[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Religion Title: The Two Shall Become One Flesh In the Gospel of St. Mark, the Lord Jesus teaches that “from the beginning of creation ‘God made them male and female.’” He then declares a great and beautiful truth inscribed in creation: “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh” (Mark 10:6–8). For centuries, Christians have proclaimed these words at weddings, for they express the gift of marriage long recognized by all humanity and acknowledged by men and women of faith: Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. This truth is being obscured, even denied, today. Because of that, the institution of marriage, which is essential to the well-being of society, is being undermined. As Christians, it is our responsibility to bear witness to the truth about marriage as taught by both revelation and reason—by the Holy Scriptures and by the truths inscribed on the human heart. These age-old truths explain why Christians celebrate marriage—the coming-together of a man and woman in a binding union of mutual support—as one of the glories of the human race. Marriage is the primordial human institution, a reality that existed long before the establishment of what we now know as the state. As the most venerable and reliable basis for domestic happiness, marriage is the foundation of a just and stable society. Yet in our times this institution has been gravely weakened by the sexual revolution and the damage it has done to marriage and the family: widespread divorce; the dramatic increase in out-of-wedlock births; the casual acceptance of premarital sex and cohabitation; and a contraceptive mentality which insists that sex has an arbitrary relation to procreation. In this environment, families fragment, the poor suffer, and children are especially vulnerable and at risk. The decline of marriage culture is evident throughout the world, and where it is evident, the common good is imperiled. Poster Comment: God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply.” (Gen. 1:27–28) Subscribe to *Religious History and Issues* Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Comments (1-153) not displayed.
What the state sanctions for straights is first and foremost... ...a result of prior state-establishment's experience with bastard children and the mischief their existence perpetrated upon the cultures they were inflicted upon.
#155. To: VxH (#151) Who says that you have to pay for that? Don't blame ObamaCare if you live in a state that required commercial carriers to cover infertility treatments before 2012. Blame the state legislature. If you don't like it get the state law repealed or move to a different state. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #156. To: SOSO (#146) BTW, if, as the argument goes, two parents are good wouldn't 3, 4 or 5 in a committed, loving polygamist relationship be better. To paraphrase Hitlery: "It takes a village to have a sexual relationship. And to raise a child."
#157. To: VxH (#153) Once again you demonstrate your ignorance of primate reproductive biology. Yo, Sparky, didn't you get the memo that it takes a village? "In the natural world, paternity and blood relationship have more impact upon preventing infanticide than the abstract social concoction you're attempting to pull out of your polygyarse." Your ignorance is just too vast to over come. Ever heard of China where infanticide in the for of forced abortion was the law of the land? Next review Nazi Germany's history on the subject. There was/is no force that prevented the former and only massive military force that stopped the latter. Paternity simply did not matter and was of no weight at all in preventing these mass infanticides. And how to you explain all of the abortions performed in Russia and the U.S> over the past few decades. These were Mom and Pop decisions to commit infanticide. Of course, if you do not believe that a fetus is a human being then no harm not foul there. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #158. To: SOSO (#155) So the answer is: No, it's not optional.
Does ObamaCare mandate insurance coverage for infertility treatments for states that di not already have that in place? No, it doesn't. Tsk tsk. How discriminatory. What's the Transhumanist/Postgenderist Action plan timeline for litigating that inequity into nonexistence? Gonna wait till all 50 state have homosexual "marriage" legalized?
#159. To: TooConservative (#156) To paraphrase Hitlery: "It takes a village to have a sexual relationship. And to raise a child." Not quite. The first sentence is from Bill. The second from Hillary. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #160. To: redleghunter, Liberator (#147) Wow took you too long to research the source:) So I could pretend to be totally unfamiliar with it. And blame it all on you if necessary. : ) I have to laugh though, 'cause one day I was looking at my elderly mom's Tivo and noticed that she had that on her list, which seemed pretty odd. I asked her about it and she said that she'd hit the Record button, thinking it was some nice ice skating romance. I think she thought the blond man was a chick. When I started to tell her what it was, she deleted it before I could finish my plot summary. LOL.
#161. To: VxH (#158) Tsk tsk. How discriminatory My, my. How flimsy flexible you are when confronted with facts. What to change the subject again? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #162. To: SOSO (#157) Ever heard of China where infanticide in the for of forced abortion was the law of the land?
