Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I didn't say that but that's what your brain interpreted because apparently you can't discuss the issue fairly. The mistreatment of women doesn't correlate to endorsing gay marriage, that's two separate issues. How do two guys marrying fit in?So everyone on Earth was a Hebrew? I call bull. Yes, in their culture that's the way it was but not always. I never heard of a daughter being sold to a woman for marriage though.Your description of marriage is historically flawed.
Marriage in biblical times was an ownership contract. The father in essence sold the daughter into marriage. The woman was chattel. She was a resource to both men.
Marriage was a transfer of property.
Pretty warm and fuzzy, huh?
So you are standing up for the cause and relative righteousness of heterosexual misogyny.
This was the standard for marriage all across the globe.
I didn't say that but that's what your brain interpreted because apparently you can't discuss the issue fairly. The mistreatment of women doesn't correlate to endorsing gay marriage, that's two separate issues. How do two guys marrying fit in?So everyone on Earth was a Hebrew? I call bull. Yes, in their culture that's the way it was but not always. I never heard of a daughter being sold to a woman for marriage though.
So you are standing up for the cause and relative righteousness of heterosexual misogyny.
This was the standard for marriage all across the globe.
My goodness, the gay left is offended about the 1st Amendment right of citizens to make a political statement with a hunger strike. What's the solution? Use a drone plane to purge the dreaded Christians from the landscape? We know it's in the minds of the hate filled radical left. The question is whether Obama can make it a reality.
Let the assholes starve.
I posted the fact that marriage was always between a man and woman and you spun off into woman abuse. Times are achangin, more and more like you who are unfamiliar with honesty and logic. Culture determined how marriage was defined but it wasn't culture that is changing it, it's propaganda and legislation from the bench. There's nothing unequal about defining marriage as being between a man and a woman any more than it's unequal to say only two can marry. if tradition doesn't matter you can't use it as a guide.I didn't say that but that's what your brain interpreted because apparently you can't discuss the issue fairly. The mistreatment of women doesn't correlate to endorsing gay marriage, that's two separate issues. How do two guys marrying fit in?So you are standing up for the cause and relative righteousness of heterosexual misogyny.
This was the standard for marriage all across the globe.
How does painting a warm and fuzzy about historical marriage fit in?
Marriage is a cultural institution. Cultures define it.
Once again, the times they are a'changin'.
I posted the fact that marriage was always between a man and woman and you spun off into woman abuse. Times are achangin, more and more like you who are unfamiliar with honesty and logic. Culture determined how marriage was defined but it wasn't culture that is changing it, it's propaganda and legislation from the bench. There's nothing unequal about defining marriage as being between a man and a woman any more than it's unequal to say only two can marry. if tradition doesn't matter you can't use it as a guide.I didn't say that but that's what your brain interpreted because apparently you can't discuss the issue fairly. The mistreatment of women doesn't correlate to endorsing gay marriage, that's two separate issues. How do two guys marrying fit in?
How does painting a warm and fuzzy about historical marriage fit in?
Marriage is a cultural institution. Cultures define it.
Once again, the times they are a'changin'.
? Conservative Christians Plan 40 Day Hunger Strike ? A Temper Tantrum To Demonstrate Hatred Of Gay People
“Our Constitution declares that ‘all men’ are created equal. Surely this means all of us.”
Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen of United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, in Norfolk wrote these words in February in a decision that overturned Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage. Ever since, conservative Christians have been throwing a fit over it. This week, a group of desperate Christians announced their intention to fast for 40 days and 40 nights in the name of hate. It’s basically the same idea that a religious bigot in Utah attempted back in January.
Members of a religious organization called the Family Foundation are so hungry for hatred that they want to throw a temper tantrum for 40 days to protest same-sex marriage. In a statement, the group claims that the federal government, the media, corporations, the public education system, and the entertainment industry are all ganging up against churches in the fight for equality.
“Our state and nation are mired in a morass of confusion and post-modern thinking that does not believe in absolutes nor that any truth can even be known,” the statement says. “Nowhere is this more evident than in the current debate raging about what constitutes marriage. Pagan philosophies, a secular humanist education establishment and an entertainment industry that is absolutely determined in pushing the envelope on decency and morality have all combined to turn this great land into a country that our forefathers could not even begin to recognize.[/QUOTE]
Incomprehensible.
What would their god have to say about this?
Do you have a real source? It got shot down in California so not enough change apparently. But propaganda does work, give it time.
It seems you are wrong since you didn't offer up the Supreme Court decision. It didn't happen because it isn't unequal treatment. There is no Constitutional protection for relationships. Sexual relationships aren't a person (yet).It seems clear the "bans" are unconstitutional.
Do you have a real source? It got shot down in California so not enough change apparently. But propaganda does work, give it time.
