Prop 8 defender of sanctity of marriage is divorcing his wife

[ElmerMudd]

I am guessing that Eisenhower and Reagan are turning over in their grave listening to the individuals on this thread that call themselves conservatives.

The pseudo intellectual conservatives wackos are all arguing that you do not lead by example. They are making excuses for the hypocrisy of many conswrvative leaders based on meaningless theoretical arguments that have very little to do with the real world.

How can you argue with if you talk the talk then you should walk the walk. Granted none of us are perfect but if we have a problem living up to what we are saying then we should start saying less and doing more.

 

[Immanuel]

I have a problem with people who try to legislate MORALITY and have no morals themselves.

The way I look at it is:

a) We don't really know why they are divorcing.

b) We don't know for sure that this divorce is at his request and not hers. For all we know, he may have begged her not to leave him.

and

c) the fight against gay marriage has nothing to do with divorce. The attempt by the left to redefine the "Sanctity of Marriage" argument is bogus. First off, I believe that the Sanctity of Marriage prevents divorce, but that is my belief, I do not expect anyone else to adhere to that belief. Second, It is not the argument that has been made by the anti-gay marriage activist, of which I am not a part of. I believe in civil unions for all, but not because of the gay marriage issue. I believe that because the state has no business regulating marriage. However, the Sanctity of Marriage argument has always been about marriage being between one man and one woman and nothing more. As far as I know, divorce has not been brought up in the argument by Mr. Manchester or anyone else for that matter except for the lefties who are now trying to redefine the argument.

Mr. Manchester would be a hypocrite if, and only if, in his statements he has stated that no one should have a divorce AND this divorce is being sought by him, not his wife.

edit: Oh, I guess I should also say that he would be a hypocrite if he were divorcing her and moving in with a gay lover... now there would be hypocrisy at its finest!

Immie

 

[mal]

I can tell I have done some Damage when there is no Response... Let's try this again:

What you do is what counts. Way too many extreme conservatives talk the talk but don't walk the walk. Ultimately it is the walk you walk not the talk you talk that counts.

Too many people use trying as an excuse. Trying is basically talking which too many conservatives do a better job of than doing.

Perfection is not Achievable... But setting Societal Standards is.

Liberals Hate Standards because they don't Understand that Failure is a Natural thing...

Learn from it, Moveon.com and Try to Illustrate how to Avoid it to other People.

Barry for Example hasn't been Told he has EVER Failed, although he Obviously has...

Liberals tend to Surround themselves with People who Reenforce their Beliefs and Avoid those who Disagree with them.

Reminds me of a Liberal here Recently who was Mocking for Admitting that I Listen to those that I Criticize.

"You listent to Air America?"... As if that was a Slam Against me when Discussing why Idiots like Ed Shultz are Idiots.

Liberals just Trust that their Superior Liberals have Informed them Accuratly regarding Conservatives and Procede Accordingly.

Ignorantly.

And I Take my Own to Task also... SHOCKER!, eh!



peace...

You set societal standards by example not words.

I am a big believer in standards. I try to communicate my standards by example not empty words.

And you and the Left Attempt to Define not only the Individual in this Case by the Failure, but you also Attempt to Apply his Failure to ANYONE who Attempts to Live up to Standards or even Expects some Standards out of a Civil Society.

By the way, NO Individual's Failure lends Validation to Deviancy... Which is Really what this Thread is about.

A REPUBLICan is getting Divorced, so Homosexuals are Validated in thier Quest for something they are Incapable of Reflecting... Marriage.

Correct?... That's really the Goal here.



peace...

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am guessing that Eisenhower and Reagan are turning over in their grave listening to the individuals on this thread that call themselves conservatives.

The pseudo intellectual conservatives wackos are all arguing that you do not lead by example. They are making excuses for the hypocrisy of many conswrvative leaders based on meaningless theoretical arguments that have very little to do with the real world.

How can you argue with if you talk the talk then you should walk the walk. Granted none of us are perfect but if we have a problem living up to what we are saying then we should start saying less and doing more.

