Religious conservatives will never abandon Trump

[Cecilie1200]

Evangelicals are religious ? Lol....I'm sorry but having Christian's friends from Catholics to Greek orthodox I think those who call themselves evangelicals are the worst (highly likely bigots or racists, supported, slavery, racism, anti immigrants and anti refugees, gave us the most immoral human being as president) they are not religious.

These people who refer to themselves as "Christians" without any further identifier are trying to mold the Christian faith according to their sickness. They are an insult to every other Christian, Catholic, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Orthodox, and all the rest..

I always find it comical that progressives are far more judgemental than the people they are bitching about being judgemental.

Far less forgiving as well.

"Hate the sinner and the sin, and make sure they are ruined for life" The progressive mantra.

I'm not pro sex marriage, also anti abortion, beleive in God almighty...but I also know for a fact that evangelicals in the US are the biggest hypocrites and assholes in the world...or at least most of them. They preach and preach, and they thrive on hate racism and bigotry...and worse they voted overwhelmingly for the most evil **** in the world.

Newflash, Punkin: That isn't anything you KNOW. That's just a bunch of hatred and bitterness you FEEL, and you think it's knowledge because your bile has shortcircuited your brain . . . just like with any other vicious bigot.

Congratulations. You ARE the piece of shit you proclaim others to be.

Well here you are again without a reasonable argument just flinging insults, hate and bile all while accusing others of doing what you’re doing.

Here is no logical reason or to deny gays the right to marry but you want to do it anyway and you’re prepared to attack, vilify and denigrate anyone who tells you that your position is indefensible.

There is no cure for ignorant and stupid.

Well, here you are again, blithering about "reasonable arguments" as though you would know one when it fell on you.

Since you would have no way of knowing this, being you, I will explain that the only reasonable response a decent person can make to the spewing of hateful bigotry - REAL hateful bigotry, not the leftist version that consists of daring to disagree with them - is to tell the bigot in question that he's a hateful bigot. One does not dignify such garbage by pretending that it, or the person spewing it, are worthy of serious debate. Kinda like talking to you, actually.

 

[Lysistrata]

Being a male and a trump supporter, caring is probably too much to ask of you.

As for the supposed “conflict”, it’s a construct of your imagination. About 90% of catholic women practice contraception which was and likely still is antithetical to Church teachings. Women pretty much know the score when it comes to a bunch of people in state capitols making their healthcare decisions. This is why the contraception is used in the first place.

It’s a pretty easy scenario to understand. I’m sure if you try, you could too.

You equate caring with government overreach, or following progressive matras, typical.

Why did you have to shift to contraception of Catholics? I stated there are plenty of pro-life women, and you saw fit to ignore that?

Dodge, duck dip, dive, and dodge.

The fact that there are "pro-life" women adds nothing. The issue deals only with conditions inside a female' body. Presumably these women exercise autonomy. But plenty of women exist that are not "pro-life" and Big Government is trying to steal their autonomy.

It subtracts from the whole this is a "men vs. women" motif progressives try to play. Plenty of women are pro-life, particularly in places like Alabama and other Southern/midwestern States.

"Big Government" is really only at the federal level. What States do is more local annoying government, at least as long as they stay within the Constitution.

A state legislature deciding whom you can legally marry, what survivor benefits you’re entitled to, and prohibiting you from making your own healthcare decisions is not “big government”?

Yeah, I'm sure you'd like to pretend that state legislatures banned something that was previously allowed, but that's not how it worked.

The state government deciding what does and doesn't constitute a recognized marriage, for legal purposes, is actually exactly within the correct purview of government. It never stopped anyone from making binding legally-contractual arrangements of their own that just didn't happen to wear that particular label. This pretense of "without the word marriage, we couldn't write wills or medical powers of attorney!" is really old and threadbare.

A state government deciding what is a marriage tramples on a right held by the individual. Why should people go through all this legal maneuvering when they could simply get a license and have a ceremony, civil or religious, so that the contract they made must be recognized by all levels of government, including the federal government?

Is there any legal document that a couple can execute that would bind the federal government to pay out Social Security surviver's benefits to a surviving partner and allow the couple to file a joint tax return? What legal document would prevent greedy relatives from challenging a surviving partner's right to inherit.or a partner's right to decide on treatment of a patient?

Why should any couple be forced into a legal morass when other couples have access to a simple, streamlined procedure that grants them all of these rights and more?

Why not use the term "marriage" on the civil level? What would be the point of not using it? If a couple wants to enter into addtional obligations, they can marry in a ceremony within their religious group that outlines their additional religious responsibilities. Nobody is stopping you from doing this. I know that Jewish people include a contract in their wedding customs.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You equate caring with government overreach, or following progressive matras, typical.

Why did you have to shift to contraception of Catholics? I stated there are plenty of pro-life women, and you saw fit to ignore that?

Dodge, duck dip, dive, and dodge.

The fact that there are "pro-life" women adds nothing. The issue deals only with conditions inside a female' body. Presumably these women exercise autonomy. But plenty of women exist that are not "pro-life" and Big Government is trying to steal their autonomy.

It subtracts from the whole this is a "men vs. women" motif progressives try to play. Plenty of women are pro-life, particularly in places like Alabama and other Southern/midwestern States.

"Big Government" is really only at the federal level. What States do is more local annoying government, at least as long as they stay within the Constitution.

A state legislature deciding whom you can legally marry, what survivor benefits you’re entitled to, and prohibiting you from making your own healthcare decisions is not “big government”?

Yeah, I'm sure you'd like to pretend that state legislatures banned something that was previously allowed, but that's not how it worked.

The state government deciding what does and doesn't constitute a recognized marriage, for legal purposes, is actually exactly within the correct purview of government. It never stopped anyone from making binding legally-contractual arrangements of their own that just didn't happen to wear that particular label. This pretense of "without the word marriage, we couldn't write wills or medical powers of attorney!" is really old and threadbare.