Content. Do you know what that is? Posting a wikilink is lazy, find the source and post the relevant portion. I don't dispute it's finding more favor but not the majority of the country. and I don't see how any special interest group can be denied in same sex marriage states so I think it should just be a civil contract between partners.Do you have a real source? It got shot down in California so not enough change apparently. But propaganda does work, give it time.
If you read the article it sources many polls, including Pew Research, a popular conservative pollster.
What are you looking for?
Your description of marriage is historically flawed.
Marriage in biblical times was an ownership contract. The father in essence sold the daughter into marriage. The woman was chattel. She was a resource to both men.
Marriage was a transfer of property.
Pretty warm and fuzzy, huh?
Which part was 'historically flawed'? Below are the only two statements made in the post regarding marriage and its history. You merely added addtional information regarding marriage in biblical times, you didn't correct anything that was said. Your posts are nothing but lies, you really should try to step up your game, it sucks.
Mankind has had marriage as far back as recorded history, between men and women.
or
The two genders are how mankind procreates, and almost everything else too with rare exception. Marriage recognizes that special relationship, whether by evolution or creation, and encourages a stable family unit.
That "special relationship" was having a fully owned slave that stabilized the family through an enforced servitude that provided a domestic labor force.
Some Christians still long for these 'good old days'.Should a Woman Work or Stay Home with Children? - Probe Ministries
Content. Do you know what that is? Posting a wikilink is lazy, find the source and post the relevant portion. I don't dispute it's finding more favor but not the majority of the country. and I don't see how any special interest group can be denied in same sex marriage states so I think it should just be a civil contract between partners.Do you have a real source? It got shot down in California so not enough change apparently. But propaganda does work, give it time.
If you read the article it sources many polls, including Pew Research, a popular conservative pollster.
What are you looking for?
Which part was 'historically flawed'? Below are the only two statements made in the post regarding marriage and its history. You merely added addtional information regarding marriage in biblical times, you didn't correct anything that was said. Your posts are nothing but lies, you really should try to step up your game, it sucks.
Mankind has had marriage as far back as recorded history, between men and women.
or
The two genders are how mankind procreates, and almost everything else too with rare exception. Marriage recognizes that special relationship, whether by evolution or creation, and encourages a stable family unit.
That "special relationship" was having a fully owned slave that stabilized the family through an enforced servitude that provided a domestic labor force.
Some Christians still long for these 'good old days'.Should a Woman Work or Stay Home with Children? - Probe Ministries
That's your interpretation of 'special relationship' and not what the poster was saying. Again, you have to add, embelish, twist, distort, etc.. to even remotely be on topic with your posts, it's no wonder no one can follow them.
Bolded is rather amusing, I'd say it would be more accurate if it said 'Some men...' Since marriage as you described it wasn't limited to christian marriage and still exists that way today in other cultures that are clearly not christian. So again, your point is moot to the topic being addressed.
So everyone on Earth was a Hebrew? I call bull. Yes, in their culture that's the way it was but not always. I never heard of a daughter being sold to a woman for marriage though.Your description of marriage is historically flawed.
Marriage in biblical times was an ownership contract. The father in essence sold the daughter into marriage. The woman was chattel. She was a resource to both men.
Marriage was a transfer of property.
Pretty warm and fuzzy, huh?
So you are standing up for the cause and relative righteousness of heterosexual misogyny.This was the standard for marriage all across the globe.
That "special relationship" was having a fully owned slave that stabilized the family through an enforced servitude that provided a domestic labor force.
Some Christians still long for these 'good old days'.Should a Woman Work or Stay Home with Children? - Probe Ministries
That's your interpretation of 'special relationship' and not what the poster was saying. Again, you have to add, embelish, twist, distort, etc.. to even remotely be on topic with your posts, it's no wonder no one can follow them.
Bolded is rather amusing, I'd say it would be more accurate if it said 'Some men...' Since marriage as you described it wasn't limited to christian marriage and still exists that way today in other cultures that are clearly not christian. So again, your point is moot to the topic being addressed.
By "embellish" you mean providing evidence and defending my argument...
Guilty!
I didn't say that but that's what your brain interpreted because apparently you can't discuss the issue fairly. The mistreatment of women doesn't correlate to endorsing gay marriage, that's two separate issues. How do two guys marrying fit in?So everyone on Earth was a Hebrew? I call bull. Yes, in their culture that's the way it was but not always. I never heard of a daughter being sold to a woman for marriage though.
So you are standing up for the cause and relative righteousness of heterosexual misogyny.
This was the standard for marriage all across the globe.
I didn't say that but that's what your brain interpreted because apparently you can't discuss the issue fairly. The mistreatment of women doesn't correlate to endorsing gay marriage, that's two separate issues. How do two guys marrying fit in?So you are standing up for the cause and relative righteousness of heterosexual misogyny.
This was the standard for marriage all across the globe.
How does painting a warm and fuzzy about historical marriage fit in?
Marriage is a cultural institution. Cultures define it.
Once again, the times they are a'changin'.
