And it shall be headed by a church man
Actually, there is no such thing as a homosexual person, any more than there is such a thing as a heterosexual person. The words are adjectives describing sexual acts, not people. The sexual acts are entirely normal; if they were not, no one would perform them
we can safely say bigotry lost.
Since all my readers are quite informed, this post requires no background. We have aurora telling us, in her own words
I can understand the mindset and the worldview of wanting “equality” for everyone. I am opposed to slavery and am grateful for the steps toward equal rights for African Americans in the United States. I am opposed to sexism and am so thankful to live in an era where women are allowed to vote, go to college and compete with men for jobs in engineering and medicine. And I believe that all human beings have dignity, value and worth. But I cannot support gay marriage.
Even though she understands the mindset that advocates equality for everyone, if he had her way, she would only grant those freedoms she thinks others need, nothing more.
And she knows our friend Pink is unhappy. She writes
But at my core, I do not believe that marrying someone of the same gender is ultimately for their good; I do not believe it will result in true and lasting joy.
One would be left wondering if all other marriages live in bliss so that if LGBTs get married, only them will be unhappy.
When god speaks to Job, he is being evasive and a bully. Job only wants to know why he is suffering. I see no way this chapter is relevant to LGBTs getting fair treatment before the law. It should always be remembered, had the state and church not concerned itself with who marries who, this court case would not have arisen. The only reason the state should have its nose in private affairs, should be limited to protecting minors or those being abused but nothing more.
And then she declares where she stands, without leaving room for any ambiguity
I tend to have Libertarian leanings. I am Pro-Life, opposed to gay marriage, and in support of keeping “under God” in the pledge.
I don’t know what she would say were Muslims, once they are the majority, ask to have under Allah in the pledge.
If as she says
And He wants us to enjoy pleasure and experience happiness. But He knows what will lead to our ultimate joy, and that is to be patient and wait until marriage.
it could have within her god’s power to make it such that the desire for sex only came once a person was married and never before. Since this is not the case, I suggest she takes the matter to a celestial court. While we are here, those who want to have sex will continue to, married or not and others will be miserable and others not so. In case it is lost on her, when you begin to have sex has no bearing on whether you will be happy or sad.
And, young woman, if this
Wives, how many of you have insecurities because your husbands made love to other women before he met you? Is he comparing me to her? Is he thinking of her when he’s with me?
is your greatest worry, then you have a long way to go and I suggest the best way out for you is to become a nun or remain celibate.
I believe when she writes
Premarital sex undermines the marriage, and – knowing that – God in His love and wisdom asks us to wait.
she hasn’t heard of the man who was divorced because he had a small manhood.
While she worries that there could be an earthquake in heaven because people are in a celebratory mood, it would do her much good to concern herself with living her life. Nothing is going to change. She will still walk to work, go to church on Sunday and only date men. No one is going to force her to date another woman.
If it will help her sleep, I would like to tell her she is mistaken in thinking
God was not surprised by this ruling; He is sovereign and knew about this day before the beginning of time (Eph. 1).
unless she is ready to admit that the 5 justices were working against her omni god and won.
As many others before me have written, these are the disasters Aurora and others like her can expect will happen now.
Have a great weekend everyone.
Theists often ask why are we antagonistic towards religion. Many times am not, but when religious dimwits following their religious dogmas feel they have a right to legislate, then I have to use every word in my arsenal to show they are not only idiots but are meddling with people’s lives where they have no say whatsoever. Their religious beliefs are only for them to follow not all of us who don’t adhere to their dogma.
The fellow captioned above who claims to be an SDA member believes members of the LGBT community should be stoned to death. He calls this a deterrence method. He argues homosexuality is not African. I want to be told what is African in being SDA or believing in a goat herders god. I am waiting to be told, until then I call bull on him and his colleagues.
I would like to know what rot his ilk talk about when they mention LGBTs.
Straight couples fuck left right and centre. If there is any rot, it is found in matrimonial beds where the couples are straight.
For legislators or their cohorts to think they can criminalize homosexuality or they can by doing so moralize a nation that went to the dogs eons ago, they really must be very foolish.
This sort of argument
Their rights are not in isolation. Whoever drafted the Constitution knows that rights are practised in society. You cannot spoil that society in which you are. You cannot dilute its morals
points to a fellow who uses his arse not his brains if he has any. One wonders how being gay dilutes the morals of a society. I am tired of all this idiocy.
This is a response to Caroline’s post , equal rights for adulterers, where one would think she is arguing against adultery but it is her attempt attacking those arguing for the equal rights of LGBTs to marry.
Before we get to Caroline, let us define our terms, shall we?
a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same-sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b: the mutual relation of married persons ;
c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially: the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities3 : an intimate or close union
Let us hear what Caroline is telling her audience
The argument for same-sex marriage says that denying that right to gays is discriminatory and unfair. No…it’s not. No more than denying the right to have multiple spouses, have sex with a ten-year old, or marry your mother. Equal worth does not mandate equal opportunities.
How she sees that this isn’t discriminatory I don’t get. She is referring to a slippery slope that doesn’t even exist. I have got news for Caroline, one no one in their right mind is going to marry their mothers, no body wants to have sex with 10 year olds and you really must be naive to think that to grant a gay couple the right to marry will lead to any of the things you mention. With the rate of divorce across the board, many people marry several spouses in one lifetime that at the end it really makes no much difference.
No one is trying to stop gays from setting up house together. But redefining marriage should absolutely be off the table.
Did you look at the definitions I gave [they were from MW dictionary] so who is trying to redefine marriage? I bet it is Caroline who want marriage to be defined in Christian terms as if marriage is only a christian affair!
I believe the primary reason is that only then will they feel that their lifestyle has legitimacy and acceptance.
You got it all wrong. This is a bigoted stand and you know it. How is their marriage going to affect yours?
But legitimizing homosexuality by redefining marriage will inevitably result in my right to religious freedom being infringed on, as I will be forced to condone (or at least not oppose) and help support a lifestyle that I believe is a sin. Just as normalizing and destigmatizing polygamy would. I am NOT saying I’m less of a sinner than your average, law-abiding homosexual. I AM saying that redefining marriage and sin is like introducing an indestructible killer virus into society.
Now this got to me seriously! Her religious freedom my foot! Is she being asked to be gay? Well Caroline you will have to show us that your god exists and that your religious claims have a truth value before you can tell us of your religious freedom. A sin is an offense against god and it is this god Caroline and her ilk her failed to define to existence. How can she then claim this god will be offended? Caroline and your ilk, first ensure there are no divorces in your traditional marriage then and only then can you start talking about other people’s lives. And while you are at it, please tell me when you chose to be heterosexual, this information will help many generations in the future.
Am guessing Caroline is a citizen of the US of A and this is what the constitution says about religion
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I will say here that am not versed in law, but please tell me where in the above it says gays shall not be allowed to get married because it is this clause that deals with religious freedom? I am aware there is a petition before the SCOTUS on marriage. Here, here and here are some articles on what has been going on in the court and for a person like Caroline to argue as she does is to pretend ignorance of the facts.
Are you ready for same-sex marriage to be forced on you? Are you okay with sharing your spouse?
How many people have been forced to drink alcohol since it was made legal? How many people are forced to smoke because smoking is legal? Last time I checked no one was forcing anything on anyone and unless Caroline can support this claim it would be fair to consider her a bigot.
Polygamy is almost certainly next in line to be demanded as a human right. What defense would we have for prohibiting it once the traditional family unit is debased?
Don’t worry, just ask your husband not to love another woman and if he does, divorce him.
Friend this is what I call homophobia and idiocy!