Brits bust American preacher for quoting Thessalonians

sodaknomad wrote:See what happens when you allow unnatural "marriages?"

pse1124 wrote:

sodaknomad wrote:See what happens when you allow unnatural "marriages?"

This is a glimpse of the new America in 10 years.

sodaknomad wrote:

pse1124 wrote:

sodaknomad wrote:See what happens when you allow unnatural "marriages?"

This is a glimpse of the new America in 10 years.

Want a real look at America in ten years? Look northward toward CanaDUH.

The effects of same-sex civil marriage in Canada—restrictions on free speech rights, parental rights in education, and autonomy rights of religious institutions, along with a weakening of the marriage culture—provide lessons for the United States.

Would recognizing same-sex relationships as marriages be much of a game-changer? What impact, if any, would it have on the public conception of marriage or the state of a nation’s marriage culture?

There has been no shortage of speculation on these questions. But the limited American experience with same-sex marriage to date gives us few concrete answers. So it makes sense to consider the Canadian experience since the first Canadian court established same-sex marriage a decade ago. There are, of course, important cultural and institutional differences between the US and Canada and, as is the case in any polity, much depends upon the actions of local political and cultural actors. That is to say, it is not necessarily safe to assume that Canadian experiences will be replicated here. But they should be considered; the Canadian experience is the best available evidence of the short-term impact of same-sex marriage in a democratic society very much like America.

Anyone interested in assessing the impact of same-sex marriage on public life should investigate the outcomes in three spheres: first, human rights (including impacts on freedom of speech, parental rights in public education, and the autonomy of religious institutions); second, further developments in what sorts of relationships political society will be willing to recognize as a marriage (e.g., polygamy); and third, the social practice of marriage.

Freedom Forever wrote:Jesus never condemned homosexuality. RWB chap 3 ver 69  That is all you need to know.  Global warming is not mentioned in the Bible either. so It's not real.  

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

sodaknomad wrote:

pse1124 wrote:

sodaknomad wrote:See what happens when you allow unnatural "marriages?"

This is a glimpse of the new America in 10 years.

Want a real look at America in ten years? Look northward toward CanaDUH.

And so I did. A Google search of "Same sex marriage Canada" turned up this article.

The effects of same-sex civil marriage in Canada—restrictions on free speech rights, parental rights in education, and autonomy rights of religious institutions, along with a weakening of the marriage culture—provide lessons for the United States.

Would recognizing same-sex relationships as marriages be much of a game-changer? What impact, if any, would it have on the public conception of marriage or the state of a nation’s marriage culture?

There has been no shortage of speculation on these questions. But the limited American experience with same-sex marriage to date gives us few concrete answers. So it makes sense to consider the Canadian experience since the first Canadian court established same-sex marriage a decade ago. There are, of course, important cultural and institutional differences between the US and Canada and, as is the case in any polity, much depends upon the actions of local political and cultural actors. That is to say, it is not necessarily safe to assume that Canadian experiences will be replicated here. But they should be considered; the Canadian experience is the best available evidence of the short-term impact of same-sex marriage in a democratic society very much like America.

Anyone interested in assessing the impact of same-sex marriage on public life should investigate the outcomes in three spheres: first, human rights (including impacts on freedom of speech, parental rights in public education, and the autonomy of religious institutions); second, further developments in what sorts of relationships political society will be willing to recognize as a marriage (e.g., polygamy); and third, the social practice of marriage.

Read it and weep.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/11/6758/

Liberal wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

sodaknomad wrote:

pse1124 wrote:

sodaknomad wrote:See what happens when you allow unnatural "marriages?"

This is a glimpse of the new America in 10 years.

Want a real look at America in ten years? Look northward toward CanaDUH.

And so I did. A Google search of "Same sex marriage Canada" turned up this article.

The effects of same-sex civil marriage in Canada—restrictions on free speech rights, parental rights in education, and autonomy rights of religious institutions, along with a weakening of the marriage culture—provide lessons for the United States.

