alone, we'll leave you alone. God isn't something you can mold to your own preferences. Ironic though, in Romans, it says that one Christian shouldn't cause another to stumble. Guess what you're doing?

If you don't want homos getting married in your church, that's fine.

And why would it be any different? Do you want it to be? Do I detect an aura of discontent in your words? To marry in the sense that straights do, they would have to submit to a religion they condemn as being homophobic. What an colossal irony.

But that has fuck-all to do with the earthly cash and prizes our government showers on married people the State recognizes.

Our government rains "cash and prizes" on anyone looking for a handout. Rather indiscriminate if you ask me.

Why would anyone have to "submit" to any religion in order to get married "in the sense that straights do"?

Do you like cherrypicking my posts?

Uh, because the only people who do weddings in America (as far as I know) are Pastors or leaders of a Christian church. I doubt gays would go for a civil marriage, given that they want the same weddings the straights do. If they are tired of hiding, they would do a traditional wedding. Marriages officiated by Christian leaders (pastors, reverends and etc) are the most common form of espousal in America. By using a religious ritual to get married, you are making that vow according to the edicts of that religion, in this case Christianity.

Therefore, it is ironic for a same sex couple to become espoused under the blanket of a religion of whom they claim is supposedly bigoted and homophobic for condemning homosexuality as a sin.

This is comprehensively ignorant and ridiculous.

Condemnation of homosexuality as a 'sin' is not consistent dogma among all Christians; indeed, the vast majority of gay Americans are Christian, and there are Christian churches that will accommodate same-sex couples.

Consequently there is no 'irony.'

 

[NLT]

When an activist Judge overturns the will of the majority in favor of his own sexuality, he should be removed.

 

[Slyhunter]

Wait, so Christians who support homosexuality, which the Bible explicitly condemns and Christianity traditionally has, are real Christians?
Do you hate Carson because he's black?

This is not a Christian government, dumbass. That's the whole point. I don't have to believe in your version of God, and you don't have to believe in mine.

If you don't want homos getting married in your church, that's fine.

But that has fuck-all to do with the earthly cash and prizes our government showers on married people the State recognizes.

Figure it out, for fuck's sake. For once in your life, figure it out. This has nothing to do with your religion.

And for fuck's sake, take a course in Logic. How many times have I begged you? Your posts are a pile of illogical goo.

The state should not shower married couples with anything single people don't get. We should eradicate any laws that do this. Married people should not be filing under a different tax bracket than single people. Everyone should file their own taxes and one adult takes the dependants.

 

[Slyhunter]

Ben Carson: Congress Should Remove Judges Who Rule For Gay Marriage

The left is loving this guy -- another RW nut job extremist dragging the brand into the sewer of backwards bigotry.

"When judges do not carry out their duties in an appropriate way, our Congress actually has the right to reprimand or remove them," Carson said. Any law on marriage should be decided by a popular referendum, and any decisions made by courts are "unconstitutional," justifying dismissal of judges, he added.

Later on in the interview, Carson agreed with Deace that ongoing spread of legalized gay marriage would make it “open season on Christians."

This mothertruckers need to stop calling themselves "christian" -- their twisted backwards version of the bible is no longer acceptable.

The state should not even be in the business of marriage. Why should they care if they are polygamists or monogomous. It's pretty creepy.

Damn straight. Get government out of our lives.

 

[The Rabbi]

This is not a Christian government, dumbass. That's the whole point. I don't have to believe in your version of God, and you don't have to believe in mine.

And? Do we have to condone homosexuality? We don't have to believe in your version of morality either. You leave us alone, we'll leave you alone. God isn't something you can mold to your own preferences. Ironic though, in Romans, it says that one Christian shouldn't cause another to stumble. Guess what you're doing?

If you don't want homos getting married in your church, that's fine.

And why would it be any different? Do you want it to be? Do I detect an aura of discontent in your words? To marry in the sense that straights do, they would have to submit to a religion they condemn as being homophobic. What an colossal irony.

But that has fuck-all to do with the earthly cash and prizes our government showers on married people the State recognizes.

Our government rains "cash and prizes" on anyone looking for a handout. Rather indiscriminate if you ask me.

Why would anyone have to "submit" to any religion in order to get married "in the sense that straights do"?

Do you like cherrypicking my posts?