A state government deciding what is a marriage tramples on a right held by the individual. Why should people go through all this legal maneuvering when they could simply get a license and have a ceremony, civil or religious, so that the contract they made must be recognized by all levels of government, including the federal government?

Is there any legal document that a couple can execute that would bind the federal government to pay out Social Security surviver's benefits to a surviving partner and allow the couple to file a joint tax return? What legal document would prevent greedy relatives from challenging a surviving partner's right to inherit.or a partner's right to decide on treatment of a patient?

Why should any couple be forced into a legal morass when other couples have access to a simple, streamlined procedure that grants them all of these rights and more?

Why not use the term "marriage" on the civil level? What would be the point of not using it? If a couple wants to enter into addtional obligations, they can marry in a ceremony within their religious group that outlines their additional religious responsibilities. Nobody is stopping you from doing this. I know that Jewish people include a contract in their wedding customs.

Way to start in the middle and misinterpret in all directions.

1) Last time I checked, there is no "individual right" to have any government entity define any contract, marital or otherwise, according to one's personal opinions.

2) Whether or not it would be "easier" for a particular individual to enter into one specific contractual arrangement rather than another is not relevant to whether or not that contractual arrangement is legally appropriate. I might think it's "easier" for me to pass on my property when I die if I marry my son (blech!) rather than write up a will, but that doesn't in any way convey some sort of "right" for me to choose the first contract rather than the second.

3) Anyone who thinks that simply getting married obviates the need for other legal arrangements in regards to wills, medical powers of attorney, etc. is a fucking moron who really needs a sit-down with an attorney and/or financial planner. I have been married for 24 years as of last month, and I can assure you that I still have both a will and a legal directive in the event of my medical incapacitation.

4) I don't personally approve of Social Security in the first place, and therefore have very little patience with the government saying, "We're going to take your money, whether you like it or not, to MAYBE give back to you when you're old, and if you die before you hit the magic age (or if you're too rich when you get there), we're just gonna keep it." I would quite frankly prefer that people's retirement funds be privatized and under their personal control to begin with.

5) If you think marriage/divorce is "simple and streamlined" in comparison to virtually any other legal arrangement to accomplish the same things, you're nuts. Getting into a marriage might be quick and easy, but nothing after that point is.

6) The point of not using the word "marriage" for things outside of its original meaning and intent is just that: words mean things. And "marriage" means a lot more things outside of the simple legislative recognition that homosexual activists pretend is their reason for demanding its redefinition. In fact, all the things it means outside of the basic legal and financial contract - which is supposed to be what the law is acknowledging - are the REAL reasons behind this fight.

 

[Lysistrata]

The fact that there are "pro-life" women adds nothing. The issue deals only with conditions inside a female' body. Presumably these women exercise autonomy. But plenty of women exist that are not "pro-life" and Big Government is trying to steal their autonomy.

It subtracts from the whole this is a "men vs. women" motif progressives try to play. Plenty of women are pro-life, particularly in places like Alabama and other Southern/midwestern States.

"Big Government" is really only at the federal level. What States do is more local annoying government, at least as long as they stay within the Constitution.

A state legislature deciding whom you can legally marry, what survivor benefits you’re entitled to, and prohibiting you from making your own healthcare decisions is not “big government”?

Yeah, I'm sure you'd like to pretend that state legislatures banned something that was previously allowed, but that's not how it worked.

The state government deciding what does and doesn't constitute a recognized marriage, for legal purposes, is actually exactly within the correct purview of government. It never stopped anyone from making binding legally-contractual arrangements of their own that just didn't happen to wear that particular label. This pretense of "without the word marriage, we couldn't write wills or medical powers of attorney!" is really old and threadbare.

A state government deciding what is a marriage tramples on a right held by the individual. Why should people go through all this legal maneuvering when they could simply get a license and have a ceremony, civil or religious, so that the contract they made must be recognized by all levels of government, including the federal government?

Is there any legal document that a couple can execute that would bind the federal government to pay out Social Security surviver's benefits to a surviving partner and allow the couple to file a joint tax return? What legal document would prevent greedy relatives from challenging a surviving partner's right to inherit.or a partner's right to decide on treatment of a patient?

Why should any couple be forced into a legal morass when other couples have access to a simple, streamlined procedure that grants them all of these rights and more?

Why not use the term "marriage" on the civil level? What would be the point of not using it? If a couple wants to enter into addtional obligations, they can marry in a ceremony within their religious group that outlines their additional religious responsibilities. Nobody is stopping you from doing this. I know that Jewish people include a contract in their wedding customs.

Way to start in the middle and misinterpret in all directions.

1) Last time I checked, there is no "individual right" to have any government entity define any contract, marital or otherwise, according to one's personal opinions.

2) Whether or not it would be "easier" for a particular individual to enter into one specific contractual arrangement rather than another is not relevant to whether or not that contractual arrangement is legally appropriate. I might think it's "easier" for me to pass on my property when I die if I marry my son (blech!) rather than write up a will, but that doesn't in any way convey some sort of "right" for me to choose the first contract rather than the second.

3) Anyone who thinks that simply getting married obviates the need for other legal arrangements in regards to wills, medical powers of attorney, etc. is a fucking moron who really needs a sit-down with an attorney and/or financial planner. I have been married for 24 years as of last month, and I can assure you that I still have both a will and a legal directive in the event of my medical incapacitation.

4) I don't personally approve of Social Security in the first place, and therefore have very little patience with the government saying, "We're going to take your money, whether you like it or not, to MAYBE give back to you when you're old, and if you die before you hit the magic age (or if you're too rich when you get there), we're just gonna keep it." I would quite frankly prefer that people's retirement funds be privatized and under their personal control to begin with.

5) If you think marriage/divorce is "simple and streamlined" in comparison to virtually any other legal arrangement to accomplish the same things, you're nuts. Getting into a marriage might be quick and easy, but nothing after that point is.

6) The point of not using the word "marriage" for things outside of its original meaning and intent is just that: words mean things. And "marriage" means a lot more things outside of the simple legislative recognition that homosexual activists pretend is their reason for demanding its redefinition. In fact, all the things it means outside of the basic legal and financial contract - which is supposed to be what the law is acknowledging - are the REAL reasons behind this fight.

