Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: The Myth About Marriage
Source:
New York Review of Books
URL Source: http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblo ... s%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
Published: May 13, 2012
Author: Garry Wills
Post Date: 2012-05-13 10:23:43 by lucysmom
Keywords: None
Views: 62153
Comments: 126
Why do some people who would recognize gay civil unions oppose gay marriage? Certain religious groups want to deny gays the sacredeness of what they take to be a sacrament. But marriage is no sacrament. Some of my fellow Catholics even think that “true marriage” was instituted by Christ. It wasn’t. Marriage is prescribed in Eden by YHWH (Yahweh) at Genesis 2.24: man and wife shall “become one flesh.” When Jesus is asked about marriage, he simply quotes that passage from Genesis (Mark 10.8). He nowhere claims to be laying a new foundation for a “Christian marriage” to replace the Yahwist institution. Some try to make the wedding at Cana (John 1.1-11) somehow sacramental because Jesus worked his first miracle there. But that was clearly a Jewish wedding, like any other Jesus might have attended, and the miracle, by its superabundance of wine, is meant to show the disciples that the Messianic time has come. The great Johannine scholar Father Raymond Brown emphasizes this, and concludes of the passage: “Neither the external nor the internal evidence for a symbolic reference to matrimony is strong. The wedding is only the backdrop and occasion for the story, and the joining of the man and woman does not have any direct role in the narrative.” The early church had no specific rite for marriage. This was left up to the secular authorities of the Roman Empire, since marriage is a legal concern for the legitimacy of heirs. snip Those who do not want to let gay partners have the sacredness of sacramental marriage are relying on a Scholastic fiction of the thirteenth century to play with people’s lives, as the church has done ever since the time of Aquinas. The myth of the sacrament should not let people deprive gays of the right to natural marriage, whether blessed by Yahweh or not. They surely do not need—since no one does—the blessing of Saint Thomas.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: lucysmom (#0)
How about if the faggots keep seaming two plus two equals seven thousand. We exercise our religous freedom under the first amendment and exterminate them. If the democrats can exterminate innocent babies. Maybe the good people should start exterminating worthless piece of shit faggots.
ping
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
You sound like some dumb ass dyke. You can only be married once. There is no real divorce. If you "divorce" and "remarry". You are committing adultery every time you sleep with your new "wife". You liberals are to wacked out. I'm sorry but it is looking like extermination is the only option. Sorry about your luck.
You've so over used that murdering babies stuff, it's lost it's shock value.
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
I don't have a wife, old or new.
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
And it wasn't two fags getting married, which is why there was no repeat of Jesus driving the money changers out of the temple.
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
There is no such thing as "gay marriage." Marriage is between a man and a woman PERIOD. The discussion is about "gay bonding" which is a totally different idea. I fixed your thread.
As a civil matter, marriage is whatever the law says it is.
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
Oh just GREAT! The law based upon a pile of silly people that want to "change" something decide to make homosexuals have babies. That is too cool. Is it possible or are there more miracles running around today than baby Jesus?
I see you as the malicious one here throwing out all kinds of intolerance and desire to run other people's live for them. Marriage is a private commitment between two people, and what gender someone prefers ina partner is their business alone. I support marriage for everyone, and Lucymom's right; throwing around the abortion issue makes no sense considering you would want babies aborted if they came up with a test that would show who is going to be a gay or lesbian adult while the person is still a fetus. You make it plain you have blood lust for homosexuals, so you just look conflicted if you postulate any other opinion regarding that.
That is silly. The law can only change what the law can create.
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
? Then how can homosexuals enter "marriage" if they can't have children naturally?
Homosexuals have babies all the time. My city has quite a large enclave of lesbian couples and singles. many of the couples have had children vis a vis artificial insemination. The 'they can't beget children' gambit makes no rational sense as an anti-homosexual argument unless one also takes the position that infertile couples of all kinds, even those not any longer of child bearing years should break up as their relationships no longer have any raison de etre because children can not come from it.
What Ferret Mike said.
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
WoW! I learn something new everyday! Can you provide a few details on this phenomena?
Explain to me how the 'phenomena' of heterosexual coupes using a surrogate mother or another man's sperm to conceive a child when the husband shoots blanks does not establish the precedent that marriage is about commitment and the bonding between two people. marriage is not just to creating an entity where both participants of the contract create children or the deal's off. Your point of order is moot in the face of the truth that people of all persuasions have all kinds of reproductive options, or options not to reproduce, and none of this has any legal bearing on whether a marriage is allowable or not.
My question that YOU jumped on was about natural birth. Now, you are ranting about all kinds of ways that are clearly beyond the scope of my question much less the thread. Look pal, let me explain "the birds&the bees" to ya: women have babies however it takes a man to have sex with her, hence a man and a women are the ENTIRE BASIS of MARRIAGE. Lesbian couples don't have babies naturally. Gay couples do not have babies naturally. But women have babies when with a man. Marriage is about procreation; the family unit and the raising of children. Your incredible idea that men can have babies is even more difficult to understand than a virgin can have a baby Jesus. CASE CLOSED! NEXT CASE!