Cannibalism was the "law" of the land there too. "Interview: China's Great Famine Years 'Were an Era of Cannibalism'"
Now answer the question, Comrade Polygamist: What's the evolved mechanism in your "village" for determining altruism, and who eats whose children?
#163. To: SOSO (#161) (Edited) What to change the subject again? It's the same subject: The Abomination of Nature. What's the Transhumanist/Postgenderist Action-plan timeline for litigating infertility treatment "rights"?
#164. To: VxH (#162) What's the evolved mechanism in your "village" for determining altruism, and who eats whose children? Let's get one thing very clear, Sparky. I haven't advocated any of the things that you are trying to pin on me. I merely present the arguments of the illogic and inconsistency of opinions expressed on the subject. So stop being an annoying prick so that we can have a rational discussion on the issue. All you can seem to do is deflect points that sink your argument by creating strawmen diversions or by putting words in my mouth that were never there. China does did what China does/did. I made no statements whatsoever indicating that I approve of or condone those actions. The PTB in China will eventually have to answer to God for what they did. Just as those in the U.S. that condone, support and legalized abortion on demand will do. I continue to choose to live in the U.S.. Until I choose otherwise I will live by the rules of law until I can no longer in good conscience do so. I abhor the fact the 50+ million children that have been aborted in the U.S. in the past few decades. I abhor the fact that 50% of children born in the U.S. are born out of wedlock. I am disheartened over the fact that less than 50% of "straight" marriages end in divorce. I am more than dubious about the direction of reproductive science and medicine appears to be taking us. So tell me again how gay marriage is going to ruin the family in the U.S. some time in the future. Straights seem not to have needed much help in already doing that by themself. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #165. To: SOSO (#157) Nazi Germany's history on the subject. LOL. Explain the role of Eugenics in der Fatherland's decision matrix for determining who was Uber and who wasn't? The Germans weren't eating their own children you idiot - they were removing reproductive competition for the glory of the Übermensch state- establishment. Folks of your Transhumanist/Postgenderist ilk out to recognize your own nature in the German's genocidal Übermensch craftsmanship.
#166. To: VxH (#163) What's the Transhumanist/Postgenderist Action-plan timeline for litigating infertility treatment "rights"? DK. Does it come with eggrolls? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #167. To: VxH (#165) The Germans weren't eating their own children you idiot - You mean all the Jews in Germany were in fact not German? Well then, that's a horse of a different historical color. You must be Iranian. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #168. To: SOSO (#167) You must know the only way to win is not to play.
#169. To: TooConservative (#168) You must know the only way to win is not to play. Touche. Words of wisdom to be heeded. But the ignorance and illogic is sooooooo vast. I remind you though that not only do they vote, they breed. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #170. To: SOSO (#164) So tell me again how gay marriage is going to ruin the family in the U.S. some time in the future. Straights seem not to have needed much help in already doing that by themself.
The proliferation of homosexual "marriage" is simply additional symptomic evidence that the process of demoralization described by Yuri Bezmenov is a strategic success.
Same old' Ba'alshyte, different municipal toilet.
#171. To: SOSO (#167) (Edited) You mean all the Jews in Germany were in fact not German?
Did the Nazi state-establishment not cull the Jews out of the German herd on the basis of their tainted, not-Aryan, blood? "Did I not tell you earlier that a Jew is such a noble, precious jewel that God and all the angels dance when he farts?" --Martin Luther
#172. To: SOSO (#164) (Edited) Answer the Question: What's the evolved mechanism in your "village" for determining altruism, and which polygamist eats whose children? When TSHTF, paternity/maternity and blood matters. That's an evolutionary, socio-biological, FACT.
#173. To: VxH (#172) ping #168 потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #174. To: SOSO (#173) (Edited) Stick your ping in your arse. What's the evolved mechanism in your "village" for determining altruism, and which polygamist eats whose children?
#175. To: VxH (#174) ping #168 потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #176. To: SOSO (#175) (Edited)
There is no god but the Tzar, eh comrade? (And no code of morality except that imposed by the tyrany of the majority) Bon appetit.