Marriage is a right residing with an individual. Furthemore, no government has the right to tell anyone with whom to contract or not, and marriage contracts are treated differently than other contracts, legally speaking..

The marriage contract is easy to enter into, without all the forms. We are not talking about getting out of it. What federal form did you fill out that obligates the federal government to accept a joint tax return from you and your spouse or destribute survivor's benefits to your spouse if something happens to you?

You don't have any right to interfer with other people's civil rights just because you

The term "marriage" is statutory. If you got married in your cult ceremony, the person who offiated still had to sign a legal document, but you still got your bibble stuff even though you weren't married at the courthouse and the only thing that you signed was your license.

Your membership in a cult that you chose doesn't give you the right to interfere with anyone else's civil rights. The world doesn't revolve around you.

 

[Seawytch]

No, actually I would not. If he were Christian and the prison only offered an Imam be in the room, I'd respond the same way I am now, with outrage. The difference is that if that were the case, you'd be outraged and you aren't now.

Tell us seawitch...what church do you attend again?

What difference does that make to the Constitution?

Oy vey...did I ask you about the Constitution?

What difference does it make to the conversation then?

Certain groups have a hatred for Christianity. I think it would explain your virulent anti american, anti western and anti Christian views.
Or maybe I have ESP or am making a lucky guess. By odds I have only a 1.7% chance if being correct...right?
So what religion do you claim?

Irony. Which has nothing to do with the government elevating one religion over another.

 

[DOTR]

Tell us seawitch...what church do you attend again?

What difference does that make to the Constitution?

Oy vey...did I ask you about the Constitution?

What difference does it make to the conversation then?

Certain groups have a hatred for Christianity. I think it would explain your virulent anti american, anti western and anti Christian views.
Or maybe I have ESP or am making a lucky guess. By odds I have only a 1.7% chance if being correct...right?
So what religion do you claim?

Irony. Which has nothing to do with the government elevating one religion over another.

That’s ok. I think we know what you are.

 

[Seawytch]

He wasn't allowed in the death chamber, because the law as set up didn't allow it. The guy was not denied an Imam prior to being in the death chamber.

The issue becomes that if he was allowed in, the people trying to get his sentence commuted would have also appealed for THAT, because the State was then not following the rules of the death chamber.

Catch-22 situation.

But one religious representative WAS allowed in, elevating that one above all others. Directly in violation of the Constitution.

The law was probably from a time when it wasn't considered. Blame the legislature for not updating the law.

Again, if they HAD let the guy in, I guarantee his defense attorneys would have claimed a violation of execution chamber procedure and sought a stay.

The rule in question is that no one is allowed in the execution chamber who is not an employee of the Department of Corrections. One assumes it's a matter of security and safety, and I am willing to defer to the prison staff's superior knowledge and expertise on that subject.

Whether or not the Department of Corrections has any imams on its chaplain staff, or whether or not any imams have even TRIED to become part of the staff, is unclear from that article.

It appears that the Supreme Court felt that the inmate had waited far too long to address the question and that made it likely just an attempt to delay his execution.

The prisoner did not find out until it was "too late". Seems like the only compelling interest of the government was to kill the man as quickly as possible. It would seem to me that protecting Constitutional rights is the more compelling state interest than killing someone, don't you?

Apparently, he did. Seems like you're making more ASSumptions.

Yes, you're an ass, but that is irrelevant.

The warden denied his request to have an imam by his side on Jan. 23, and Ray filed his complaint five days later, Kagan wrote. And Alabama state law explicitly provides that the inmate's spiritual adviser of choice "may be present at an execution," she wrote.​

Justices Let Alabama Execute Death Row Inmate Who Wanted Imam By His Side

 

[Seawytch]

What difference does that make to the Constitution?

Oy vey...did I ask you about the Constitution?

What difference does it make to the conversation then?

Certain groups have a hatred for Christianity. I think it would explain your virulent anti american, anti western and anti Christian views.
Or maybe I have ESP or am making a lucky guess. By odds I have only a 1.7% chance if being correct...right?
So what religion do you claim?

Irony. Which has nothing to do with the government elevating one religion over another.

That’s ok. I think we know what you are.

An American that supports the Constitution?

 

[DOTR]

Oy vey...did I ask you about the Constitution?

What difference does it make to the conversation then?

Certain groups have a hatred for Christianity. I think it would explain your virulent anti american, anti western and anti Christian views.
Or maybe I have ESP or am making a lucky guess. By odds I have only a 1.7% chance if being correct...right?
So what religion do you claim?

Irony. Which has nothing to do with the government elevating one religion over another.

That’s ok. I think we know what you are.

An American that supports the Constitution?

Sure. That’s what I’m thinking of.

 

[Seawytch]

[


1) We don't believe sperm are sacred. We never have. The whole sperm thing is a left-wing attempt at dodging the issue of abortion by way of left-wing abysmal ignorance of basic reproductive biology. Just because you baby-killing mouthbreathers have spent the last 50 years shouting, "If you think abortion is murder, then you have to think masturbation is too!" does NOT in any way make your stupidity any part of OUR beliefs.

Who is "we"? Genesis 38 has been misinterpreted by Christians for centuries.

6 For his first son Er, Judah got a wife whose name was Tamar.

7 Er’s conduct was evil, and it displeased the LORD, so the LORD killed him.

8 Then Judah said to Er’s brother Onan, “Go and sleep with your brother’s widow. Fulfill your obligation to her as her husband’s brother, so that your brother may have descendants.”

9 But Onan knew that the children would not belong to him, so when he had intercourse with his brother’s widow, he let the semen spill on the ground, so that there would be no children for his brother.

10 What he did displeased the LORD, and the LORD killed him also.

I can't tell you how much I value your "wisdom" on how we are "misinterpreting" the Bible because we don't see it the way you do. I can't tell you, because it's impossible to measure negatives to that extent.