That is clearly not true. St. Ambrose (340-397) in his letter to Siricius (Ep. xlii, 3, in P.L., XVI, 1124): "Since the contracting of marriage must be sanctified by the veiling and the blessing of the priest, how can there be any mention of a marriage, when unity of faith is wanting?" Also there is this: There are many other sources out there that clearly show that there was some sort of church rite involved in marriage. Was there a "specific rite"? I have no idea, but considering the distances and different traditions involved, I doubt it. Those who do not want to let gay partners have the sacredness of sacramental marriage are relying on a Scholastic fiction of the thirteenth century to play with people’s lives, The problem with this statement is that ALL Catholic Churches, even the ones that have been separated from Rome since the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (i.e. the so-called "Oriental Churches"), recognize and have always recognized the sacrament of marriage. So do the so-called Orthodox Churches, who separated from Rome in 1054. Having said all that, I agree with the author to a point. I don't care whether or not two men or two women marry, as long as the government does not force a religious institution to do it. If they want a judge or some other secular body to marry them, fine by me. That is between them and Our Lord. They will have to stand in front of God just like the rest of us. In my not so humble opinion it is immoral and not Biblical to use the force of government to stop them from offending The Lord. That is not our job as Christians to do. Jesus himself stated: "Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." Nowhere does it say use the force of government to stop him or her from trespassing against you. The more authoritarian and self-righteous among us will vehemently disagree, and that's fine too. We'll find out soon enough who was right and who was wrong.
Lesbian couples don't have babies naturally. Gay couples do not have babies naturally. But women have babies when with a man. Marriage is about procreation; the family unit and the raising of children. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, "Abba, Father." Romans 8:14-16
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
All you show is your intolerance of the commitment and love one person can have for another. What I already states has standing in and of itself to debunk your truism about procreation. Just fact it Buck, this is about a difference of opinion where your premise that marriage is solely about procreation is just a way to excuse your own irrational hatred off and intolerance of others. Nothing else.
"friendship" or "sexual relations" is not MARRIAGE! NEXT CASE!
Then forbid the marriage of those who cannot in any way procreate. Then make all reproductive options all couples have other than two young fertile heterosexuals making babies by making bacon illegal. Your logic has more holes then a wheel of Swiss cheese. Next.
I don't see that there any significant conflict between the article I posted and what you've said.
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
But for Adamf no suitable helperv was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep;w and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribsg and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the ribh x he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh;y she shall be calledz ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.a” 24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is unitedb to his wife, and they become one flesh.c This confusion about marriage stems from the false idea that marriages are made on earth. If marriage exists as simply an earthly custom, then marriage will change as customs change. Are marriages made in heaven? Yes! God in heaven made marriage. He declared, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” … Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man (Genesis 2:18, 22). God established marriage with the first man and first woman whom he created. Jesus confirmed this understanding of marriage. He taught, “What God has joined together, let man not separate” (Matthew 19:6). God created marriage as his blessing for all people. Genesis 2:24, tells us God’s plan to continue marriage following Adam and Eve. For all time, God designed marriage for one man and one woman to be united together in a life-long relationship. The proper understanding of marriage helps us have the proper understanding of God’s love. God established the eternal union between his Son Jesus and Jesus’ Bride, the Church who are all believers. Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her. He died for the sins of his Bride. He cleansed the guilt of his Bride with the power of baptism. He lives and rules in heaven now, waiting to bring his Bride into the glory of the life to come. God made marriage in heaven for people on earth. When the earth no longer exists and earthly marriage has passed away, God’s faithful people will enjoy a wedding feast with Jesus that lasts forever. Had God thought another man would suffice for Adam he'd only have made another man. But then they wouldn't have been able to go forth and multiply either. They'd have died out or as we saw at Sodom and Gomorrah they were willfully snuffed out by God Himself for the abomination they had become. For their sexual perversions and evils God destroyed them.
All the major religious institutions from thousands of years ago used to perform that very point that you bring up. Perhaps the world's oldest religion is Hinduism and it permitted this escape clause. The Jews certainly did as well. Today, a marriage escape clause popularly known as "divorce" can occur just because you may have had a bad hair day. And American culture makes a man pay dearly, too.
God created marriage, it is as sacred as life itself. It is no coincidence that in the Old Testament when God placed the death penalty on murder, he placed the same sentence on adultery (Leviticus 20:10). To violate the marriage vow is as serious as murder.
I don't see that there any significant conflict between the article I posted and what you've said. I disagree. To say that "...This (the marriage rite) was left up to the secular authorities of the Roman Empire, since marriage is a legal concern for the legitimacy of heirs" is an inaccurate portrayal of the situation. The fact, as I have shown, is that there was indeed a marriage rite and that marriage was not "left up to the secular authorities of the Roman Empire." Marriage was much more than just a "legal concern for the legitimacy of heirs" to a Christian couple getting married. You may not consider that to be significant, and I respect that, but I consider it to be very significant because it shows that his attempt to delegitimize the Church in order to make his point is not factual.
So if the Church is all believers and all believers includes men, then how can the Church be the bride of Christ? If the Church is the bride and Christ is the husband, how does that marriage is about having natural born children apply?
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
marriage is not just for people of your religion. Because you have a religious base for how you and others of your faith would do marriage, why do you think you should force others by law to conform to it? Mormons believe that one can seal a marriage beyond the grave. They believe a man who keeps the covenants can get his own universe and god status whereby he and a goddess he sealed the bond with while corporeal can make baby spirits. These spirits are meant in the Mormon faith to be plucked down to Earth to assume corporeal form and have their human lives begin. How would you like if it they were a majority and forced you to accept the sealing concept and the added dimension of procreation in a way codified into law. How would you as a Christian like to see Mormons who are in sealed marriages get legal advantages over your regular marriage because this was a legal standard to work with? If you find this an odious thought, then welcome to the world much in the same way as gay couples are often forced to deal with it because of the irrational hatred and intolerant of others.
The Gospels use this connection as an example of the righteous tie between believers in Christ and Christ Himself. But it also illuminates the sacredness of the marriage union.
I don't really care what other religions believe. This nation was founded on the Judeo/Christian belief. What they care to do in other nations is up to them and God will Judge all nations.
No one is forcing a particular religion on any others. In this nation everyone has a right to believe what they will, but our laws and our customs are formed from the Original Laws of the Judeo/Christian religion. If our country abandons it's heritage and the very thing that made it so successful for so long, with the Grace of God and His blessings, you can be sure that the failure of the nation will be a direct result. We can see the fruit of that kind of thinking already in this nation. And History itself shows this to be true.
