Veteran++ Contributor
|
was that written by idris elba or does guardian have an entire section dedicated to opinions on idris elba
|
|
|
VeteranXX Contributor
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fool
|
Caspar Salmon (@CasparSalmon) on Twitter
The "writer" of that piece is an effeminate, pencil-necked, little man-child. Of course he's going to be jealous.
|
|
|
Banned
|
Goats, donkeys, camels, and underage girls are fair game for Muslims.
|
|
|
VeteranXX Contributor
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amadeus
You totally missed my point.
|
I didn't miss your point. Your point is anything that goes against our Christian heritage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amadeus
If "marriage" is to mean what it legally means, then that's the paperwork, nothing else. You can have that with or without the church ceremony, and the state has no reason to care if it's between a heterosexual or homosexual couple.
|
Correct... in a way. When you go and get 'married', the person who marries you and your significant other signs a document stating that he/she, with his licenses from the State to marry people, married the 2 of you. You take this signed document down to the local county office and register. Once the State processes this paperwork, the state recongizes the 2 of you in a legally binding contract.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amadeus
If you want "marriage" to mean the western christian tradition, then that is not a legally recognized institution, so nobody has a legal right to it.
|
Marriage, under our Western European Christian traditions, was performed in a place of worship but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way.
When I was younger, I hated everything religious, more specifically, anything Christian. When my g/f and I finally got married, we had some woman pagan priestess marry us at her parents' house. Her parents were ardent Catholics and I despised Catholics at that time. You couldn't pay me to walk into a church. (Ahh... you be young and dumb). Anyways - we took that signed paper and registered it at the county and were then considered married.
This is something that homos can do right now, at least here in Cali. No one is stopping them as it is their right to profess their love to one another and have the State recognize it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amadeus
There's no frame of reference in which it makes sense for the right to "marriage", however you want to define it, to be legally restricted to heterosexual couples only. It's either everyone or no-one.
|
No one has a right to marriage so why create a 'right' where none exists? If you give homos the 'right' to marriage, the Churches in American will cease to exist and, knowing you, I know this is your ultimate end goal but, what about the rest of us? Do hetero couples also need a right to get married? What about bi-racial couples? Where does it end?
I am not a religious person, but I will defend their right to exist. I know the Marxists POV on the Christian religion and will defend it, even more, knowing that Christianity is one of the biggest roadblocks in the Marxists totalitarian ideology.
Marxism stems from Judaism; is a child ideology born from Jewish totalitarianism and I, for one, will do all I can to oppose Jewish control over our great culture and traditions. Jews are the loudest voice in the anti-Christian movement and they want it destroyed. They know that the people naturally put faith in something higher than themselves and Christianity is standing in their way of total control. Destroying our customs is their main goal and our customs of what is considered 'marriage' is under attack.
If homos want to get married, go for it, I can care less. I am opposed to giving them a 'right' to get married because the attacks on the churches will be relentless.
|
|
|
Banned
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by samUwell
> abridged.
If homos want to get married, go for it, I can care less. I am opposed to giving them a 'right' to get married because the attacks on the churches will be relentless.
|
Churches are private property.
It is not covered by Federal regulations.
They cannot be compelled to marry queers.
It's a "We reserve the right to refuse service" thingy.
It's somewhat like a MUSLIM filing suit cuz a Christian Church refused to conduct an Islamic service just because they show up and wanna worship then and there.
|
|
|
VeteranXX
|
he is a racist who thinks that strong black men can't be sexy
|
|
|
VeteranXX Contributor
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dweasel
Churches are private property.
It is not covered by Federal regulations.
They cannot be compelled to marry queers.
|
While I will agree with you that they are private properties, ever hear of a baker getting sued for NOT baking a cake for a gay couple?
If we give homosexuals the 'right' to marry, the Churches that refuse to marry them in on their private property will be sued into ruin.
Hell, there is a private property in N.Y. that has allowed couples to marry on their property for years. They are a Christian family and is apparently a very popular place for couples to get married. A gay group went them and demanded they be allowed to get married on their private property and were denied. The family was sued and is now forced, by the State, with all their guns pointing at their heads, to allow gay couples to invade their property and get married.
|
|
|
VeteranXX
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkittleBrew
Sure. It's not like a couple cleptomaniacs getting hitched is sending some mixed message that stealing is normal behavior.
|
You're right, it's not. Marriage isn't an approval of the people's character in any way.
Glad we could clear that up.
|
|
|
VeteranXX
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by samUwell
No one has a right to marriage so why create a 'right' where none exists? If you give homos the 'right' to marriage, the Churches in American will cease to exist and, knowing you, I know this is your ultimate end goal but, what about the rest of us? Do hetero couples also need a right to get married? What about bi-racial couples? Where does it end?
|
The basic precept of English common law is that everything is permitted unless explicitly prohibited by law. Every person implicitly has a right to marriage (as defined by the state, i.e. the paperwork) as part of their right to pursue happiness (except where the law explicitly forbids it, e.g. if the person is already married).
Which is why I phrased the question the way I did: can you give a good reason for homosexuals not to be granted that right? Because if not, then by default they will have it just the same as heterosexuals and everyone else do.