#177. To: TooConservative (#160) I have to laugh though, 'cause one day I was looking at my elderly mom's Tivo and noticed that she had that on her list, which seemed pretty odd. I asked her about it and she said that she'd hit the Record button, thinking it was some nice ice skating romance. I think she thought the blond man was a chick. LOL. Too funny. I'm glad you were gentle with Mama TC. I'm sure she was shocked. "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23) #178. To: TooConservative, liberator (#160) Wonder if JWpegler is going to come back here. His populist site is still down. "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23) #179. To: redleghunter (#178) Wonder if JWpegler is going to come back here. His populist site is still down. Maybe his project is on hold, maybe he's losing interest or seeing that paying the cost of getting it running may be higher than he's willing to pay. What was it called, PopulistVoice.com?
#180. To: SOSO (#120) I guess you simply cannot understand what I said. I clearly separate the secular aspects of a State sanction civil union from the religious aspects of a church sanctioned marriage. I understand that you try to make that distinction. That distinction has merit. But. Do you support what the government is calling gay marriage. You know the stuff the supreme court is going to rule on.
#181. To: SOSO (#120) Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God. I hope this clarifies my position for you. I have been very consistent on it. If not then let's just move on. Marriage is Gods.
#182. To: SOSO (#120) A church sanctioned marriage is first and foremost a State sanctioned civil union to which the church confers an additional element(s) or meaning SOLELY for the purpose of the members of that church. Whatever additional element or meaning a church may add for the benefit of its members has absolutely no impact of the secular civil union nature of the marriage. Does that really matter? Did God not Judge Sodom and Gomorrah because it wasn't real marriage? It was really just civil unions right. And that is ok. God - Lot you must not look back. Lot - I'll look back because it is really only civil unions and that is ok.
#183. To: SOSO (#144) I keep asking the question, under the U.S. Consitution what is the State's legal basis for denying gays the rights and privileges of a state sanctioned civil union that it affords straights? Under the US Constitution, power not delegated to the Congress is reserved to the States. So, the general police power reposes in the states. And with that general police power, constitutionally, the states can do anything, anything at all, that isn't PROHIBITED by the US Constitution to the states. Does the US Constitution prohibit discrimination against gays or cigarette smokers? No. Therefore, the states can discriminate against gays and cigarette smokers as much as the voters please, except they can't deny them the vote or deny them life or property without due process of law, and they can't enslave anybody other than as punishment after conviction for a crime. Now, of course, 5 Supreme Court judges can make up something new and add it to the list: abortion, for instance. And often when they do that they make a feeble attempt to tie it to some other written provision, but they only do that as window dressing. To date, the Supreme Court has not ruled that gay marriage is one of those things that the Constitution protects. And therefore, until it does so rule, marriage is something that falls within the general police power of the state. And the Constitution says that that power is quasi absolute. That is the constitutional basis for discriminating against gays and cigarette smokers: where the constitution is silent, the states have plenary power, and the Constitution does not require states to use their power rationally.
#184. To: Vicomte13 (#183) Does the US Constitution prohibit discrimination against gays or cigarette smokers? No. Of course it does. The Constitution requires two things of relevance (1) equal protection under the law, and (2) due process in denying life, liberty, and, the pursuit of happiness. Do you actually believe that a state can constitutionally institute slavery or can ban interracial marriage? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #185. To: A K A Stone (#182)
Of course it does? Do you support what the government is calling gay marriage. You know the stuff the supreme court is going to rule on." If SCOTUS sanctions state recognized gay marriage/civil unions then what choice do you or I have. IDM if we "support" it or not of by support you mean accept or even approve. If it becomes the law of the land we must tolerate gay marriage/civil union. Now there have already been some court cases in which a vendor, such as a baker, refused to provide its service to a gay couple claiming religious beliefs. As far as I know all such cases have been decided in favor of the gay couples, though there situtaion is not definitively resolved pending appeals. It will be interesting to see who ultimately prevails, i.e. - if religious exemption prevails. IMO this is really were the notion of "support" lies. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #186. To: SOSO (#185) If SCOTUS sanctions state recognized gay marriage/civil unions then what choice do you or I have. IDM if we "support" it or not of by support you mean accept or even approve. If it becomes the law of the land we must tolerate gay marriage/civil union. Yes they may use color of law to opress us. Now that we have established that and agree on it I believe. The question is would you ever vote for anyone who was supportive of that idea. I would never under any circumstances. Would you?