And no one's commitment to a bond between two people should have to banned and in a legal sense made inconsequential purely on the religious beliefs of one group. The United States is not a theocracy. There is a Constitution here that gives freedom of or from religion. And that Constitution is there to protect minority groups from the capriciousness and malevolent whims of the majority. Until everyone has the legal right to marry, this albatross of injustice is a stink that hangs around everyone's neck. An injustice to one is an injustice to all.
By the way, to refuse the blessings of a God created union between a man and a woman to two people of the same sex is not hatred and it isn't intolerance. It is upholding what God Himself put together and not perverting it.
What is unjust is for homosexuals to want to pervert the marriage vows that God bestowed on ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. They may desire to thwart God by declaring their desire to be just like heterosexuals in the marriage union, but alas God will not change His mind about their perversion regardless of the charade they attempt to force on the rest of society.
He says specific marriage rite and you agreed that was most likely so. He also argues that marriage is not a sacrament - here's what the Catholic Church says: The exact definition of a sacrament is that it is "an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace."
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
Why should that have anything to do with a civil marriage?
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
This nation was founded by men who came from a Judeo/Christian background and choose to not codify religious practice into secular law, for instance, Americans are free to work on the sabbath if they chose and a profit can be made (all hail the god of the free market, commerce be upon him!)
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
In all honesty I don't care if homosexuals want a civil marriage and go to the court house to do it. But they keep banging on church's doors and demanding a Christian ceremony. And I'll tell you this for certain. They don't give a crap about "equality" with heterosexuals, they care about demanding that others in society and especially those in religious faiths deny that their homosexuality is not an abomination of natural law. It is this small minority who are forcing others to accept their deviancy as being as normal as heterosexual unions. For we Christians who adhere to the Gospel of Christ, it's never going to happen. They think they are going to win a great victory when they can pervert God's law by marrying in the church. The only thing they're going to get is God's wrath.
Christians are allowed to work on the sabbath. As Christ said when asked about work on the sabbath He said if your donkey falls in a well on a sabbath are you going to ignore the donkey in the well because of the sabbath? In other words we are free to work and do what we must on the sabbath. What our founders chose to do was make sure that the State couldn't force religion on the people.
Really? I don't doubt you, but that's news to me. Would you please post a link or two.
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
But he also said, "this was left up to the secular authorities of the Roman Empire, since marriage is a legal concern for the legitimacy of heirs." Nothing was "left up to the secular authorities of the Roman empire" and Christians did not get married simply because "marriage is a legal concern for the legitimacy of heirs." Whether or not the church at that time had a uniform, one-size-fits-all marriage rite is neither here nor there. The fact is, of which there is tons of evidence, the Christian church had marriage rites at least as early as the 4th century. In fact, as my quotes and link show, until the rite was done, the marriage was not recognized by the Church, just as its not recognized today. He also argues that marriage is not a sacrament - here's what the Catholic Church says: The exact definition of a sacrament is that it is "an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace." He can call himself a Catholic all he wants. I can say I'm a lawnmower until I'm blue in the face but that doesn't make me one. He can also make all the claims he wants but his claims were not proven. I claim the moon is made of blue cheese! Does that make it so? Where is his proof? I believe the Catholic Church has done an excellent job in defending/justifying/proving that marriage has always been considered a sacrament in the Church. I also believe that the fact that marriage is considered a sacrament by Churches that split with Rome in the 4th century to be pretty good proof that the Church has always considered marriage to be a sacrament.
Go forth and read. I won't do the research you apparently are unwilling to do for yourself.
Good points. I want to point out, however, that irrespective of religious practices from animism to the Church of Scientology and all those in between, that marriage was an important consideration in secular societies as well. Again, the goal has always been to ensure a minimum of social standards about a relationship wherein children were an important attribute for and about the same community. Beyond having progeny, another social goal was to ensure reasonable community FORCE against those that violated the bonds of the communal vows. Rape, incest, homosexuality and so forth were always shunned within almost all societies around the world. If someone was caught in acts that violated social standards, they were often shunned or chastised for years or even worse, put to death. As modern societies evolve, we are intricately linked to our past of many thousands of years. It is codified in our DNA and the documented laws for social behaviour. And the sense of "shame" shall always be the first area of responsible considerations, even if there is some sort of agreement to keep a relationship secret or away from society.
And I still haven't seen anybody mention the real reason why gays want to get married in the first place......
Leftardism/Liberalism: The chickenschitt way to deal with life’s problems by creating solutions to problems that don’t exist, thereby creating a problem where none existed before and then having to find a solution to that one…
Your religion's erronious perception of homosexuality belongs solely to people like you if you ant it. It should not be the basis of what is codified into law. ADA research and all other well conducted and impartial studies have shown homosexuality to just be a normal human sexual variation. People who are homosexual are every bit as productive and moral as anyone else. Sexual preference of an individual does not effect negitively another person who has a different gender preference. It's time for folks like you to grow up and fact that fact. Because the rest of us are not going to live by your belief on homosexuality you glean from a segment of a religion many of us do not agree with. Homosexuality is part of the spectrum of normal human sexuality. And that has always been the case, and is something that will will never change.
And I see the old snear that gays and lesbians have many short relationships and this is detrimental to their health and welfare justified at all if it is those uttering such nonsense are the ones working aggressively to make it as hard as possible to commit to and live ib a stable long term relationship. It's time to stop oppressing people and tho legalize marriage for all in this country.
What is unjust is to try to impose your religion on the laws that involve everyone else. There is nothing obscene about one human being making this strong a commitment to another.
There is a precursor to your idea that needs an answer before your question is answered. How does a homosexual promote social standards and goals since a homosexual can not have children? As a group, aren't they a detriment to social goals for the survival of society?