Uh, because the only people who do weddings in America (as far as I know) are Pastors or leaders of a Christian church. I doubt gays would go for a civil marriage, given that they want the same weddings the straights do. If they are tired of hiding, they would do a traditional wedding. Marriages officiated by Christian leaders (pastors, reverends and etc) are the most common form of espousal in America. By using a religious ritual to get married, you are making that vow according to the edicts of that religion, in this case Christianity.

Therefore, it is ironic for a same sex couple to become espoused under the blanket of a religion of whom they claim is supposedly bigoted and homophobic for condemning homosexuality as a sin.

Now I understand why religion is involved with marriage. Religion dictates that there is a spiritual aspect to sexuality.

However, having the state involved is just plain strange. Sex is just a physical act like going to the bathroom in the view of the secular state. Why would you then want to make special laws and give special rights to those who go to the bathroom a certain way and not to others?

You kids really don't think this through, do you?

This has been explained over and over.
The state has an interest in producing future citizens and some relationships will tend (note the word "tend") to produce those citizens and others wont. Therefore the state favors a class of marriages that tend to produce citizens but not other relationships.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Ben Carson is 100% correct. .....

Another racist thread by the liberals against a black man. Oh no, they're not the racists here. LoL Every chance they get, they post lies and distortions about conservative black men AND women.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

It is interesting to see that Ben Carson has never read the Federalist Papers or understood the whole point of Supreme Court justices being appointed for life.

It just sails a mile over his head.

And this ignorant fool wants to be President?

Judges are seeing things in the Constution that are simply not there, like abortion and gay marriage. Those decisions are rightfully that of the people. Let them vote and live with their decision. It's not right for judges to override a vote of the people with no justification in the Constutution.

 

[The Rabbi]

It is interesting to see that Ben Carson has never read the Federalist Papers or understood the whole point of Supreme Court justices being appointed for life.

It just sails a mile over his head.

And this ignorant fool wants to be President?

Judges are seeing things in the Constution that are simply not there, like abortion and gay marriage. Those decisions are rightfully that of the people. Let them vote and live with their decision. It's not right for judges to override a vote of the people with no justification in the Constutution.

Quoted for truth.
People who fail at the polls now want to file suit and have judges impose what they couldn't persuade their fellow citizens to go for.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

It is interesting to see that Ben Carson has never read the Federalist Papers or understood the whole point of Supreme Court justices being appointed for life.

It just sails a mile over his heady.

And this ignorant fool wants to be President?

Judges are seeing things in the Constution that are simply not there, like abortion and gay marriage. Those decisions are rightfully that of the people. Let them vote and live with their decision. It's not right for judges to override a vote of the people with no justification in the Constutution.

Quoted for truth.
People who fail at the polls now want to file suit and have judges impose what they couldn't persuade their fellow citizens to go for.

Liberals don't even try to present their ideas and programs to the public for scrutinity. If they fail to convince the voters they go run to the nearest liberal Federal judge. IOWA was the first Midwest State to allow gay marriage. Had it been put to a vote, it would have lost like it did in California and any other place it was on the ballot. Three IOWA judges overruled public sentiment and it became law. Those three judges were fired on the next election with little convincing of the public. Dr Carson is right on!

 

[Kondor3]

Homosexuality is an aberration, and an abomination, in the eyes of God, Nature and Man... a collection of degenerate, perverse, filthy, unclean, corrupt practices, manifestations, mindset, behavior and lifestyle elements which serve to weaken a nation from within an which should be banned both culturally and at law.

Legal arguments have been found in the past to hold this perversion at bay. Perhaps legal arguments can be found in future to do the same. SCOTUS justices who will not stand firm in the face of the Gay Mafia are doing their country a grave disservice, in both the immediate and the long term, and I have no sympathy for such judicial social engineers.

 

[rightwinger]

I tend to agree judges who refuse to obey the law should be removed.

Who should interpret the law?

Internet posters?

It's not a question of law. It's a question of public policy. ANd the people should determine public policy.

Interesting

Public policy as to whether blacks should be allowed to drink from white water fountains?

 

[rightwinger]

It is interesting to see that Ben Carson has never read the Federalist Papers or understood the whole point of Supreme Court justices being appointed for life.

It just sails a mile over his head.

And this ignorant fool wants to be President?