Again, who is "we"? Just you and your rice crispies? What do "we" believe this passage refers to?

 

[DOTR]

[


1) We don't believe sperm are sacred. We never have. The whole sperm thing is a left-wing attempt at dodging the issue of abortion by way of left-wing abysmal ignorance of basic reproductive biology. Just because you baby-killing mouthbreathers have spent the last 50 years shouting, "If you think abortion is murder, then you have to think masturbation is too!" does NOT in any way make your stupidity any part of OUR beliefs.

Who is "we"? Genesis 38 has been misinterpreted by Christians for centuries.

6 For his first son Er, Judah got a wife whose name was Tamar.

7 Er’s conduct was evil, and it displeased the LORD, so the LORD killed him.

8 Then Judah said to Er’s brother Onan, “Go and sleep with your brother’s widow. Fulfill your obligation to her as her husband’s brother, so that your brother may have descendants.”

9 But Onan knew that the children would not belong to him, so when he had intercourse with his brother’s widow, he let the semen spill on the ground, so that there would be no children for his brother.

10 What he did displeased the LORD, and the LORD killed him also.

I can't tell you how much I value your "wisdom" on how we are "misinterpreting" the Bible because we don't see it the way you do. I can't tell you, because it's impossible to measure negatives to that extent.

Again, who is "we"? Just you and your rice crispies? What do "we" believe this passage refers to?

Cecile you should recognize that she will never know what “we” means. Or rather she does...and feels hatred for it.
I know that’s not pleasant but it’s true.

 

[Dragonlady]

These people who refer to themselves as "Christians" without any further identifier are trying to mold the Christian faith according to their sickness. They are an insult to every other Christian, Catholic, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Orthodox, and all the rest..

I always find it comical that progressives are far more judgemental than the people they are bitching about being judgemental.

Far less forgiving as well.

"Hate the sinner and the sin, and make sure they are ruined for life" The progressive mantra.

I'm not pro sex marriage, also anti abortion, beleive in God almighty...but I also know for a fact that evangelicals in the US are the biggest hypocrites and assholes in the world...or at least most of them. They preach and preach, and they thrive on hate racism and bigotry...and worse they voted overwhelmingly for the most evil **** in the world.

Newflash, Punkin: That isn't anything you KNOW. That's just a bunch of hatred and bitterness you FEEL, and you think it's knowledge because your bile has shortcircuited your brain . . . just like with any other vicious bigot.

Congratulations. You ARE the piece of shit you proclaim others to be.

Well here you are again without a reasonable argument just flinging insults, hate and bile all while accusing others of doing what you’re doing.

Here is no logical reason or to deny gays the right to marry but you want to do it anyway and you’re prepared to attack, vilify and denigrate anyone who tells you that your position is indefensible.

There is no cure for ignorant and stupid.

Well, here you are again, blithering about "reasonable arguments" as though you would know one when it fell on you.

Since you would have no way of knowing this, being you, I will explain that the only reasonable response a decent person can make to the spewing of hateful bigotry - REAL hateful bigotry, not the leftist version that consists of daring to disagree with them - is to tell the bigot in question that he's a hateful bigot. One does not dignify such garbage by pretending that it, or the person spewing it, are worthy of serious debate. Kinda like talking to you, actually.

Again, you spew hate, bile, and contempt, but there isn't a real reason you've provided that would indicate that your rights have been impugned by gay marriage.

All you have is intolerance and hate, all while fuming about intolerance and hate from the left.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It subtracts from the whole this is a "men vs. women" motif progressives try to play. Plenty of women are pro-life, particularly in places like Alabama and other Southern/midwestern States.

"Big Government" is really only at the federal level. What States do is more local annoying government, at least as long as they stay within the Constitution.

A state legislature deciding whom you can legally marry, what survivor benefits you’re entitled to, and prohibiting you from making your own healthcare decisions is not “big government”?

Yeah, I'm sure you'd like to pretend that state legislatures banned something that was previously allowed, but that's not how it worked.

The state government deciding what does and doesn't constitute a recognized marriage, for legal purposes, is actually exactly within the correct purview of government. It never stopped anyone from making binding legally-contractual arrangements of their own that just didn't happen to wear that particular label. This pretense of "without the word marriage, we couldn't write wills or medical powers of attorney!" is really old and threadbare.

A state government deciding what is a marriage tramples on a right held by the individual. Why should people go through all this legal maneuvering when they could simply get a license and have a ceremony, civil or religious, so that the contract they made must be recognized by all levels of government, including the federal government?

Is there any legal document that a couple can execute that would bind the federal government to pay out Social Security surviver's benefits to a surviving partner and allow the couple to file a joint tax return? What legal document would prevent greedy relatives from challenging a surviving partner's right to inherit.or a partner's right to decide on treatment of a patient?

Why should any couple be forced into a legal morass when other couples have access to a simple, streamlined procedure that grants them all of these rights and more?

Why not use the term "marriage" on the civil level? What would be the point of not using it? If a couple wants to enter into addtional obligations, they can marry in a ceremony within their religious group that outlines their additional religious responsibilities. Nobody is stopping you from doing this. I know that Jewish people include a contract in their wedding customs.

Way to start in the middle and misinterpret in all directions.

1) Last time I checked, there is no "individual right" to have any government entity define any contract, marital or otherwise, according to one's personal opinions.

2) Whether or not it would be "easier" for a particular individual to enter into one specific contractual arrangement rather than another is not relevant to whether or not that contractual arrangement is legally appropriate. I might think it's "easier" for me to pass on my property when I die if I marry my son (blech!) rather than write up a will, but that doesn't in any way convey some sort of "right" for me to choose the first contract rather than the second.

3) Anyone who thinks that simply getting married obviates the need for other legal arrangements in regards to wills, medical powers of attorney, etc. is a fucking moron who really needs a sit-down with an attorney and/or financial planner. I have been married for 24 years as of last month, and I can assure you that I still have both a will and a legal directive in the event of my medical incapacitation.