Eisenhower would be looking at the social value conservatives as whackos, and Reagan would be telling his people to take the gay-haters and "turn their asses out into the alley."

Post-Newt/DeLay/Cheney politics has killed the political world of Reagan conservatism forever. The corporatists are manipulating the mindless.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

I have a problem with people who try to legislate MORALITY and have no morals themselves.

The way I look at it is:

a) We don't really know why they are divorcing.

b) We don't know for sure that this divorce is at his request and not hers. For all we know, he may have begged her not to leave him.

and

c) the fight against gay marriage has nothing to do with divorce. The attempt by the left to redefine the "Sanctity of Marriage" argument is bogus. First off, I believe that the Sanctity of Marriage prevents divorce, but that is my belief, I do not expect anyone else to adhere to that belief. Second, It is not the argument that has been made by the anti-gay marriage activist, of which I am not a part of. I believe in civil unions for all, but not because of the gay marriage issue. I believe that because the state has no business regulating marriage. However, the Sanctity of Marriage argument has always been about marriage being between one man and one woman and nothing more. As far as I know, divorce has not been brought up in the argument by Mr. Manchester or anyone else for that matter except for the lefties who are now trying to redefine the argument.

Mr. Manchester would be a hypocrite if, and only if, in his statements he has stated that no one should have a divorce AND this divorce is being sought by him, not his wife.

edit: Oh, I guess I should also say that he would be a hypocrite if he were divorcing her and moving in with a gay lover... now there would be hypocrisy at its finest!

Immie

As a practicing Catholic his position on divorce is clear.

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

do you know why these two are divorcing?......

Because marriage obviously wasnt really a sacred institution for either of them...

 

[Immanuel]

I have a problem with people who try to legislate MORALITY and have no morals themselves.

The way I look at it is:

a) We don't really know why they are divorcing.

b) We don't know for sure that this divorce is at his request and not hers. For all we know, he may have begged her not to leave him.

and

c) the fight against gay marriage has nothing to do with divorce. The attempt by the left to redefine the "Sanctity of Marriage" argument is bogus. First off, I believe that the Sanctity of Marriage prevents divorce, but that is my belief, I do not expect anyone else to adhere to that belief. Second, It is not the argument that has been made by the anti-gay marriage activist, of which I am not a part of. I believe in civil unions for all, but not because of the gay marriage issue. I believe that because the state has no business regulating marriage. However, the Sanctity of Marriage argument has always been about marriage being between one man and one woman and nothing more. As far as I know, divorce has not been brought up in the argument by Mr. Manchester or anyone else for that matter except for the lefties who are now trying to redefine the argument.

Mr. Manchester would be a hypocrite if, and only if, in his statements he has stated that no one should have a divorce AND this divorce is being sought by him, not his wife.

edit: Oh, I guess I should also say that he would be a hypocrite if he were divorcing her and moving in with a gay lover... now there would be hypocrisy at its finest!

Immie

As a practicing Catholic his position on divorce is clear.

If that were true, then no Catholic would use birth control. No Catholic would have an aboriton. No Catholic would divorce. Simply because he is a Catholic does not mean he agrees with every doctrine of his church. Of course, his priest would like to think he does, but, many Catholics do not agree with everything the Pope says, just as most Christians don't agree with all of the doctrines of their denominations.

I am tempted to change "most" to "all" in that, but then, maybe there are one or two who believe all their church's doctrines.

Immie

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Well the FACT is he could be ex-communicated for DIVORCE. So his faith is SO weak that he has to try to FORCE his views on OTHERS but can't live up to his views himself. How about that guy from the MEGA Church who was sleeping with a male prostitute AND using METH!?

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

If that were true, then no Catholic would use birth control. No Catholic would have an aboriton. No Catholic would divorce. Simply because he is a Catholic does not mean he agrees with every doctrine of his church. Of course, his priest would like to think he does, but, many Catholics do not agree with everything the Pope says, just as most Christians don't agree with all of the doctrines of their denominations.

I am tempted to change "most" to "all" in that, but then, maybe there are one or two who believe all their church's doctrines.