Judges are seeing things in the Constution that are simply not there, like abortion and gay marriage. Those decisions are rightfully that of the people. Let them vote and live with their decision. It's not right for judges to override a vote of the people with no justification in the Constutution.

Quoted for truth.
People who fail at the polls now want to file suit and have judges impose what they couldn't persuade their fellow citizens to go for.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for supper

 

[rightwinger]

This is not a Christian government, dumbass. That's the whole point. I don't have to believe in your version of God, and you don't have to believe in mine.

And? Do we have to condone homosexuality? We don't have to believe in your version of morality either. You leave us alone, we'll leave you alone. God isn't something you can mold to your own preferences. Ironic though, in Romans, it says that one Christian shouldn't cause another to stumble. Guess what you're doing?

If you don't want homos getting married in your church, that's fine.

And why would it be any different? Do you want it to be? Do I detect an aura of discontent in your words? To marry in the sense that straights do, they would have to submit to a religion they condemn as being homophobic. What an colossal irony.

But that has fuck-all to do with the earthly cash and prizes our government showers on married people the State recognizes.

Our government rains "cash and prizes" on anyone looking for a handout. Rather indiscriminate if you ask me.

Why would anyone have to "submit" to any religion in order to get married "in the sense that straights do"?

Do you like cherrypicking my posts?

Uh, because the only people who do weddings in America (as far as I know) are Pastors or leaders of a Christian church. I doubt gays would go for a civil marriage, given that they want the same weddings the straights do. If they are tired of hiding, they would do a traditional wedding. Marriages officiated by Christian leaders (pastors, reverends and etc) are the most common form of espousal in America. By using a religious ritual to get married, you are making that vow according to the edicts of that religion, in this case Christianity.

Therefore, it is ironic for a same sex couple to become espoused under the blanket of a religion of whom they claim is supposedly bigoted and homophobic for condemning homosexuality as a sin.

Now I understand why religion is involved with marriage. Religion dictates that there is a spiritual aspect to sexuality.

However, having the state involved is just plain strange. Sex is just a physical act like going to the bathroom in the view of the secular state. Why would you then want to make special laws and give special rights to those who go to the bathroom a certain way and not to others?

You kids really don't think this through, do you?

This has been explained over and over.
The state has an interest in producing future citizens and some relationships will tend (note the word "tend") to produce those citizens and others wont. Therefore the state favors a class of marriages that tend to produce citizens but not other relationships.

The state has failed to demonstrate that homosexual marriages will in any way decrease the number of offspring produced by heterosexual marriages

 

[Seawytch]

This is not a Christian government, dumbass. That's the whole point. I don't have to believe in your version of God, and you don't have to believe in mine.

And? Do we have to condone homosexuality? We don't have to believe in your version of morality either. You leave us alone, we'll leave you alone. God isn't something you can mold to your own preferences. Ironic though, in Romans, it says that one Christian shouldn't cause another to stumble. Guess what you're doing?

If you don't want homos getting married in your church, that's fine.

And why would it be any different? Do you want it to be? Do I detect an aura of discontent in your words? To marry in the sense that straights do, they would have to submit to a religion they condemn as being homophobic. What an colossal irony.

But that has fuck-all to do with the earthly cash and prizes our government showers on married people the State recognizes.

Our government rains "cash and prizes" on anyone looking for a handout. Rather indiscriminate if you ask me.

Why would anyone have to "submit" to any religion in order to get married "in the sense that straights do"?

Do you like cherrypicking my posts?

Uh, because the only people who do weddings in America (as far as I know) are Pastors or leaders of a Christian church. I doubt gays would go for a civil marriage, given that they want the same weddings the straights do. If they are tired of hiding, they would do a traditional wedding. Marriages officiated by Christian leaders (pastors, reverends and etc) are the most common form of espousal in America. By using a religious ritual to get married, you are making that vow according to the edicts of that religion, in this case Christianity.

Therefore, it is ironic for a same sex couple to become espoused under the blanket of a religion of whom they claim is supposedly bigoted and homophobic for condemning homosexuality as a sin.

Um...I hate to be the one to break it to you, but gays have been marrying in churches for decades...much, much longer than we've been able to civilly marry. In fact, gays have ALWAYS had equal access to religious marriage so you're incredibly wrong when you say "I doubt gays would go for a civil marriage"...not just wrong, but ridiculous. It IS the civil marriage gays are demanding equal access to since we have always had equal access to the religious.