Homosexuals have children, and the ability to procreate is not the benchmark to determine if a marriage is valid or not.
Can you explain this natural phenomena?
I don't need to explain it twice. You lack rationality in stipulating the child bearing issue is the benchmark of marriage and then saying that only homosexual couple who don't have children with each other or through adoption are the non-childbearing couple to be discriminated here. You explain to me how people past child bearing years or are incapable of having children with each other should be allowed to marry yet claim that the only thing that is important in marriage how well the team of two can drop pups. This is an illogical posture to take, but you don't care because the primary motivation you have here is based on hatred and intolerance. I seem many women couples in town who have plenty of kids who are well adjusted and flourishing. And the kids do not turn out gay if their parents have that gender preference. It is inherent in a person's nature to be straight or gay. It is not taught or a fad someone buys into.
Yes you do need to explain your post. You made the post, correct? How do homosexuals NATURALLY have children? Don't evade the question, Mike. Come clean and discuss the merits of your ideas.
I have. Just because you don't want to acknowledge I've addressed this, I am not going to pander to your contrivance here.
Keep kicking their as buckeroo.
Are you saying that homosexuals have natural birth? Let us see.... and Can you explain in any detail how this phenomena occurs?
I explained how. You are just unwilling to acknowledge that. To you, a heterosexual partner who have to rely on a surrigate Mom or artificial insemination as being normal but a gay couple who does the same sort of thing with the same end goal in mind are horrble to you. This is a double standard, and points to the fact I have already covered this base with you and points to the bigotry that spawns your cognitive dissonance on the topic.
For wiccan tree divers.
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
Except the mental heath establishment that has sown homosexuality not to be an evil or a stigma are made up of scant few of those.
I know you regard me as a fairely simple and stupid poster, as though I am a mere country bumpkin, but I am intrigued how two males can have children OR conversely, how two women can have children naturally without male/female interaction. Look, I am learning all the time. Help me!
The point you make a mountain out of a molehill over is that has nothing to do with the right to marriage. Unless you are a believer that infertile humans should be banned from marriage, or even have it ended if their fertile period of life ends.
Marriage has ALWAYS been between a single man and a woman. It is a contract between themselves and society at large. It is a rite of passage about one's maturity to be successful in the raising of children and family life overall. How is that idea a "mountain out of a molehill over is that has nothing to do with the right to marriage"?
Homophobia and bigotry of homosexuals has not always been such a common affliction. Your 'always" is a lie. Marriage is a commitment between two people that should always be permitted. The human race would not be better if people who prefer same gender relationships were forced to go against their will to marry someone of the opposite sex. Hatred and oppression would win, and human rights and the common good would suffer greatly.
Lets review human history for a moment. Where has homosexuality been honoured?
The homo mafia has tried using strong-arm tactics, but normal people aren't buying it. Kenyans know the Obama illness well, and aren't afraid to speak the truth. It's settled science, known for 6 thousand years. In a press release dated December 15, 1973, the APA became the first medical organisation “to officially remove the stigma of disease from persons with same-sex preference”. It’s very important to note that no new medical findings had been made about homosexuality between 1970 and 1973 to reverse the diagnosis that it was a disease. The homosexual lobby brought about this reversal by its persistent and for the most part, dishonest public campaigning. This included coercion and lobbying of government and influential organizations in America. Numerous incidences are well documented during this period when homo activists frequently disrupted medical conferences, shouting down speakers and physically intimidating scientists. Clearly, the 1973 reversal was a political and not a scientific decision by the APA. Its very easy to understand why the homosexual activists resorted to these unscientific tactics. The credibility of the homosexual movement was at great risk as long as the medical professional listed their behaviour as a sickness. Public opinion in America (and elsewhere) could be greatly influenced to regard homosexuality positively if a “scientific opinion” was to lend support to the homosexual cause. Thus, the 1973 APA decision opened the most important door for homosexuality to find a legal footing in western countries. I will now demonstrate here that homosexuality remains a mental disorder, despite what misguided Western nations may want Africans to believe. Any honest, unbiased person who has studied the medical literature relating to homosexuality will surely reach the same conclusion.
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
To you, a heterosexual partner who have to rely on a surrigate Mom or artificial insemination as being normal but a gay couple who does the same sort of thing with the same end goal in mind are horrble to you. This is a double standard, and points to the fact I have already covered this base with you and points to the bigotry that spawns your cognitive dissonance on the topic. Mike quit playing stupid. Faggots can't reporduce with themselves. Then need to sexually abuse a woman in some manner. Mike I know you said your mom abused you as a child. There is something seriously wrong with you. Did she molest you? You never mentioned your dad. Do you know him. Did he spend time with you? Did you play with barbies and wear a dress as a child? Did you have a labotomy or did you maybe have your head run over by a steam roller?
This is just one of many links with material covering the topic. I already did this ground in more then one sociology class, and I am not going to do it once more here. I am not gay and do not feel the pressing need to devote this much time and more to this topic; particularly in this hostile venue. You are welcome to read up on this should you chose.
Is a word insecure faggots such as yourself made up to try and make themselves feel better. You and your faggot friends are normaphobes. Freaks, perverts degenerates, kindling, useless eaters.
Did your lobotomy make you so stupid you cannot even spell the word?
It is a childish game to bait people as part of the group involved in the header topic. It is you who looks stupid doing this, not me, Mr. High School games.
Did someone stick an ice pick in your eye and swish it around? Your existence is making me understand the need that societies in the past felt to burn witches. They didn't deal with freaks like you. They just got rid of you.
Is a word insecure faggots such as yourself made up to try and make themselves feel better.
Understatement of the year.
Do you have the right to impose your religious "beliefs" on others? I have yet to see the great harm shown that will result from gay marriage. Gays are, have been, and always will be a small part of the population and therefore any perceived impact on families will be negligible.