Immie

So then thats what religion is all about, eh... convenience is more important than the devotion to the principles of your religion.

 

[Immanuel]

Well the FACT is he could be ex-communicated for DIVORCE. So his faith is SO weak that he has to try to FORCE his views on OTHERS but can't live up to his views himself. How about that guy from the MEGA Church who was sleeping with a male prostitute AND using METH!?

Yes, he could be ex-communicated for that, however, I doubt the Catholic Church would go to such extremes. Church discipline (ex-communication is the most extreme) is supposed to be used to restore the sinner to the church not drive them away.

I do not know whom you are speaking about from the Mega Chruch. I may have heard the case, but don't at the moment recall of whom you speak. Can you please fill in the blanks.

Note: I'm not a fan of Mega Churches at all... most of them are "Prosperity Theology" and/or cults so I do my best to avoid them.

If that were true, then no Catholic would use birth control. No Catholic would have an aboriton. No Catholic would divorce. Simply because he is a Catholic does not mean he agrees with every doctrine of his church. Of course, his priest would like to think he does, but, many Catholics do not agree with everything the Pope says, just as most Christians don't agree with all of the doctrines of their denominations.

I am tempted to change "most" to "all" in that, but then, maybe there are one or two who believe all their church's doctrines.

Immie

So then thats what religion is all about, eh... convenience is more important than the devotion to the principles of your religion.

Yes and No. We are all sinners and most of us live by our experiences. Those experiences tend to guide our beliefs.

I consider myself realitively faithful to my denomination, as I understand it. I am a Missouri Synod Lutheran. My denomination believes in closed communion. If you need a description of what that is I will be glad to fill in the blanks, but for now will assume you know what it means. I personally believe that my denomination takes to conservative a view of the Sacrament of Holy Communion in those regards. I also find the fact that the LCMS does not ordain women to be troublesome to me. However, those are the doctrines of my church and I try to live by them.

I could of course, change denominations and find any number that agree with me in reference to those two doctrines, but I find the majority of the doctrines of the LCMS to fit my beliefs, therefore, I chose to remain with the LCMS. No one can find any denomination that they totally agree with.

I understand the Word of God to my fullest capacity. I have to accept that God will not hold my lack of understanding on particular doctrines of the church against me.

Immie

 

[bodecea]

If that were true, then no Catholic would use birth control. No Catholic would have an aboriton. No Catholic would divorce. Simply because he is a Catholic does not mean he agrees with every doctrine of his church. Of course, his priest would like to think he does, but, many Catholics do not agree with everything the Pope says, just as most Christians don't agree with all of the doctrines of their denominations.

I am tempted to change "most" to "all" in that, but then, maybe there are one or two who believe all their church's doctrines.

Immie

So then thats what religion is all about, eh... convenience is more important than the devotion to the principles of your religion.

Cafeteria Christianity, it's called.

 

[mal]

So then thats what religion is all about, eh... convenience is more important than the devotion to the principles of your religion.

Cafeteria Christianity, it's called.

Nope... It's called Sin... We are all Guilty of it.

It's just that Heterosexual Christians are NOT Demanding that the Church Validate the Sin of Infidelity or Perversion.

Homosexuals are.

But you Know this, Bodey.



peace...

 

[bodecea]

Well the FACT is he could be ex-communicated for DIVORCE. So his faith is SO weak that he has to try to FORCE his views on OTHERS but can't live up to his views himself. How about that guy from the MEGA Church who was sleeping with a male prostitute AND using METH!?

Yes, he could be ex-communicated for that, however, I doubt the Catholic Church would go to such extremes. Church discipline (ex-communication is the most extreme) is supposed to be used to restore the sinner to the church not drive them away.

I do not know whom you are speaking about from the Mega Chruch. I may have heard the case, but don't at the moment recall of whom you speak. Can you please fill in the blanks.

Note: I'm not a fan of Mega Churches at all... most of them are "Prosperity Theology" and/or cults so I do my best to avoid them.