4) I don't personally approve of Social Security in the first place, and therefore have very little patience with the government saying, "We're going to take your money, whether you like it or not, to MAYBE give back to you when you're old, and if you die before you hit the magic age (or if you're too rich when you get there), we're just gonna keep it." I would quite frankly prefer that people's retirement funds be privatized and under their personal control to begin with.

5) If you think marriage/divorce is "simple and streamlined" in comparison to virtually any other legal arrangement to accomplish the same things, you're nuts. Getting into a marriage might be quick and easy, but nothing after that point is.

6) The point of not using the word "marriage" for things outside of its original meaning and intent is just that: words mean things. And "marriage" means a lot more things outside of the simple legislative recognition that homosexual activists pretend is their reason for demanding its redefinition. In fact, all the things it means outside of the basic legal and financial contract - which is supposed to be what the law is acknowledging - are the REAL reasons behind this fight.

Marriage is a right residing with an individual. Furthemore, no government has the right to tell anyone with whom to contract or not, and marriage contracts are treated differently than other contracts, legally speaking..

The marriage contract is easy to enter into, without all the forms. We are not talking about getting out of it. What federal form did you fill out that obligates the federal government to accept a joint tax return from you and your spouse or destribute survivor's benefits to your spouse if something happens to you?

You don't have any right to interfer with other people's civil rights just because you

The term "marriage" is statutory. If you got married in your cult ceremony, the person who offiated still had to sign a legal document, but you still got your bibble stuff even though you weren't married at the courthouse and the only thing that you signed was your license.

Your membership in a cult that you chose doesn't give you the right to interfere with anyone else's civil rights. The world doesn't revolve around you.

Was there some point at which I said, "Gosh, Lice, PLEASE state your personal screwed-all-to-hell worldview to me as established fact, because I am going to respect it just as if it came from a real person"? Because if I did, I certainly don't remember it.

Let me know when you have something meaningful to say. IF that ever happens.

 

[Dragonlady]

A state legislature deciding whom you can legally marry, what survivor benefits you’re entitled to, and prohibiting you from making your own healthcare decisions is not “big government”?

Yeah, I'm sure you'd like to pretend that state legislatures banned something that was previously allowed, but that's not how it worked.

The state government deciding what does and doesn't constitute a recognized marriage, for legal purposes, is actually exactly within the correct purview of government. It never stopped anyone from making binding legally-contractual arrangements of their own that just didn't happen to wear that particular label. This pretense of "without the word marriage, we couldn't write wills or medical powers of attorney!" is really old and threadbare.

A state government deciding what is a marriage tramples on a right held by the individual. Why should people go through all this legal maneuvering when they could simply get a license and have a ceremony, civil or religious, so that the contract they made must be recognized by all levels of government, including the federal government?

Is there any legal document that a couple can execute that would bind the federal government to pay out Social Security surviver's benefits to a surviving partner and allow the couple to file a joint tax return? What legal document would prevent greedy relatives from challenging a surviving partner's right to inherit.or a partner's right to decide on treatment of a patient?

Why should any couple be forced into a legal morass when other couples have access to a simple, streamlined procedure that grants them all of these rights and more?

Why not use the term "marriage" on the civil level? What would be the point of not using it? If a couple wants to enter into addtional obligations, they can marry in a ceremony within their religious group that outlines their additional religious responsibilities. Nobody is stopping you from doing this. I know that Jewish people include a contract in their wedding customs.

Way to start in the middle and misinterpret in all directions.

1) Last time I checked, there is no "individual right" to have any government entity define any contract, marital or otherwise, according to one's personal opinions.

2) Whether or not it would be "easier" for a particular individual to enter into one specific contractual arrangement rather than another is not relevant to whether or not that contractual arrangement is legally appropriate. I might think it's "easier" for me to pass on my property when I die if I marry my son (blech!) rather than write up a will, but that doesn't in any way convey some sort of "right" for me to choose the first contract rather than the second.

3) Anyone who thinks that simply getting married obviates the need for other legal arrangements in regards to wills, medical powers of attorney, etc. is a fucking moron who really needs a sit-down with an attorney and/or financial planner. I have been married for 24 years as of last month, and I can assure you that I still have both a will and a legal directive in the event of my medical incapacitation.

4) I don't personally approve of Social Security in the first place, and therefore have very little patience with the government saying, "We're going to take your money, whether you like it or not, to MAYBE give back to you when you're old, and if you die before you hit the magic age (or if you're too rich when you get there), we're just gonna keep it." I would quite frankly prefer that people's retirement funds be privatized and under their personal control to begin with.

5) If you think marriage/divorce is "simple and streamlined" in comparison to virtually any other legal arrangement to accomplish the same things, you're nuts. Getting into a marriage might be quick and easy, but nothing after that point is.

6) The point of not using the word "marriage" for things outside of its original meaning and intent is just that: words mean things. And "marriage" means a lot more things outside of the simple legislative recognition that homosexual activists pretend is their reason for demanding its redefinition. In fact, all the things it means outside of the basic legal and financial contract - which is supposed to be what the law is acknowledging - are the REAL reasons behind this fight.

Marriage is a right residing with an individual. Furthemore, no government has the right to tell anyone with whom to contract or not, and marriage contracts are treated differently than other contracts, legally speaking..

The marriage contract is easy to enter into, without all the forms. We are not talking about getting out of it. What federal form did you fill out that obligates the federal government to accept a joint tax return from you and your spouse or destribute survivor's benefits to your spouse if something happens to you?

You don't have any right to interfer with other people's civil rights just because you

The term "marriage" is statutory. If you got married in your cult ceremony, the person who offiated still had to sign a legal document, but you still got your bibble stuff even though you weren't married at the courthouse and the only thing that you signed was your license.

Your membership in a cult that you chose doesn't give you the right to interfere with anyone else's civil rights. The world doesn't revolve around you.

Was there some point at which I said, "Gosh, Lice, PLEASE state your personal screwed-all-to-hell worldview to me as established fact, because I am going to respect it just as if it came from a real person"? Because if I did, I certainly don't remember it.

Let me know when you have something meaningful to say. IF that ever happens.