Would recognizing same-sex relationships as marriages be much of a game-changer? What impact, if any, would it have on the public conception of marriage or the state of a nation’s marriage culture?

There has been no shortage of speculation on these questions. But the limited American experience with same-sex marriage to date gives us few concrete answers. So it makes sense to consider the Canadian experience since the first Canadian court established same-sex marriage a decade ago. There are, of course, important cultural and institutional differences between the US and Canada and, as is the case in any polity, much depends upon the actions of local political and cultural actors. That is to say, it is not necessarily safe to assume that Canadian experiences will be replicated here. But they should be considered; the Canadian experience is the best available evidence of the short-term impact of same-sex marriage in a democratic society very much like America.

Anyone interested in assessing the impact of same-sex marriage on public life should investigate the outcomes in three spheres: first, human rights (including impacts on freedom of speech, parental rights in public education, and the autonomy of religious institutions); second, further developments in what sorts of relationships political society will be willing to recognize as a marriage (e.g., polygamy); and third, the social practice of marriage.

Read it and weep.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/11/6758/

LOL "read it and weep" citing a blog from a homophobe website. You really painted everyone in a corner on that one!!!!!!!!!

With the issue of same-sex marriage argued before the Supreme Court and raging elsewhere in America, a question:

Is it possible to be a traditional Christian or Muslim or Orthodox Jew — and hold to one’s faith on what constitutes marriage — and not be considered a bigot?

And is faith now a problem to be overcome, first marginalized by the state and then contained, so as not to get in the way of great changes to come?

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Liberal wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

sodaknomad wrote:

pse1124 wrote:

sodaknomad wrote:See what happens when you allow unnatural "marriages?"

This is a glimpse of the new America in 10 years.

Want a real look at America in ten years? Look northward toward CanaDUH.

And so I did. A Google search of "Same sex marriage Canada" turned up this article.

The effects of same-sex civil marriage in Canada—restrictions on free speech rights, parental rights in education, and autonomy rights of religious institutions, along with a weakening of the marriage culture—provide lessons for the United States.

Would recognizing same-sex relationships as marriages be much of a game-changer? What impact, if any, would it have on the public conception of marriage or the state of a nation’s marriage culture?

There has been no shortage of speculation on these questions. But the limited American experience with same-sex marriage to date gives us few concrete answers. So it makes sense to consider the Canadian experience since the first Canadian court established same-sex marriage a decade ago. There are, of course, important cultural and institutional differences between the US and Canada and, as is the case in any polity, much depends upon the actions of local political and cultural actors. That is to say, it is not necessarily safe to assume that Canadian experiences will be replicated here. But they should be considered; the Canadian experience is the best available evidence of the short-term impact of same-sex marriage in a democratic society very much like America.

Anyone interested in assessing the impact of same-sex marriage on public life should investigate the outcomes in three spheres: first, human rights (including impacts on freedom of speech, parental rights in public education, and the autonomy of religious institutions); second, further developments in what sorts of relationships political society will be willing to recognize as a marriage (e.g., polygamy); and third, the social practice of marriage.

Read it and weep.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/11/6758/

LOL "read it and weep" citing a blog from a homophobe website. You really painted everyone in a corner on that one!!!!!!!!!

Well you certainly didn't disappoint me Lib. Unable to create a cogent argument you have to reach into your intellectually empty grab bag and come up with the frickin' "homophobe" card. Go away, you bore me.    

The Witherspoon Institute is a 501(c)3 research center located in Princeton, New Jersey. The opinions expressed in Public Discourse reflect those of the author and are not necessarily those of Public Discourse or the Witherspoon Institute.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:John Kass at the Chicago Tribune worries about religious intolerance in this Brave New World of same sex marriage. And this from someone who supports civil unions. Crikers.

With the issue of same-sex marriage argued before the Supreme Court and raging elsewhere in America, a question:

Is it possible to be a traditional Christian or Muslim or Orthodox Jew — and hold to one’s faith on what constitutes marriage — and not be considered a bigot?

And is faith now a problem to be overcome, first marginalized by the state and then contained, so as not to get in the way of great changes to come?