No. Stand your ground, Mike. Put up or shut the fuck up about how homosexuals have children naturally. No stinkin' hotlinks.
You deserve no more consideration. Happy Mother's Day.
They don't even have them unnaturally. They can only hold them hostage. They aren't parents. They aren't a family. A family can never consist of two homosexuals.
End of discussion. You no longer wish dialog anyway.
You no longer wish dialog anyway. Tuck your talk and run wuss.
Not even close.....
Leftardism/Liberalism: The chickenschitt way to deal with life’s problems by creating solutions to problems that don’t exist, thereby creating a problem where none existed before and then having to find a solution to that one…
You are wise to shut the FUCK UP.
Piss off.
Cat got your tongue about how gays have children on a natural basis?
Piss off. Mike you wussed out and ran like a crying little girl. Buckeroo was asking legitimate questions. He wasn't bashing you like I am. So answer his question or run away like a crying little faggot.
Baiting and insults from you is discussion? You are a joke. You don't even have close to the maturity to comport yourself properly in many topics, this being one of them. You set the tone, so live with the results. You just refuse to be an adult in discussion.
Buck was ignoring what I said and would not vary from the bait. Thus end of discussion with him too.
There is nothing to debate. You are an idiot. Bashing your idiotic beliefs is more fun. Besides buckeroo is doing just fine. You can't even answer his simple questions.
Like buck said. Two faggots can't have a kid. You're a real sicko Mike. People like you are exactly what is wrong with this country.
That is completely incorrect. From the early Christian era marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no uniform religious or civil ceremony being required. One of the functions of churches from the Middle Ages was to register marriages. There was no state involvement in marriage at all. In America, we had common law marriages. If two people publicly declared that they were married, then they were married. Government issued marriage licenses didn't become the norm until the Progressive Era, when 38 states passed laws requiring marriage licenses to prevent whites from marrying people of other races. Government control over marriage is a very a new phenomenon. Like everything else the government touches, government involvement has destroyed marriage. We need to completely remove any and all involvement that the government has in marriage.
So, you owe up to the fact that megalomaniac little you never has any intetion of fair discussion or debate. I notice too that when I mentioned your posts were scroll-by my bozo list was completely emptied like it was last time you were wondering about whether I was a new person bozing you showing up in setup. You respect nothing and no one but yourself. I'll send Neil a followup about this misuse of his software from 4UM. Good riddance to you.
A lot of bozo thefts in Mikey's neighborhood. Does anyone else think that it's weird that he keeps posts of gay outings on his laptop?
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
In Catholic Mexico the state doesn't recognize as legitimate the marriage performed in a church, nor does the church recognize a civil wedding as legitimate so Christian couples get married twice to satisfy both. Marriage can be secular or religious, and it can be both.
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
cornflake gurl is a VERY "special" little libTURD creep. Who knows what goes on in "her" so called brain? "She" sure doesn't.
Spoiled, stupid and ignorant, brain dead phuckwads, libTURD fools, tools, and idiots, are the real sickness; the messiah "king" obammy and his regime are only the symptoms.
It's been my experience that when some one replies with something like the above, they're talking through their hat. Go forth and trouble me no more.
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
For one local (sort of) radio personality, it is because he was kept from his domestic and professional partner in the hospital - doctors wouldn't even talk to him, his partner died because doctors didn't have information that could have saved his life and that he could have provided had he been allowed.
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
Well, no, that's not true.
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
I do think it's odd of you to ask.
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
Sexual desires have nothing to do with 'reality'.
Really? Are you reading yukon's gay gazette which tells you otherwise?
You mean to tell me that a human being who has reason cannot commit to another and to their homosexual activity with out the State and all of society being forced to agree to your demands and to intrude on a religious majority of the nation?
libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=30096
At about the 46 or 50 minute mark on this you would like the fact that the Atheist, Ayan Rand rails against the idea of a God (Atlas Shrugged - John Galt speech). The reason I posted it is not for that reason, the reason I posted it was so just maybe people would grasp the concept of liberty, life and happiness and the desires of those who refuse to acknowledge truth and reality. If you get real brave, you might listen. She has been after all, agreed by the philosophical community of learned minds, and noted at a great philosopher if not controversial. Go ahead, it's ok for the person who is a free man to listen. So far it's not illegal. But I wouldn't take that for granted.
hehehe
I'm so impressed by the razzle dazzle. Think I'll go support the rainbow projecting, abracadabra man. ; ))))
ROFLMAO!!! omg!!!
Seriously that hits my funny bone. I'm stealing it. Thanks.......:)))
They don't; They degrade social standards and goals with their shameless perversion and undisciplined urges. For 5,000 years, queer behavior has been rejected, ridiculed, regarded morally WRONG for obvious reasons. Note Mike won't touch your question with...even yu-klown's unit. As a group, aren't they a detriment to social goals for the survival of society? As a group, militant queers goals have been to debase civilized society and corrupt its youth AND our entire culture....an obvious net negative off the Ricter Scale of Humanity. BUT as God intended, queers can NOT reproduce naturally. As a means of increasing their numbers, they continue to recruit through propaganda and coercion, and violate the bodies and minds of the most vulnerable: THE YOUNG and MALLEABLE.
Well said. Nice to see you here.
: D that had to have hurt.
The only problem is the un-thinkers have allowed homosexuals to adopt their unwanted children and allowed them to claim they should now be known as a legitimate family.