You have now fully conceded that you have no arguments whatsoever and the only thing you have is condescension and hate.

Your concession is noted.

 

[Mike Dwight]

Well Somebody had to elect him, didn't they? Somebody with somewhere else to be, on a big church bus who doesn't make much sense. I only go to Churches that want me to buy them, anyway. Hey, you still like us saying Christian? How about it?

 

[candycorn]

Yeah, I'm sure you'd like to pretend that state legislatures banned something that was previously allowed, but that's not how it worked.

The state government deciding what does and doesn't constitute a recognized marriage, for legal purposes, is actually exactly within the correct purview of government. It never stopped anyone from making binding legally-contractual arrangements of their own that just didn't happen to wear that particular label. This pretense of "without the word marriage, we couldn't write wills or medical powers of attorney!" is really old and threadbare.

A state government deciding what is a marriage tramples on a right held by the individual. Why should people go through all this legal maneuvering when they could simply get a license and have a ceremony, civil or religious, so that the contract they made must be recognized by all levels of government, including the federal government?

Is there any legal document that a couple can execute that would bind the federal government to pay out Social Security surviver's benefits to a surviving partner and allow the couple to file a joint tax return? What legal document would prevent greedy relatives from challenging a surviving partner's right to inherit.or a partner's right to decide on treatment of a patient?

Why should any couple be forced into a legal morass when other couples have access to a simple, streamlined procedure that grants them all of these rights and more?

Why not use the term "marriage" on the civil level? What would be the point of not using it? If a couple wants to enter into addtional obligations, they can marry in a ceremony within their religious group that outlines their additional religious responsibilities. Nobody is stopping you from doing this. I know that Jewish people include a contract in their wedding customs.

Way to start in the middle and misinterpret in all directions.

1) Last time I checked, there is no "individual right" to have any government entity define any contract, marital or otherwise, according to one's personal opinions.

2) Whether or not it would be "easier" for a particular individual to enter into one specific contractual arrangement rather than another is not relevant to whether or not that contractual arrangement is legally appropriate. I might think it's "easier" for me to pass on my property when I die if I marry my son (blech!) rather than write up a will, but that doesn't in any way convey some sort of "right" for me to choose the first contract rather than the second.

3) Anyone who thinks that simply getting married obviates the need for other legal arrangements in regards to wills, medical powers of attorney, etc. is a fucking moron who really needs a sit-down with an attorney and/or financial planner. I have been married for 24 years as of last month, and I can assure you that I still have both a will and a legal directive in the event of my medical incapacitation.

4) I don't personally approve of Social Security in the first place, and therefore have very little patience with the government saying, "We're going to take your money, whether you like it or not, to MAYBE give back to you when you're old, and if you die before you hit the magic age (or if you're too rich when you get there), we're just gonna keep it." I would quite frankly prefer that people's retirement funds be privatized and under their personal control to begin with.

5) If you think marriage/divorce is "simple and streamlined" in comparison to virtually any other legal arrangement to accomplish the same things, you're nuts. Getting into a marriage might be quick and easy, but nothing after that point is.

6) The point of not using the word "marriage" for things outside of its original meaning and intent is just that: words mean things. And "marriage" means a lot more things outside of the simple legislative recognition that homosexual activists pretend is their reason for demanding its redefinition. In fact, all the things it means outside of the basic legal and financial contract - which is supposed to be what the law is acknowledging - are the REAL reasons behind this fight.

Marriage is a right residing with an individual. Furthemore, no government has the right to tell anyone with whom to contract or not, and marriage contracts are treated differently than other contracts, legally speaking..

The marriage contract is easy to enter into, without all the forms. We are not talking about getting out of it. What federal form did you fill out that obligates the federal government to accept a joint tax return from you and your spouse or destribute survivor's benefits to your spouse if something happens to you?

You don't have any right to interfer with other people's civil rights just because you

The term "marriage" is statutory. If you got married in your cult ceremony, the person who offiated still had to sign a legal document, but you still got your bibble stuff even though you weren't married at the courthouse and the only thing that you signed was your license.

Your membership in a cult that you chose doesn't give you the right to interfere with anyone else's civil rights. The world doesn't revolve around you.

Was there some point at which I said, "Gosh, Lice, PLEASE state your personal screwed-all-to-hell worldview to me as established fact, because I am going to respect it just as if it came from a real person"? Because if I did, I certainly don't remember it.

Let me know when you have something meaningful to say. IF that ever happens.

You have now fully conceded that you have no arguments whatsoever and the only thing you have is condescension and hate.

Your concession is noted.

Really, have you encountered a more dreadful person on this board than Cecilie1200 ?

 

[DOTR]

Yeah, I'm sure you'd like to pretend that state legislatures banned something that was previously allowed, but that's not how it worked.

The state government deciding what does and doesn't constitute a recognized marriage, for legal purposes, is actually exactly within the correct purview of government. It never stopped anyone from making binding legally-contractual arrangements of their own that just didn't happen to wear that particular label. This pretense of "without the word marriage, we couldn't write wills or medical powers of attorney!" is really old and threadbare.

A state government deciding what is a marriage tramples on a right held by the individual. Why should people go through all this legal maneuvering when they could simply get a license and have a ceremony, civil or religious, so that the contract they made must be recognized by all levels of government, including the federal government?

Is there any legal document that a couple can execute that would bind the federal government to pay out Social Security surviver's benefits to a surviving partner and allow the couple to file a joint tax return? What legal document would prevent greedy relatives from challenging a surviving partner's right to inherit.or a partner's right to decide on treatment of a patient?

Why should any couple be forced into a legal morass when other couples have access to a simple, streamlined procedure that grants them all of these rights and more?

Why not use the term "marriage" on the civil level? What would be the point of not using it? If a couple wants to enter into addtional obligations, they can marry in a ceremony within their religious group that outlines their additional religious responsibilities. Nobody is stopping you from doing this. I know that Jewish people include a contract in their wedding customs.

Way to start in the middle and misinterpret in all directions.