If that were true, then no Catholic would use birth control. No Catholic would have an aboriton. No Catholic would divorce. Simply because he is a Catholic does not mean he agrees with every doctrine of his church. Of course, his priest would like to think he does, but, many Catholics do not agree with everything the Pope says, just as most Christians don't agree with all of the doctrines of their denominations.

I am tempted to change "most" to "all" in that, but then, maybe there are one or two who believe all their church's doctrines.

Immie

So then thats what religion is all about, eh... convenience is more important than the devotion to the principles of your religion.

Yes and No. We are all sinners and most of us live by our experiences. Those experiences tend to guide our beliefs.

I consider myself realitively faithful to my denomination, as I understand it. I am a Missouri Synod Lutheran. My denomination believes in closed communion. If you need a description of what that is I will be glad to fill in the blanks, but for now will assume you know what it means. I personally believe that my denomination takes to conservative a view of the Sacrament of Holy Communion in those regards. I also find the fact that the LCMS does not ordain women to be troublesome to me. However, those are the doctrines of my church and I try to live by them.

I could of course, change denominations and find any number that agree with me in reference to those two doctrines, but I find the majority of the doctrines of the LCMS to fit my beliefs, therefore, I chose to remain with the LCMS. No one can find any denomination that they totally agree with.

I understand the Word of God to my fullest capacity. I have to accept that God will not hold my lack of understanding on particular doctrines of the church against me.

Immie

LCMS...wasn't that the Church that defrocked a minister because he took part in an all-denominational service at Ground Zero? Not slamming, just asking.

 

[Immanuel]

Well the FACT is he could be ex-communicated for DIVORCE. So his faith is SO weak that he has to try to FORCE his views on OTHERS but can't live up to his views himself. How about that guy from the MEGA Church who was sleeping with a male prostitute AND using METH!?

Yes, he could be ex-communicated for that, however, I doubt the Catholic Church would go to such extremes. Church discipline (ex-communication is the most extreme) is supposed to be used to restore the sinner to the church not drive them away.

I do not know whom you are speaking about from the Mega Chruch. I may have heard the case, but don't at the moment recall of whom you speak. Can you please fill in the blanks.

Note: I'm not a fan of Mega Churches at all... most of them are "Prosperity Theology" and/or cults so I do my best to avoid them.

So then thats what religion is all about, eh... convenience is more important than the devotion to the principles of your religion.

Yes and No. We are all sinners and most of us live by our experiences. Those experiences tend to guide our beliefs.

I consider myself realitively faithful to my denomination, as I understand it. I am a Missouri Synod Lutheran. My denomination believes in closed communion. If you need a description of what that is I will be glad to fill in the blanks, but for now will assume you know what it means. I personally believe that my denomination takes to conservative a view of the Sacrament of Holy Communion in those regards. I also find the fact that the LCMS does not ordain women to be troublesome to me. However, those are the doctrines of my church and I try to live by them.

I could of course, change denominations and find any number that agree with me in reference to those two doctrines, but I find the majority of the doctrines of the LCMS to fit my beliefs, therefore, I chose to remain with the LCMS. No one can find any denomination that they totally agree with.

I understand the Word of God to my fullest capacity. I have to accept that God will not hold my lack of understanding on particular doctrines of the church against me.

Immie

LCMS...wasn't that the Church that defrocked a minister because he took part in an all-denominational service at Ground Zero? Not slamming, just asking.

Yes, it was, and that was another thing that I disagreed with, but I had forgotten about that. Hey! My denomination is not perfect, but my God is. But, we can work to change what is wrong with our organized religion.

Immie

 

[bodecea]

Yes, he could be ex-communicated for that, however, I doubt the Catholic Church would go to such extremes. Church discipline (ex-communication is the most extreme) is supposed to be used to restore the sinner to the church not drive them away.

I do not know whom you are speaking about from the Mega Chruch. I may have heard the case, but don't at the moment recall of whom you speak. Can you please fill in the blanks.

Note: I'm not a fan of Mega Churches at all... most of them are "Prosperity Theology" and/or cults so I do my best to avoid them.



Yes and No. We are all sinners and most of us live by our experiences. Those experiences tend to guide our beliefs.

