"Sidenote: Jesus Christ lived in a period of time during which homosexual sex was widely practised, and during which the love between two men was considered by some to be superior to the love between a man and a woman."
By who?
Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Posts by The Yell
"Sidenote: Jesus Christ lived in a period of time during which homosexual sex was widely practised, and during which the love between two men was considered by some to be superior to the love between a man and a woman."
By who?
Remember the Golden Rule
Set fire to it and shoot the runners
consent of the governed works better than dictatorship
Also we are not wet behind the ears, we been flaming since the internet came up so any violation is pretty much deliberate
we are dealing with the first generation of mods that never knew civil discussion
I don't think it has been, some of the ancient Greeks had it as something young guys and adult men could do, but not adult men. Which doesn't fit our model of marriage anymore than Semite polygamy does. I take the view that we're programmed to be satisfied by pine boards, and what we do to each other is culture--and we are totally free to choose or reject our culture.
It's a high school cheer over here
We are ahead in the score
We are ahead in the score
Our victory is self-evident and for the sake of brevity we'll leave it at that
If the secular elite think they can ORDER the religious public to put the government first and God is something they can have after they eat their peas, then, they can have the same trouble Caesar had. Viva Cristo Rey!
we 'head
we 'head
that's all need to be said
"- Denying "marriage" to same-sex couples cause of religious reasons is a sham for homophobia. Either you chose to follow the bible all of the time or not at all. As the first option isn't picked (or even possible), you lose all ground to prohibit same sex marriages on religious grounds.
==> An example of not following the bible is Timotheus famous statement about women instucting men."
Wonderful, have the government make authoritative rulings as to the proper teaching of Christianity? That's why we have the First Amendment in this county.
We ordered the Government to stop screwing with religion because such intervention promotes strife every time its tried. Now the federal courts have evolved the insane theory that a democratic majority enacting laws based on a religious code are totally discriminatory and void -- and that the courts are free to decide what's based on religious codes and what's based on sound public policy. It's sophistry and causistry, and assbackwards logic -- such decisions are NOT the logical development of basic principles but patchwork justification for arbitrary powergrabs by the court.
For instance, we do NOT, EVER, ANYWHERE, rate the severity of a theft by an examination of whether the victim could afford to suffer it. Steal the only car from a mechanic: felony theft. Steal a car from Jay Leno, who has dozens: felony theft. We don't care that Jay Leno is frustrated while the mechanic is ruined. And why? Because the laws against theft are based on the Biblical provision THOU SHALL NOT STEAL. Discrimination! -- except these guys, as I say, are not trying to interpret situations based on principles, they are inventing new principles to cover the situtational results they desire. It stinks the way "separate but equal" stank. For the same reason.
That Perry decision has the courts in a turmoil, which is why they are handling it with eggshells. Yeah they'd love to order that gay marriage is required by the 14th Amendment; the problem is that the judge who did so is gay himself, and went overboard issuing "findings of fact" like "Religious beliefs that homosexual relationships are sinful do harm to gays and lesbians" and "Homosexual relationships are entitled to the same cultural legitimacy as heterosexual relationships" then attempted to shut down appeal by denying standing to the plaintiffs AFTER he ruled against them.
( Can homosexuals now get federal injunctions against the teaching of Islam since it harms them? Can Justin Beiber sue the Boston Philharmonic to obtain cultural legitimacy? How will the federal courts dish out cultural legitimacy-- is it enough to block disrespect of Justin Bieber, or do they have to positively perform acts of respect for him?)
In our legal system a finding of fact is part of the permanent record of the United States -- if the Supreme Court unanimously overturns the decision you can still cite it, you're just obliged to add "Overturned by US Supreme Court".
This is NOT the sort of hand grenade a judge is supposed to toss on his last day on the bench...so they're struggling to make that totally clear without throwing away the conclusion they want...writhe, slither, twist
Its the personal interpretation that is being challenged though. In the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case in CA that mandated gay marriage, the judge said that homosexuals are entitled to the same cultural legitimacy as heterosexuals and civil unions are discriminatory because they don't accord them the same level of dignity-- in other words, everybody else has the wrong attitude about gay marriage and the government is going to decree that change.
""We've had historically close matches" with Canada, Wambach said. "Because of the physical nature of the game, sometimes it's closer than maybe we think it ought to be.
"We don't want to make it a physical game. We want to play good soccer. But if it comes down to that, I know we're up for the challenge."
There will be a silver and bronze in women's football but the gold goes for best soccer! U! S! A!! U! S! A!!
The irony is palpable
/cops a feel of the irony
obtained an assisted-living monkey through fraud
"Following the presidential victory of the Muslim Brotherhood's Muhammad Morsi, the very first fatwa to appear by Egypt's highest fatwa council addresses
i like Muslim Brothers zinfandel
it is now about what other people think of homosexuals, and cruelly adhering to bigotry in the face of superior enlightenment
>>Not surprised that is the case some places, but surely not all places. I have said this would be an off-grid area, and as such, I do not think I would be hindered from camping on my land while building my cabin. Besides, the amount of land would have to be a few acres - enough arable land to grow food and maintain balance in the natural environment, to sustain the basic living needs of myself and family, and so I don't think my 'camp' would be visble from the road or the neighbors.<
Not only did the Supreme Court sign off on this scam, but in 2005 in a 5-4 decision called Kelo vs (somebody) they said that any level of government can seize your campsite and give it to Walmart on the sound theory that Walmart would pay more taxes than any mere inhabitant.
(Case involved Mr. and Mrs. Kelo who had their home taken from them for rockbottom prices so a developer could build a mall. Us rightwing nuts gleefully point out that the developer has abandoned the project, so, what were once nice taxpaying homes is now a dirt lot)
Most places are in on these scams to the hilt. I was looking at homesteading in Alaska; you can buy some acre lots from the state. No road, no electricity, no water, no sewer, no gas. They're accessible by boat or airplane. To buy in you have to join the Homeowners Association
the grabbing hands
grab what they can
everything counts in large amounts
Sadly it is no longer possible to live in a camper on your own land while you build. the courts have accepted the theory that your neighbors property values are affected by you camping out; therefore the county can regulate how long and where and what time you can camp out, because by breathing on your own land is "harming" everybody around you. Also for that reason they can demand a permit to build your solar array, and free to charge you up the yingyang to do it. AND, even if they allow all that, parking on your own lawn is especially harmful to property values, because it attracts people who aren't anal retentive, and they have less money than control freaks, thus, lowering prices and "harming" your neighbors and shrinking the tax base, thus justifying impounding your vehicle.
""The pupil reacts very quickly, and it is unconscious, so it's a method that gives us a subconscious indicator"
That's not true though; as a four-eyed freak I know well that my focus is consciously shifting to what I THINK should be seen more clearly. I saw it, but my eye left it out of focus, my brain interprets it as something that should be stared at, and THEN my eye moves to it.
i'm holding out for energon cubes
same old so-ong
just a drop of water in an endless sea
alll we doooo
crumbles to the ground but we refuse to seeee
Dust in the wind
all we are is dust in the wiiiind
once again my jingoism is thwarted by some jerk's rogue penis
Imperial Forum → Posts by The Yell
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.