Had to get his column from another site because the Tribune has a content wall in place. Hope the link works.

http://onlineathens.com/opinion/2013-03-27/kass-religious-tolerance-and-marriage-debate

Darth Cheney wrote:Because bi-racial is the same thing as one guy sticking his slong up another guys rear end. I doubt many bi-racial couples would be pleased with your little analogy.

Freedom Forever wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:Because bi-racial is the same thing as one guy sticking his slong up another guys rear end. I doubt many bi-racial couples would be pleased with your little analogy.

You just exposed the same old tired liberal comparative logic (actually ill-logic).

ARGUING WITH LIBERALS

"It's like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I an at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it's victorious"  plagiarized from Anonymous

Next move; correct spelling and or grammar.  Nothing like watching raider continually get his ass handed to him all the while claiming victory.   

Darth Cheney wrote:
It is amazing that they can not see most people will never accept their perverted lifestyle as "normal" regardless of what legislation they can passed. They are sick and their deviant behavior will never be normalized.

Freedom Forever wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:Because bi-racial is the same thing as one guy sticking his slong up another guys rear end. I doubt many bi-racial couples would be pleased with your little analogy.

You just exposed the same old tired liberal comparative logic (actually ill-logic).

ARGUING WITH LIBERALS

"It's like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I an at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it's victorious"  plagiarized from Anonymous

Next move; correct spelling and or grammar.  Nothing like watching raider continually get his ass handed to him all the while claiming victory.

Darth Cheney wrote:Because bi-racial is the same thing as one guy sticking his slong up another guys rear end. I doubt many bi-racial couples would be pleased with your little analogy.

Liberal wrote:

Freedom Forever wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:Because bi-racial is the same thing as one guy sticking his slong up another guys rear end. I doubt many bi-racial couples would be pleased with your little analogy.

You just exposed the same old tired liberal comparative logic (actually ill-logic).

ARGUING WITH LIBERALS

"It's like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I an at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it's victorious"  plagiarized from Anonymous

Next move; correct spelling and or grammar.  Nothing like watching raider continually get his ass handed to him all the while claiming victory.

"Continually get his ass handed to him" LOL. You guys take this internet business way to seriously.

Freedom Forever wrote:

Liberal wrote:

Freedom Forever wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:Because bi-racial is the same thing as one guy sticking his slong up another guys rear end. I doubt many bi-racial couples would be pleased with your little analogy.

You just exposed the same old tired liberal comparative logic (actually ill-logic).

ARGUING WITH LIBERALS

"It's like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I an at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it's victorious"  plagiarized from Anonymous

Next move; correct spelling and or grammar.  Nothing like watching raider continually get his ass handed to him all the while claiming victory.

"Continually get his ass handed to him" LOL. You guys take this internet business way to seriously.

Yep, it is funny. Watching you attempt to take the moral high ground,  all the while posting under a false ID. Keep posting hypocrite. You are your own worst enemy on here.

 

Liberal wrote:

Freedom Forever wrote:

Liberal wrote:

Freedom Forever wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:Because bi-racial is the same thing as one guy sticking his slong up another guys rear end. I doubt many bi-racial couples would be pleased with your little analogy.

You just exposed the same old tired liberal comparative logic (actually ill-logic).

ARGUING WITH LIBERALS

"It's like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I an at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it's victorious"  plagiarized from Anonymous

Next move; correct spelling and or grammar.  Nothing like watching raider continually get his ass handed to him all the while claiming victory.

"Continually get his ass handed to him" LOL. You guys take this internet business way to seriously.

Yep, it is funny. Watching you attempt to take the moral high ground,  all the while posting under a false ID. Keep posting hypocrite. You are your own worst enemy on here.

 

"Posting under a false ID" How the hell is the name Liberal a false ID? FYI, you should have put a comma after "posting".

Freedom Forever wrote:

Liberal wrote:

Freedom Forever wrote:

Liberal wrote:

Freedom Forever wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:Because bi-racial is the same thing as one guy sticking his slong up another guys rear end. I doubt many bi-racial couples would be pleased with your little analogy.