#187. To: SOSO (#185) Now there have already been some court cases in which a vendor, such as a baker, refused to provide its service to a gay couple claiming religious beliefs. As far as I know all such cases have been decided in favor of the gay couples, though there situtaion is not definitively resolved pending appeals. It will be interesting to see who ultimately prevails, i.e. - if religious exemption prevails. IMO this is really were the notion of "support" lies. If it holds. Then black bakers would have to bake a KKK cake. Fag bakers will have to make cakes about Leviticus chapter 20. At least if the morons who run government were consistent. Heck what if someone wants me to paint their house I guess I would have to do that too. Just a thought. Why can't they just sell their gay cakes for $50,000 each.
#188. To: A K A Stone (#187) If it holds. Then black bakers would have to bake a KKK cake. No. They, just like the religious objectors, would be free to disobey the law and face the consequences thereof - whatever that might be, which likely for those two groups will be nothing. IMO there will be selective prosecution and certainly selective enforcement. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #189. To: A K A Stone (#186) The question is would you ever vote for anyone who was supportive of that idea. Why would I vote for someone I believe would oppress me? But as usual the devil is in the details. In my case if SCOTUS says gay marriage/civil union is the law of the land, I still would not approve of gay marraige. But there is nothing in my life circumstances that would give occasion for me to break this law if enacted. I don't provide wedding services, I don't perform marriage ceremonies, I am not engaged in any reatil business in which I could deny services to gays (or blacks or the KKK). The only thing that I could do is to peacefully protest the law and vote for someone that supports my position. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #190. To: SOSO (#189) Your answer in your last sentence is what I've been trying to understand about your views. I agree with you.
#191. To: A K A Stone (#190) I agree with you. Then my all the grief:) потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #192. To: SOSO (#184) Of course it does. The Constitution requires two things of relevance (1) equal protection under the law, and (2) due process in denying life, liberty, and, the pursuit of happiness. Do you actually believe that a state can constitutionally institute slavery or can ban interracial marriage? The 13th Amendment explicitly bans slavery (except as punishment for crime after due process: prison labor and chain gangs are slavery, and legal, but generic slavery is not). So that would be a case of something that the Constitution says that the states can't do. Interracial marriage was within the state police powers until the Supreme Court ruled that it was not via the 14th Amendment. So it isn't. Gay marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore the states can ban it, unless the Supreme Court says that it, like interracial marriage, is protected under the 14th, which they have not, yet. That's the state of the law. There is one further wrinkle: some of the Circuit Courts have gone ahead and ruled that, as far as they are concerned, denial of gay marriage is a violation of equal protection. That is currently the state of the law in those Circuits, but it will not be a Constitutional requirement until the Supreme Court says it is, if they ever do. If the Supreme Court says it isn't, it isn't. Constitutional law does not hover out there in the ether like Divine Law, a real, absolute, unchanging force that has a mind of its own and that exists independently of human opinions. It is, rather, simply the written opinions of men, and in more recent decades, specifically the written opinions of at least 5 men (and women) that determines what the Constitution is. "Playing lawyer" with Constitutional law or civil or criminal law does not offend me, because these laws are not REAL, any of them. They were from the beginning nothing more than the opinions of legislators, judges, administrators, executives and kings. They still are nothing more than that, and they can never BE anything more than that, because they are nothing but the creations of men, human playthings. I outwardly defer to men with guns and warrants because they have the authority and will to mess around with my life, but internally I concede them nothing: the human law is nothing but other men's opinions, it has no majesty, and I grant it no supernal authority other than that of superior force. I don't like it when my opinions are overruled and opinions I think are bad, or stupid, or evil, are put in their place, but I am not morally offended for the LAW'S sake, because "The Law" does not exist at all. It's an imaginary plaything - an idol - the mere opinions of men backed by guns, and it is not, never was, and never can be anything more than that. The LAW, the CONSTITUTION, does not exist other than as an agreed upon dance form. But the Divine Law, now that is a different thing entirely.
#193. To: Vicomte13 (#192) Interracial marriage was within the state police powers until the Supreme Court ruled that it was not via the 14th Amendment. So it isn't. Bingo. You don't need to go any further. SCOTUS has the last word as to what state laws are constitutional and what are not. ANd the issue is in fact before SCOTUS for ruling this term. Want to bet how SCOTUS will rule? My bet is that state bans on gay marriage will not survive. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #194. To: SOSO (#193) Want to bet how SCOTUS will rule? My bet is that state bans on gay marriage will not survive. For the past many years my assumption has been that the Supreme Court will always side with Satan. I am very rarely surprised.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|