Beyond having progeny, another social goal was to ensure reasonable community FORCE against those that violated the bonds of the communal vows. Rape, incest, homosexuality and so forth were always shunned within almost all societies around the world. If someone was caught in acts that violated social standards, they were often shunned or chastised for years or even worse, put to death. As modern societies evolve, we are intricately linked to our past of many thousands of years. It is codified in our DNA and the documented laws for social behaviour. And the sense of "shame" shall always be the first area of responsible considerations, even if there is some sort of agreement to keep a relationship secret or away from society. EXCELLENT post, Buck. In a total reversal of our innate God-programmed sense of shame and right-and-wrong, contemporary "enlightened" man sees ZERO shame these days for the most egregious of cultural behavior; So much so that righteousness and virtue are now somehow regarded by this new perverted pop culture as "shameful". Right is wrong; Up is down. Good is evil. The End Days indeed.
Hi SJM...thanks. Miss ya over at Yu-klown's Emporium of 24/7 Statism and Insanity. What happened?? What did I miss??
How queer adoptions/recruitment have suddenly been accepted in a sane society as "normal" by ANY stretch of imagination is...decadent. It is FREAKISH and so are the celebrity celebrations OF this freakishness. I think most people either are too overwhelmed by a million and one other assaults on their common sense OR have been coerced or brainwashed by three decades of media and pop-culture propaganda.
Goldi-lox banned me, not only the first time that I thought I had been hacked, but the second time. I knew then, the second time, that it was her who did it after emailing her, no answer, and all the posts to her, asking her to get to the bottom of it, or even say anything at all concerning what had happened. She put my preference for the liberty of this nation and the only candidate who is running for liberty and Constitutional liberty as a priority to freeze me out of the so called "freedom of speech" guaranteed by her site and America and banned me. She stabbed me in the back. But then, she works for the military industry and is a Jew who see's America's role as supporting them through our tax dollars and military. I understand the Bible and know that Israel as it has been perverted in our culture is not at all what the Bible means by standing by her. Anyway, I guess I'm against the designs of the military complex. I'm not crying. I'm proud.
This was well stated, Liberator. I feel real sorry though for those who have allowed themselves the luxury to disregard reality and work toward their own demise.
That's unbelievable. And shameful. You've been at LP forever contributing constructively, have a serious problem and then your incident is handled indifferently?? Especially in light of the lengths she went in investigating yu-klown's bogus "I wuz hacked" charade and indicting innocent posters of involvement. My guess is it was in part for your support of Ron Paul...and then your getting the better of her pet canary. Mommy has always protected him. She put my preference for the liberty of this nation and the only candidate who is running for liberty and Constitutional liberty as a priority to freeze me out of the so called "freedom of speech" guaranteed by her site and America and banned me. She stabbed me in the back. I'd have thought better of her...MUCH better of her given her supposed aversion to statism. But then again she allows statist shill yu-klown, the ACLU Tool, and the Plagiarist to lie and fling poo with impunity. But then, she works for the military industry and is a Jew who see's America's role as supporting them through our tax dollars and military. I understand the Bible and know that Israel as it has been perverted in our culture is not at all what the Bible means by standing by her. Anyway, I guess I'm against the designs of the military complex. I'm not crying. I'm proud. She may have a self-serving warm spot for the military-industrial complex. But there is an interesting characterization of the dynamics of some Jews who demand absolute loyalty to the Jewish state and an entitlement attitude that requires political, economic, and military subservience to Israel BY America. OR ELSE. I think we as conservatives are constantly evolving as truth-seekers as the man behind the curtain becomes more and more exposed. It's the same deduction of reasoning that has finally forced many to accept the fact that the events of 9/11 required the planned/purposeful negligence of the PTB. Ten years later and here we are kissing the azz of Islam IN OUR OWN COUNTRY, abroad, and voting for a Muslim President named Hussein.
Thanks again...They're working not only toward their own demise but taking us ALL down in the process. I really feel sorry for our young people and M-TV Gen who've been bombarded with propaganda their entire lives; The peer pressure to succumb to accept perverted behavior and contrived "norms" is something we can't even imagine.
I think that reasoning ability of HUMANS, is constant. (Some do it better than others).
Nope, it's not "information" ..... Hint: Everybody wants it and needs it to some extent..... Some come by it honestly and some because they think they are victims!!!
Leftardism/Liberalism: The chickenschitt way to deal with life’s problems by creating solutions to problems that don’t exist, thereby creating a problem where none existed before and then having to find a solution to that one…
You mean to tell me that as much love as they had for each other they were unwilling to use our laws, legally to express their desires to be part of each others lives? Do you mean that only had they been married they could have done this? I hope you not only see the faulty in your reasoning, but acknowledge that homosexuals have had the ability to protect themselves all along though utilizing the law to protect them and their loves ones. How absurd to deny that as a fact in our society.
He sued and won, but that didn't bring back his partner.
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
California domestic partnership laws exist in part because of him. Why do you care if gays are allowed to marry? What skin is it off your nose?
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
First time I've checked my pings for a good while.... All I can say is that you truly, truly do not have the mental ability to even be here on this forum, nor speak about anything. If you really are incapable of reading posts that have already been posted, you are mentally deficient.
I have no idea what that has to do with my comment, but OK.
#2. To: A K A Stone, Anti-ping to CE, Fred Mertz, Godwinson, go65, war, no gnu taxes, Skip Intro, ferret mike, jwpegler, brian s, mininggold, mcgowanjm (#0)
...when my father left and married another, my mother was told she could not remarry because she was still married to my father in the “true marriage.” When he returned to my mother, and became a Catholic, a priest performed again the sacramental marriage. Since my father’s intervening marriage was “outside the church,” it did not count. What nonsense.
#3. To: lucysmom (#2)
#4. To: A K A Stone (#1)
If the democrats can exterminate innocent babies. Maybe the good people should start exterminating worthless piece of shit faggots.
#5. To: A K A Stone (#3)
You are committing adultery every time you sleep with your new "wife".