You just exposed the same old tired liberal comparative logic (actually ill-logic).

ARGUING WITH LIBERALS

"It's like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I an at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it's victorious"  plagiarized from Anonymous

Next move; correct spelling and or grammar.  Nothing like watching raider continually get his ass handed to him all the while claiming victory.

"Continually get his ass handed to him" LOL. You guys take this internet business way to seriously.

Yep, it is funny. Watching you attempt to take the moral high ground,  all the while posting under a false ID. Keep posting hypocrite. You are your own worst enemy on here.

 

"Posting under a false ID" How the hell is the name Liberal a false ID? FYI, you should have put a comma after "posting".

Are you posting as Raider Fan on GPLV?      still no answer.

Liberal wrote:

Freedom Forever wrote:

Liberal wrote:

Freedom Forever wrote:

Liberal wrote:

Freedom Forever wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:Because bi-racial is the same thing as one guy sticking his slong up another guys rear end. I doubt many bi-racial couples would be pleased with your little analogy.

You just exposed the same old tired liberal comparative logic (actually ill-logic).

ARGUING WITH LIBERALS

"It's like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I an at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it's victorious"  plagiarized from Anonymous

Next move; correct spelling and or grammar.  Nothing like watching raider continually get his ass handed to him all the while claiming victory.

"Continually get his ass handed to him" LOL. You guys take this internet business way to seriously.

Yep, it is funny. Watching you attempt to take the moral high ground,  all the while posting under a false ID. Keep posting hypocrite. You are your own worst enemy on here.

 

"Posting under a false ID" How the hell is the name Liberal a false ID? FYI, you should have put a comma after "posting".

Are you posting as Raider Fan on GPLV?      still no answer.

Why are you so obsessed with someone named Raider Fan? Did he/she impregnate your sister? Did he/she run over one of your many cats?

FYI, the "s" in "still" should be capitalized. Come to think of it, "still no answer" is pretty poor sentence structure altogether.

Liberal wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:John Kass at the Chicago Tribune worries about religious intolerance in this Brave New World of same sex marriage. And this from someone who supports civil unions. Crikers.

With the issue of same-sex marriage argued before the Supreme Court and raging elsewhere in America, a question:

Is it possible to be a traditional Christian or Muslim or Orthodox Jew — and hold to one’s faith on what constitutes marriage — and not be considered a bigot?

And is faith now a problem to be overcome, first marginalized by the state and then contained, so as not to get in the way of great changes to come?

Had to get his column from another site because the Tribune has a content wall in place. Hope the link works.

http://onlineathens.com/opinion/2013-03-27/kass-religious-tolerance-and-marriage-debate

Ask the people who were intolerant of bi-racial marriage based on their religion. They may hold the answer you're looking for.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Liberal wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:John Kass at the Chicago Tribune worries about religious intolerance in this Brave New World of same sex marriage. And this from someone who supports civil unions. Crikers.

With the issue of same-sex marriage argued before the Supreme Court and raging elsewhere in America, a question:

Is it possible to be a traditional Christian or Muslim or Orthodox Jew — and hold to one’s faith on what constitutes marriage — and not be considered a bigot?

And is faith now a problem to be overcome, first marginalized by the state and then contained, so as not to get in the way of great changes to come?

Had to get his column from another site because the Tribune has a content wall in place. Hope the link works.

http://onlineathens.com/opinion/2013-03-27/kass-religious-tolerance-and-marriage-debate

Ask the people who were intolerant of bi-racial marriage based on their religion. They may hold the answer you're looking for.

Ooooh, and now the race card gets thrown. Damn, that's mighty thin gruel you are serving up today Lib. FYI gay marriage is nowhere equivalent to miscegenation. You insult the entire Civil Rights Movement and the gains achieved with that bullshit argument. Blacks have time and time again overwhelmingly supported traditional marriage amendments to state constitutions and initiatives/propositions like Prop 8 in California. Exit polls revealed that 70% of the black vote supported Prop 8 in 2008.