 

[Seawytch]

Homosexuality is an aberration, and an abomination, in the eyes of God, Nature and Man... a collection of degenerate, perverse, filthy, unclean, corrupt practices, manifestations, mindset, behavior and lifestyle elements which serve to weaken a nation from within an which should be banned both culturally and at law.

Guess who you sound like?

Connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them should be prohibited by positive law and be subject to no evasion. (Virginia Supreme Court ruling, 1878)

By marrying outside of your race, no matter what that race is, and then having children of mixed race, you destroy God's original design for your race. The offspring of interracial unions are no longer God's intended creation. (SaveYourHeritage.com)

Intermarriage between whites and blacks ... is subversive of social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery of white women to black beasts will bring this nation a conflict as fatal as ever reddened the soil of Virginia or crimsoned the mountain paths of Pennsylvania. (U.S. Rep. Seaborn Roddenberry, D-Ga., 1912)

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. (Leon Bazile, Virginia trial court judge, 1965)

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

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

Legal arguments have been found in the past to hold this perversion at bay. Perhaps legal arguments can be found in future to do the same. SCOTUS justices who will not stand firm in the face of the Gay Mafia are doing their country a grave disservice, in both the immediate and the long term, and I have no sympathy for such judicial social engineers.

Actually, all of your "legal arguments" have lost. You don't have a rational basis for the laws and they are based solely on animus...this guarantees they go down in flames.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Homosexuality is an aberration, and an abomination, in the eyes of God, Nature and Man... a collection of degenerate, perverse, filthy, unclean, corrupt practices, manifestations, mindset, behavior and lifestyle elements which serve to weaken a nation from within an which should be banned both culturally and at law.

Legal arguments have been found in the past to hold this perversion at bay. Perhaps legal arguments can be found in future to do the same. SCOTUS justices who will not stand firm in the face of the Gay Mafia are doing their country a grave disservice, in both the immediate and the long term, and I have no sympathy for such judicial social engineers.

You lost, get over it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is not a Christian government, dumbass. That's the whole point. I don't have to believe in your version of God, and you don't have to believe in mine.

And? Do we have to condone homosexuality? We don't have to believe in your version of morality either. You leave us alone, we'll leave you alone. God isn't something you can mold to your own preferences. Ironic though, in Romans, it says that one Christian shouldn't cause another to stumble. Guess what you're doing?

If you don't want homos getting married in your church, that's fine.

And why would it be any different? Do you want it to be? Do I detect an aura of discontent in your words? To marry in the sense that straights do, they would have to submit to a religion they condemn as being homophobic. What an colossal irony.

But that has fuck-all to do with the earthly cash and prizes our government showers on married people the State recognizes.

Our government rains "cash and prizes" on anyone looking for a handout. Rather indiscriminate if you ask me.

Why would anyone have to "submit" to any religion in order to get married "in the sense that straights do"?

Do you like cherrypicking my posts?

Uh, because the only people who do weddings in America (as far as I know) are Pastors or leaders of a Christian church. I doubt gays would go for a civil marriage, given that they want the same weddings the straights do. If they are tired of hiding, they would do a traditional wedding. Marriages officiated by Christian leaders (pastors, reverends and etc) are the most common form of espousal in America. By using a religious ritual to get married, you are making that vow according to the edicts of that religion, in this case Christianity.

Therefore, it is ironic for a same sex couple to become espoused under the blanket of a religion of whom they claim is supposedly bigoted and homophobic for condemning homosexuality as a sin.

Now I understand why religion is involved with marriage. Religion dictates that there is a spiritual aspect to sexuality.

However, having the state involved is just plain strange. Sex is just a physical act like going to the bathroom in the view of the secular state. Why would you then want to make special laws and give special rights to those who go to the bathroom a certain way and not to others?

You kids really don't think this through, do you?

This has been explained over and over.
The state has an interest in producing future citizens and some relationships will tend (note the word "tend") to produce those citizens and others wont. Therefore the state favors a class of marriages that tend to produce citizens but not other relationships.

Rights don't have to produce societal benefits.

I'm not sure you understand how babies are made, btw. Unmarried couples can have children.