1 - 10 Next
Is SCOTUS playing a game with fundamental rights? I mean, if a brideless couple has a "right" to get a state marriage license against the voted consent of the governed of that state, and thereby force an association on an unwilling people, why didn't SCOTUS say so with Windsor? Don't give me this "It wasn't the question they were presented with" or "they're trying to ease the transition of society by taking smaller steps". If something is a RIGHT, then nobody should have to wait another day to have it, right? Maybe SCOTUS ruling it as such with DOMA would have been seen as "overreach", but SO WHAT? Their word is LAW, right? If someone sincerely believes this is a fundamental right, then how DARE the Court play such games and make people wait another day. Are we really to believe that this is a right that has existed all along, or at least since the adoption of "equal protection" and EVERY court and President and great civil rights leader has somehow missed it for hundreds of years? On the other hand, if the federal courts are violating the rights of states or the people of those states to reserve licenses to bride+groom unions, then again I ask why the Court has not already acted. Or... are we now to believe that new rights can emerge out of thin air? That the right did not exist at sometime in the past but now exists, and our laws must adapt to conform to this new right? And if this is the case, what new rights, yet to be demanded, will emerge in the future? Either way, our system is being trashed and a slew of bad precedents are being set.
This will not appease the haters.
Most female models are "chosen" by gay men. It explains a lot about the lack of actual curves many models have, especially fashion runway models.
There is an article out there right now on one of the liberal sites about how women don't want men sending them pictures of their crotches. Women who get such pictures are usually disgusted or laugh. Men who are sent crotch shots from women they don't know are more likely to get turned on.
Here is where some of my fellow Christian conservatives and also some Mormons will insist that this material is addictive and eventually causes viewers to become mass murderers and rapists. That's why we have hundreds of millions of mass murderers.
SCOTUS indicated in ruling on DOMA that the federal government had to defer to states on marriage licensing. So I'd rather listen to SCOTUS than lower federal courts.
What is marriage, according to the Bible? 1) Unites a bride and groom 2) Obligates participants to love (care for) each other 3) Obligates monogamy, meaning both sexual fidelity and giving each other their bodies (no unilateral withholding of sex) 4) Obligates the husband to provide for his wife and the wife to bear her husband's children if she is able 5) Lasts until death 6) Divorce only permissible (not required or encouraged) for unfaithfulness (think abandonment/adultery/abuse), otherwise remarriage is adultery In states with neutered licenses and unilateral no-fault divorce, none of these elements are inherent to the state "marriage" licenses. 1) No bride is required. No groom is required. 2) Neither party is penalized no matter how indifferent or even cruel to the other 3) Either or both face no legal repercussions whatsoever for affairs nor sexually rejecting the spouse. ("Alienation of affection" is still pursued as a civil matter only in a few places.) 4) A husband is under no obligation to provide for his wife. In fact, in states with community property, he can still get 50% of everything if he sits on the couch all day every day while she goes out an earns the income. No matter how badly the husband wants children, she can have her pregnancies terminated in the ninth month with no legal repercussions. 5) About 40% of first marriages end in divorce, and the percentages go up for second marriages. 6) Unilateral divorce for any/no reason. As such, state licensing has very little similarity to holy matrimony, and can actually undermine holy matrimony. What should churches and the Christian community in general do? Are we reaching a point at which churches should ignore state licenses, including state divorce?
I'm shocked! Shocked!!
In response to:

An Appeal to Bruce Jenner

Ken the Playful Walrus Wrote: Feb 09, 2015 5:01 PM
If Bruce Jenner should be able to change his birth certificate, then all of his sports records should be relisted under female categories.
Everything must be sacrificed on the altar of esteeming and celebrating homosexual behavior. No freedom of speech, religion, or association will be tolerated if it conflicts with this.
1 - 10 Next