1) Last time I checked, there is no "individual right" to have any government entity define any contract, marital or otherwise, according to one's personal opinions.

2) Whether or not it would be "easier" for a particular individual to enter into one specific contractual arrangement rather than another is not relevant to whether or not that contractual arrangement is legally appropriate. I might think it's "easier" for me to pass on my property when I die if I marry my son (blech!) rather than write up a will, but that doesn't in any way convey some sort of "right" for me to choose the first contract rather than the second.

3) Anyone who thinks that simply getting married obviates the need for other legal arrangements in regards to wills, medical powers of attorney, etc. is a fucking moron who really needs a sit-down with an attorney and/or financial planner. I have been married for 24 years as of last month, and I can assure you that I still have both a will and a legal directive in the event of my medical incapacitation.

4) I don't personally approve of Social Security in the first place, and therefore have very little patience with the government saying, "We're going to take your money, whether you like it or not, to MAYBE give back to you when you're old, and if you die before you hit the magic age (or if you're too rich when you get there), we're just gonna keep it." I would quite frankly prefer that people's retirement funds be privatized and under their personal control to begin with.

5) If you think marriage/divorce is "simple and streamlined" in comparison to virtually any other legal arrangement to accomplish the same things, you're nuts. Getting into a marriage might be quick and easy, but nothing after that point is.

6) The point of not using the word "marriage" for things outside of its original meaning and intent is just that: words mean things. And "marriage" means a lot more things outside of the simple legislative recognition that homosexual activists pretend is their reason for demanding its redefinition. In fact, all the things it means outside of the basic legal and financial contract - which is supposed to be what the law is acknowledging - are the REAL reasons behind this fight.

Marriage is a right residing with an individual. Furthemore, no government has the right to tell anyone with whom to contract or not, and marriage contracts are treated differently than other contracts, legally speaking..

The marriage contract is easy to enter into, without all the forms. We are not talking about getting out of it. What federal form did you fill out that obligates the federal government to accept a joint tax return from you and your spouse or destribute survivor's benefits to your spouse if something happens to you?

You don't have any right to interfer with other people's civil rights just because you

The term "marriage" is statutory. If you got married in your cult ceremony, the person who offiated still had to sign a legal document, but you still got your bibble stuff even though you weren't married at the courthouse and the only thing that you signed was your license.

Your membership in a cult that you chose doesn't give you the right to interfere with anyone else's civil rights. The world doesn't revolve around you.

Was there some point at which I said, "Gosh, Lice, PLEASE state your personal screwed-all-to-hell worldview to me as established fact, because I am going to respect it just as if it came from a real person"? Because if I did, I certainly don't remember it.

Let me know when you have something meaningful to say. IF that ever happens.

You have now fully conceded that you have no arguments whatsoever and the only thing you have is condescension and hate.

Your concession is noted.

Remember when you said Trump would lose and take the House and Senate with him?

 

[Seawytch]

[


1) We don't believe sperm are sacred. We never have. The whole sperm thing is a left-wing attempt at dodging the issue of abortion by way of left-wing abysmal ignorance of basic reproductive biology. Just because you baby-killing mouthbreathers have spent the last 50 years shouting, "If you think abortion is murder, then you have to think masturbation is too!" does NOT in any way make your stupidity any part of OUR beliefs.

Who is "we"? Genesis 38 has been misinterpreted by Christians for centuries.

6 For his first son Er, Judah got a wife whose name was Tamar.

7 Er’s conduct was evil, and it displeased the LORD, so the LORD killed him.

8 Then Judah said to Er’s brother Onan, “Go and sleep with your brother’s widow. Fulfill your obligation to her as her husband’s brother, so that your brother may have descendants.”

9 But Onan knew that the children would not belong to him, so when he had intercourse with his brother’s widow, he let the semen spill on the ground, so that there would be no children for his brother.

10 What he did displeased the LORD, and the LORD killed him also.

I can't tell you how much I value your "wisdom" on how we are "misinterpreting" the Bible because we don't see it the way you do. I can't tell you, because it's impossible to measure negatives to that extent.

Again, who is "we"? Just you and your rice crispies? What do "we" believe this passage refers to?

Cecile you should recognize that she will never know what “we” means. Or rather she does...and feels hatred for it.
I know that’s not pleasant but it’s true.

I’m asking who she thinks she’s speaking for because the “sperm as sacred” issue has been long debated in religion.

 

[Seawytch]

A state government deciding what is a marriage tramples on a right held by the individual. Why should people go through all this legal maneuvering when they could simply get a license and have a ceremony, civil or religious, so that the contract they made must be recognized by all levels of government, including the federal government?

Is there any legal document that a couple can execute that would bind the federal government to pay out Social Security surviver's benefits to a surviving partner and allow the couple to file a joint tax return? What legal document would prevent greedy relatives from challenging a surviving partner's right to inherit.or a partner's right to decide on treatment of a patient?

Why should any couple be forced into a legal morass when other couples have access to a simple, streamlined procedure that grants them all of these rights and more?

Why not use the term "marriage" on the civil level? What would be the point of not using it? If a couple wants to enter into addtional obligations, they can marry in a ceremony within their religious group that outlines their additional religious responsibilities. Nobody is stopping you from doing this. I know that Jewish people include a contract in their wedding customs.

Way to start in the middle and misinterpret in all directions.

1) Last time I checked, there is no "individual right" to have any government entity define any contract, marital or otherwise, according to one's personal opinions.

2) Whether or not it would be "easier" for a particular individual to enter into one specific contractual arrangement rather than another is not relevant to whether or not that contractual arrangement is legally appropriate. I might think it's "easier" for me to pass on my property when I die if I marry my son (blech!) rather than write up a will, but that doesn't in any way convey some sort of "right" for me to choose the first contract rather than the second.

3) Anyone who thinks that simply getting married obviates the need for other legal arrangements in regards to wills, medical powers of attorney, etc. is a fucking moron who really needs a sit-down with an attorney and/or financial planner. I have been married for 24 years as of last month, and I can assure you that I still have both a will and a legal directive in the event of my medical incapacitation.

