Will Gay Marriage repudiation be next?

This is what I mean about the activist crowd screwing it up for everyone. They just don't know when to STFU. They're even pissing off the Hollywood crowd with this little stunt. Semper Fi Jennifer. Takes some guts to do what you did.
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/06/355...m_term=conservativedaily&utm_campaign=Culture


Like Page

Jennifer Aniston
T6rOep2Q11y.png
feeling awful with S.c. Serrati
Actor/Director · 455,903 Likes
· June 27 at 6:31pm ·


Now... I have nothing against people who are into same sex partnerships. However what I do have a problem with is this F**KING picture. How dare you compare your political struggle to what the Marines & Navy Corpsman went through on Iwo Jima. I get the whole meaning of you winning the "Uphill Battle" but this is tasteless, offensive, and disrespectful to those who gave their lives on that hill. You should be ashamed of yourselves for being hypocritical of those you claim offend your flag.
 
nitro said:
In my mind, the problem is with religion. If it didn't say in the bible that marriage is between a man and woman, no one would care as much as they do now. Children go to Sunday school and learn this stuff and being children, and being sent there by their parents, they are brainwashed. This is a direct result of putting some book written 2000 years ago by a bunch of farmers to be some ultimate moral compass. In fact, it is full of oppression.

But in the bible it also says this, and even in the most religious households in the US, no one in their right mind believes and practices this anymore:

5:22-6:9pp -- Col 3:18-4:1
22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word,
27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.
28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
29 After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church--
30 for we are members of his body.
31 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."
32 This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church.
33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
Ephesians 5:22-33
More...
But if we are to follow the Bible wouldn't polygamy be legal? I admit I'm not much of a biblical scholar. But if we are going to base our laws on the Bible as in a theocracy, and God knows wouldn't those stonings of impure women be rip roaring fun?, why do we make polygamy illegal? Polygamy sounds like much more fun than monogamy.
 
piezoe said:
But if we are to follow the Bible wouldn't polygamy be legal? I admit I'm not much of a biblical scholar. But if we are going to base our laws on the Bible as in a theocracy, and God knows wouldn't those stonings of impure women be rip roaring fun?, why do we make polygamy illegal? Polygamy sounds like much more fun than monogamy.
More...

Seeing how much nagging one wife does - can you imagine multiple wives.

:)
 
jem said:
...
b. So based on the precedent of the nullification of Marijuana laws, soon it might be time for the States to tell the Supreme Court and the Congress to back off and stick to the areas the constitution explicitly laid out for them.

...
More...
You are aware that the Constitution already specifically gives the House the power to decide what cases the Supreme Court can hear, aren't you? However the cat's already out of the bag in this case. To follow the Constitution the House has to prevent the Court from hearing the case in the first place! Gingrich pointed this out in one of the debates, and people were shocked. I guess one could conclude the U.S. Constitution is a shocking document. If it weren't such a risky enterprise, especially with all of these lunatic christians lurking about in the bushes, we should burn the Constitution and start over with African Americans counted as a whole person, the President elected by popular vote, and only Homo sapiens having first amendment rights!
 
Wait a minute. This ruling didn't mean I can't still take away the dignity of queers on the internet did it?

Oh, good!

smiley-bounce015.gif
 
I really liked Chief Justice Robert's dissent, I thought it was well reasoned. Roe v. Wade has been settled law since 1973, but that has not stopped States from legislating restrictions and limitations according to the religious and moral views of the electorate.

Personally, I could care two hoots if a gay couple wants to get married. There are plenty of really shitty heterosexual couples with a shipwreck for a home life and with horrific parenting skills. Furthermore, careful what you wish for. Half of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, and divorce is painful and expensive. Divorces are rarely amicable or constructively resolved with minimal damage. Up to this point, gay couples splitting up had no such legal contract to litigate in many States. Which, in the opinion of many, was much more ideal than a legal marriage.

My concerns were well addressed by Justice Roberts. The majority's ruling did not adequately address protections for the long standing religious tenets ( which are also supposed to be constitutionally protected ) for a substantial population of US citizens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top