I consider myself realitively faithful to my denomination, as I understand it. I am a Missouri Synod Lutheran. My denomination believes in closed communion. If you need a description of what that is I will be glad to fill in the blanks, but for now will assume you know what it means. I personally believe that my denomination takes to conservative a view of the Sacrament of Holy Communion in those regards. I also find the fact that the LCMS does not ordain women to be troublesome to me. However, those are the doctrines of my church and I try to live by them.

I could of course, change denominations and find any number that agree with me in reference to those two doctrines, but I find the majority of the doctrines of the LCMS to fit my beliefs, therefore, I chose to remain with the LCMS. No one can find any denomination that they totally agree with.

I understand the Word of God to my fullest capacity. I have to accept that God will not hold my lack of understanding on particular doctrines of the church against me.

Immie

LCMS...wasn't that the Church that defrocked a minister because he took part in an all-denominational service at Ground Zero? Not slamming, just asking.

Yes, it was, and that was another thing that I disagreed with, but I had forgotten about that. Hey! My denomination is not perfect, but my God is. But, we can work to change what is wrong with our organized religion.

Immie

Good talking with you.

 

[mal]

Bodey is Incapable of Responding to Post #172...

She has no Answer for it, so she Conveniently Ignores me... Now.

When it's Convenient for her to Troll, she will Acknowledge me.

Until then, her Incapability has been Illustrated.



peace...

 

[Immanuel]

Bodey is Incapable of Responding to Post #172...

She has no Answer for it, so she Conveniently Ignores me... Now.

When it's Convenient for her to Troll, she will Acknowledge me.

Until then, her Incapability has been Illustrated.



peace...

Actually, if you read post #172 again, you will find something weird about it. I found these two sentences hard to understand what you meant:

It's just that Heterosexual Christians are Demanding that the Church Validate the Sin of Infidelity or Perversion.

And

Homosexuals are.

I kind of just skipped over it because it didn't really make sense to me.

Heterosexuals are demanding...

Homosexuals are demanding...

Okay, both are demanding that the church validate sin? I am certain there must be a "not" somewhere in there. The whole thing just confused the hell out of me.

Immie

 

[mal]

Bodey is Incapable of Responding to Post #172...

She has no Answer for it, so she Conveniently Ignores me... Now.

When it's Convenient for her to Troll, she will Acknowledge me.

Until then, her Incapability has been Illustrated.



peace...

Actually, if you read post #172 again, you will find something weird about it. I found these two sentences hard to understand what you meant:

It's just that Heterosexual Christians are Demanding that the Church Validate the Sin of Infidelity or Perversion.

And

Homosexuals are.

I kind of just skipped over it because it didn't really make sense to me.

Heterosexuals are demanding...

Homosexuals are demanding...

Okay, both are demanding that the church validate sin? I am certain there must be a "not" somewhere in there. The whole thing just confused the hell out of me.

Immie

I Thought I edited that... Maybe it didn't take.

Heterosexual Christians are NOT Demanding that Church Validate Deviancy...



peace...

 

[Immanuel]

Bodey is Incapable of Responding to Post #172...

She has no Answer for it, so she Conveniently Ignores me... Now.

When it's Convenient for her to Troll, she will Acknowledge me.

Until then, her Incapability has been Illustrated.



peace...

Actually, if you read post #172 again, you will find something weird about it. I found these two sentences hard to understand what you meant:


And

Homosexuals are.

I kind of just skipped over it because it didn't really make sense to me.

Heterosexuals are demanding...

Homosexuals are demanding...

Okay, both are demanding that the church validate sin? I am certain there must be a "not" somewhere in there. The whole thing just confused the hell out of me.

Immie

I Thought I edited that... Maybe it didn't take.

Heterosexual Christians are NOT Demanding that Church Validate Deviancy...



peace...

You probably did and then hit the cancel button by mistake.

Immie

 

[Harry Dresden]

do you know why these two are divorcing?......

Because marriage obviously wasnt really a sacred institution for either of them...

oh really....what if....the women was found out to be fucking around....and he thought they had a good marriage....so he should stick with her....because he is supposed too?....would you?