4) I don't personally approve of Social Security in the first place, and therefore have very little patience with the government saying, "We're going to take your money, whether you like it or not, to MAYBE give back to you when you're old, and if you die before you hit the magic age (or if you're too rich when you get there), we're just gonna keep it." I would quite frankly prefer that people's retirement funds be privatized and under their personal control to begin with.

5) If you think marriage/divorce is "simple and streamlined" in comparison to virtually any other legal arrangement to accomplish the same things, you're nuts. Getting into a marriage might be quick and easy, but nothing after that point is.

6) The point of not using the word "marriage" for things outside of its original meaning and intent is just that: words mean things. And "marriage" means a lot more things outside of the simple legislative recognition that homosexual activists pretend is their reason for demanding its redefinition. In fact, all the things it means outside of the basic legal and financial contract - which is supposed to be what the law is acknowledging - are the REAL reasons behind this fight.

Marriage is a right residing with an individual. Furthemore, no government has the right to tell anyone with whom to contract or not, and marriage contracts are treated differently than other contracts, legally speaking..

The marriage contract is easy to enter into, without all the forms. We are not talking about getting out of it. What federal form did you fill out that obligates the federal government to accept a joint tax return from you and your spouse or destribute survivor's benefits to your spouse if something happens to you?

You don't have any right to interfer with other people's civil rights just because you

The term "marriage" is statutory. If you got married in your cult ceremony, the person who offiated still had to sign a legal document, but you still got your bibble stuff even though you weren't married at the courthouse and the only thing that you signed was your license.

Your membership in a cult that you chose doesn't give you the right to interfere with anyone else's civil rights. The world doesn't revolve around you.

Was there some point at which I said, "Gosh, Lice, PLEASE state your personal screwed-all-to-hell worldview to me as established fact, because I am going to respect it just as if it came from a real person"? Because if I did, I certainly don't remember it.

Let me know when you have something meaningful to say. IF that ever happens.

You have now fully conceded that you have no arguments whatsoever and the only thing you have is condescension and hate.

Your concession is noted.

Really, have you encountered a more dreadful person on this board than Cecilie1200 ?

That isn’t a caricature? No.

 

[Dragonlady]

A state government deciding what is a marriage tramples on a right held by the individual. Why should people go through all this legal maneuvering when they could simply get a license and have a ceremony, civil or religious, so that the contract they made must be recognized by all levels of government, including the federal government?

Is there any legal document that a couple can execute that would bind the federal government to pay out Social Security surviver's benefits to a surviving partner and allow the couple to file a joint tax return? What legal document would prevent greedy relatives from challenging a surviving partner's right to inherit.or a partner's right to decide on treatment of a patient?

Why should any couple be forced into a legal morass when other couples have access to a simple, streamlined procedure that grants them all of these rights and more?

Why not use the term "marriage" on the civil level? What would be the point of not using it? If a couple wants to enter into addtional obligations, they can marry in a ceremony within their religious group that outlines their additional religious responsibilities. Nobody is stopping you from doing this. I know that Jewish people include a contract in their wedding customs.

Way to start in the middle and misinterpret in all directions.

1) Last time I checked, there is no "individual right" to have any government entity define any contract, marital or otherwise, according to one's personal opinions.

2) Whether or not it would be "easier" for a particular individual to enter into one specific contractual arrangement rather than another is not relevant to whether or not that contractual arrangement is legally appropriate. I might think it's "easier" for me to pass on my property when I die if I marry my son (blech!) rather than write up a will, but that doesn't in any way convey some sort of "right" for me to choose the first contract rather than the second.

3) Anyone who thinks that simply getting married obviates the need for other legal arrangements in regards to wills, medical powers of attorney, etc. is a fucking moron who really needs a sit-down with an attorney and/or financial planner. I have been married for 24 years as of last month, and I can assure you that I still have both a will and a legal directive in the event of my medical incapacitation.

4) I don't personally approve of Social Security in the first place, and therefore have very little patience with the government saying, "We're going to take your money, whether you like it or not, to MAYBE give back to you when you're old, and if you die before you hit the magic age (or if you're too rich when you get there), we're just gonna keep it." I would quite frankly prefer that people's retirement funds be privatized and under their personal control to begin with.

5) If you think marriage/divorce is "simple and streamlined" in comparison to virtually any other legal arrangement to accomplish the same things, you're nuts. Getting into a marriage might be quick and easy, but nothing after that point is.

6) The point of not using the word "marriage" for things outside of its original meaning and intent is just that: words mean things. And "marriage" means a lot more things outside of the simple legislative recognition that homosexual activists pretend is their reason for demanding its redefinition. In fact, all the things it means outside of the basic legal and financial contract - which is supposed to be what the law is acknowledging - are the REAL reasons behind this fight.

Marriage is a right residing with an individual. Furthemore, no government has the right to tell anyone with whom to contract or not, and marriage contracts are treated differently than other contracts, legally speaking..

The marriage contract is easy to enter into, without all the forms. We are not talking about getting out of it. What federal form did you fill out that obligates the federal government to accept a joint tax return from you and your spouse or destribute survivor's benefits to your spouse if something happens to you?

You don't have any right to interfer with other people's civil rights just because you

The term "marriage" is statutory. If you got married in your cult ceremony, the person who offiated still had to sign a legal document, but you still got your bibble stuff even though you weren't married at the courthouse and the only thing that you signed was your license.

Your membership in a cult that you chose doesn't give you the right to interfere with anyone else's civil rights. The world doesn't revolve around you.

Was there some point at which I said, "Gosh, Lice, PLEASE state your personal screwed-all-to-hell worldview to me as established fact, because I am going to respect it just as if it came from a real person"? Because if I did, I certainly don't remember it.

Let me know when you have something meaningful to say. IF that ever happens.

You have now fully conceded that you have no arguments whatsoever and the only thing you have is condescension and hate.

Your concession is noted.

Remember when you said Trump would lose and take the House and Senate with him?

No I don’t.