#6. To: lucysmom (#0)
a Jewish wedding, like any other Jesus might have attended, and the miracle, by its superabundance of wine, is meant to show the disciples that the Messianic time has come
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#7. To: lucysmom (#0)
#8. To: buckeroo (#7)
There is no such thing as "gay marriage." Marriage is between a man and a woman PERIOD.
#9. To: lucysmom (#8)
#10. To: A K A Stone (#3)
#11. To: buckeroo (#9)
Oh just GREAT! The law based upon a pile of silly people that want to "change" something decide to make homosexuals have babies. That is too cool.
#12. To: lucysmom (#11)
#13. To: buckeroo (#9)
"The law based upon a pile of silly people that want to "change" something decide to make homosexuals have babies."
#14. To: buckeroo, Ferret Mike (#12)
Then how can homosexuals enter "marriage" if they can't have children naturally?
#15. To: Ferret Mike (#13)
Homosexuals have babies all the time.
#16. To: buckeroo (#15)
(Edited)
"WoW! I learn something new everyday! Can you provide a few details on this phenomena?"
#17. To: Ferret Mike (#16)
#18. To: lucysmom, all (#0)
The early church had no specific rite for marriage. This was left up to the secular authorities of the Roman Empire, since marriage is a legal concern for the legitimacy of heirs.
#19. To: buckeroo (#17)
Look pal, let me explain "the birds&the bees" to ya: women have babies however it takes a man to have sex with her, hence a man and a women are the ENTIRE BASIS of MARRIAGE.
#20. To: buckeroo (#17)
(Edited)
#21. To: Ferret Mike (#20)
#22. To: buckeroo (#21)
(Edited)
#23. To: Fibr Dog (#18)
There are many other sources out there that clearly show that there was some sort of church rite involved in marriage. Was there a "specific rite"? I have no idea, but considering the distances and different traditions involved, I doubt it.
#24. To: lucysmom (#0)
Genesis 2:19 -24 19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animalsr and all the birds in the sky.s He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man calledt each living creature,u that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.
#25. To: Ferret Mike (#22)
#26. To: buckeroo (#25)
#27. To: lucysmom (#23)
There are many other sources out there that clearly show that there was some sort of church rite involved in marriage. Was there a "specific rite"? I have no idea, but considering the distances and different traditions involved, I doubt it.
#28. To: SJN (#24)
The proper understanding of marriage helps us have the proper understanding of God’s love. God established the eternal union between his Son Jesus and Jesus’ Bride, the Church who are all believers. Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her. He died for the sins of his Bride. He cleansed the guilt of his Bride with the power of baptism. He lives and rules in heaven now, waiting to bring his Bride into the glory of the life to come.
#29. To: SJN (#24)
#30. To: lucysmom (#28)
#31. To: Ferret Mike (#29)
#32. To: Ferret Mike (#29)
#33. To: SJN (#30)
#34. To: Ferret Mike (#29)
#35. To: Ferret Mike (#33)
#36. To: Fibr Dog (#27)
The fact, as I have shown, is that there was indeed a marriage rite and that marriage was not "left up to the secular authorities of the Roman Empire." Marriage was much more than just a "legal concern for the legitimacy of heirs" to a Christian couple getting married.
#37. To: SJN (#35)
What is unjust is for homosexuals to want to pervert the marriage vows that God bestowed on ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.
#38. To: SJN (#31)
This nation was founded on the Judeo/Christian belief.
#39. To: lucysmom (#37)
#40. To: lucysmom (#38)
#41. To: SJN (#39)
But they keep banging on church's doors and demanding a Christian ceremony.
#42. To: lucysmom (#36)
He says specific marriage rite and you agreed that was most likely so.
#43. To: lucysmom (#41)
#44. To: Fibr Dog (#42)
#45. To: All (#0)
Why do some people who would recognize gay civil unions oppose gay marriage?
#46. To: SJN (#35)
#47. To: CZ82 (#45)
"And I still haven't seen anybody mention the real reason why gays want to get married in the first place......"
#48. To: SJN (#35)
#49. To: Ferret Mike, SJN (#48)
What is unjust is to try to impose your religion on the laws that involve everyone else. [?]
#50. To: buckeroo (#49)
#51. To: Ferret Mike (#50)
Homosexuals have children
#52. To: buckeroo (#51)
#53. To: Ferret Mike (#52)
#54. To: buckeroo (#53)
#55. To: buckeroo (#15)
#56. To: Ferret Mike (#54)
Homosexuals have children
Homosexuals have babies all the time.
#57. To: buckeroo (#56)
(Edited)
#58. To: Ferret Mike, *Yukon neo-Progressive Vermin* (#46)
Homosexuality is part of the spectrum of normal human sexuality
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#59. To: hondo68 (#58)
#60. To: Ferret Mike (#57)
I explained how. [how homosexuals have children NATURALLY]
#61. To: buckeroo (#60)
#62. To: Ferret Mike (#61)
The point you make a mountain out of a molehill over is that has nothing to do with the right to marriage.
#63. To: buckeroo (#62)
(Edited)
#64. To: Ferret Mike (#63)
Homophobia and bigotry of homosexuals has not always been such a common affliction. Your 'always" is a lie.
#65. To: Ferret Mike, *Liberal Rehab Staff* (#59)
(Edited)
the mental heath establishment that has sown homosexuality
Homosexual Diseases Part 3: Mental Disorders (Kenyans Against Homosexuality - Confronting Homosexuality with Facts)
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#66. To: Ferret Mike (#57)
I explained how. You are just unwilling to acknowledge that.
#67. To: buckeroo (#64)
Homosexuality in History
#68. To: Ferret Mike (#63)
Homophobia
#69. To: A K A Stone (#66)
"Did you have a labotomy or did you maybe have your head run over by a steam roller? "
#70. To: A K A Stone (#68)
#71. To: Ferret Mike (#69)
#72. To: Ferret Mike (#70)
#73. To: Ferret Mike (#67)
in this hostile venue.
#74. To: SJN (#34)
(Edited)
It is upholding what God Himself put together and not perverting it.
#75. To: Ferret Mike (#67)
You are welcome to read up on this should you chose.
#76. To: A K A Stone (#72)
#77. To: buckeroo (#75)
No. Stand your ground, Mike. Put up or shut the fuck up about how homosexuals have children naturally. No stinkin' hotlinks.
#78. To: buckeroo (#75)
#79. To: Ferret Mike (#78)
End of discussion.
#80. To: Ferret Mike (#47)
And I see the old snear that gays and lesbians have many short relationships and this is detrimental to their health and welfare justified at all if it is those uttering such nonsense are the ones working aggressively to make it as hard as possible to commit to and live ib a stable long term relationship.
#81. To: Ferret Mike (#78)
#82. To: buckeroo (#81)
"You are wise to shut the FUCK UP."
#83. To: Ferret Mike (#82)
#84. To: Ferret Mike (#82)
"You are wise to shut the FUCK UP."
#85. To: A K A Stone (#79)
"Tuck your talk and run wuss."
#86. To: A K A Stone (#84)
"Buckeroo was asking legitimate questions."
#87. To: Ferret Mike (#85)
Baiting and insults from you is discussion? You are a joke.
#88. To: Ferret Mike (#86)
Buck was ignoring what I said and would not vary from the bait. Thus end of discussion with him too.
#89. To: lucysmom (#0)
(Edited)
The early church had no specific rite for marriage. This was left up to the secular authorities of the Roman Empire, since marriage is a legal concern for the legitimacy of heirs.
Iran’s main drive for acquiring atomic weapons is not for use against Israel but as a deterrent against U.S. intervention -- Major General Zeevi Farkash, head of the Israeli Military Intelligence Directorate
#90. To: A K A Stone (#87)
"There is nothing to debate... Bashing your idiotic beliefs is more fun.
#91. To: Ferret Mike, Mad Dog, A K A Stone (#90)
(Edited)
when I mentioned your posts were scroll-by my bozo list was completely emptied like it was last time you were wondering about whether I was
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#92. To: Fibr Dog (#42)
Nothing was "left up to the secular authorities of the Roman empire" and Christians did not get married simply because "marriage is a legal concern for the legitimacy of heirs."
#93. To: hondo68, cornflake gurl (#91)
Does anyone else think that it's weird that he keeps posts of gay outings on his laptop?
#94. To: SJN (#43)
Go forth and read. I won't do the research you apparently are unwilling to do for yourself.
#95. To: CZ82 (#45)
And I still haven't seen anybody mention the real reason why gays want to get married in the first place......
#96. To: buckeroo (#62)
Marriage has ALWAYS been between a single man and a woman.
#97. To: hondo68 (#91)
Does anyone else think that it's weird that he keeps posts of gay outings on his laptop?
#98. To: Ferret Mike (#46)
ADA research and all other well conducted and impartial studies have shown homosexuality to just be a normal human sexual variation.
#99. To: lucysmom (#96)
#100. To: Ferret Mike (#48)
making this strong a commitment to another.
#101. To: Ferret Mike (#86)
#102. To: Ferret Mike (#48)
#103. To: A K A Stone (#1)
#104. To: whyofcourse (#103)
#105. To: whyofcourse (#103)
#106. To: SJN (#105)
#107. To: whyofcourse (#106)
#108. To: whyofcourse (#106)
#109. To: buckeroo, Ferret Mike, SJN (#49)
How does a homosexual promote social standards and goals...?
#110. To: Liberator (#109)
#111. To: buckeroo (#49)
As a group, aren't they a detriment to social goals for the survival of society?
#112. To: buckeroo (#49)
#113. To: buckeroo, SJN (#44)
I want to point out, however, that irrespective of religious practices from animism to the Church of Scientology and all those in between, that marriage was an important consideration in secular societies as well. Again, the goal has always been to ensure a minimum of social standards about a relationship wherein children were an important attribute for and about the same community.
#114. To: SJN (#110)
#115. To: SJN (#112)
The only problem is the un-thinkers have allowed homosexuals to adopt their unwanted children and allowed them to claim they should now be known as a legitimate family.
#116. To: Liberator (#114)
#117. To: Liberator (#115)
#118. To: SJN (#116)
Goldi-lox banned me, not only the first time that I thought I had been hacked, but the second time. I knew then, the second time, that it was her who did it after emailing her, no answer, and all the posts to her, asking her to get to the bottom of it, or even say anything at all concerning what had happened.
#119. To: SJN (#117)
(Edited)
#120. To: Liberator (#118)
I think we as conservatives are constantly evolving as truth-seeker
#121. To: lucysmom, All (#95)
(Edited)
And I still haven't seen anybody mention the real reason why gays want to get married in the first place...... For one local (sort of) radio personality, it is because he was kept from his domestic and professional partner in the hospital - doctors wouldn't even talk to him, his partner died because doctors didn't have information that could have saved his life and that he could have provided had he been allowed.
#122. To: lucysmom (#95)
For one local (sort of) radio personality, it is because he was kept from his domestic and professional partner in the hospital - doctors wouldn't even talk to him, his partner died because doctors didn't have information that could have saved his life and that he could have provided had he been allowed.
#123. To: SJN (#122)
I hope you not only see the faulty in your reasoning, but acknowledge that homosexuals have had the ability to protect themselves all along though utilizing the law to protect them and their loves ones. How absurd to deny that as a fact in our society.
#124. To: SJN (#122)
You mean to tell me that as much love as they had for each other they were unwilling to use our laws, legally to express their desires to be part of each others lives?
#125. To: lucysmom (#124)
#126. To: lucysmom (#92)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]