(Also, for the record: I don't want to see churches destroyed. I want them to die a natural death due to lack of interest. I understand that abandoned church buildings go for quite cheap on the US real estate market, so apparently I'm getting my wish.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by samUwell
bla bla Marxism
|
Take it up with a Marxist? Where is Al'Muktar nowadays, anyway?
Quote:
Originally Posted by samUwell
If homos want to get married, go for it, I can care less. I am opposed to giving them a 'right' to get married because the attacks on the churches will be relentless.
|
Separation of church and state, brah. The government granting marriage rights to homosexuals has zero legal bearing on what churches are allowed to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samUwell
While I will agree with you that they are private properties, ever hear of a baker getting sued for NOT baking a cake for a gay couple?
|
Ackshually, the baker's position is fairly solid in that case. He was prepared to sell the couple any pre-made cake, he only refused to create a custom cake for them. That's not obviously illegal, since a custom cake can be considered artistic expression, and you cannot coerce someone to convey a specific message through their art. In fact, the court eliminated the discrimination charges against the baker:
tl;dr: The sky isn't falling. Chill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samUwell
If we give homosexuals the 'right' to marry, the Churches that refuse to marry them in on their private property will be sued into ruin.
Hell, there is a private property in N.Y. that has allowed couples to marry on their property for years. They are a Christian family and is apparently a very popular place for couples to get married. A gay group went them and demanded they be allowed to get married on their private property and were denied. The family was sued and is now forced, by the State, with all their guns pointing at their heads, to allow gay couples to invade their property and get married.
|
The family are publicly advertising their property as a wedding venue. They're a public business, and are therefore subject to civil rights law that prohibits them from discriminating against customers on the basis of their sexual orientation. If they want to reserve the right to only serve heterosexual couples, then they can do so via case-by-case contracts with said couples, without running a public business.
What part of this do you consider unfair?
|
|
|
VeteranXX
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esteban_Villa
given denominations of protestant (and even catholics with a lot of **** now) have gone further and further liberal in their interpretation of the bible and allowing gays to get married we now find ourselves in the **** show we are today as something that isn't really supposed to change (religion) has in fact changed. thanks watered down protestants ya'll need to find luther again
|
Do you also lament the fact that your religion no longer condones slavery?
|
|
|
VeteranXV
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amadeus
Do you also lament the fact that your religion no longer condones slavery?
|
I know what you're getting at, but why don't you explicitly state it instead of archaic arguments against strawmen spanish inquisitors? what is my religion? maybe I'm from a hold out of Arians who survived the great purges Arian eclesiastic thought? Or a hold out from Paganism and I drink the blood of virgins because we all know that **** is potent.
you're bringing common law into the fold, should I expect a sovereign citizen defense of why you feel you two men should marry? you can marry a horse? a kid? i mean nothing says you can't under your own idea regarding nation of one's self.
laws are for societies. we figure things out and come up with laws either through strongmen forcing them through or consent of the people. perhaps strongmen making people believe certain things regardless of the facts? I operate under the guise of individual effectiveness. If I tell a legitimately gay man they can't get married they will not be as effective in their production for the country (society). I'm not really for that. If there a gay man in church who wants to get married, I tell them if you want to be a part of our society you will have to follow our doctrine or you will see yourself outside the fold. I won't not work with them, I won't spit at them, I won't hold withhold conversation with them. They won't advance socially within our society though. I will still conduct business with them but if they sell goods at the same price as a member of the church (or close enough) I will go for those that toe the line.
Freedom of religion wasn't designed for broad brush christian/islams/jews/hindus etc to all live in harmony. It was so Huguenots would stop ****ing with Quakers, Quakers to stop ****ing with the Jews, Jews to stop ****ing with the Calvinists, Calvinists to stop ****ing with the Catholics, etc. In a geographic area you can't have 5 groups of 20% of the population constantly against each other. Live and let live, let's build our area up and be respectful of each others beliefs. People are at heart evil (sinners), or animalistic if you want me to convert it to atheist speech and will pull one on another man if given the opportunity and when you have those outside of these societies i.e. the ted kacynzkis on the fringes who no matter how smart and even right on many issues was still ****ing nuts who simply tried to harm society. A good nation will work to minimize these fringe guys by being overall inclusive. To loop it all back together, if I tell gay men they're not going to get married and they won't be able to pursue happiness that comes with finding a partner they will drift to the extreme and cause rifts as they are rebels at heart. I can't guarantee them the same goals that I'm working towards, but it'll work out.
Given two men banging has no detrimental effect on the nation today, go at it! We (as a nation) tend to draw the line at amoral behavior that will not infringe on others. Back in the day however, not popping out kids was anti-societal behavior. With plagues, famine, injuns, and overall many not making it to adulthood and a lot to be explored both physically and intellectually we needed all hands on deck and everyone working towards (x). It also made no sense as who the **** is going take care of your old ass when youre blind and your gay lover is dead from typhoid? We didn't have the welfare state. Sure we had charity but one can not rely on it consistently, which is the great difference between the two and it was also understood then but for some reason not understood now that those on welfare are causing those who are productive to have to be pick up their slack. I suppose it's easy when every day life has legitimate team activities where the frail kid is having a tough time pushing the cart and it's because he spends his evenings wistfully writing love poems to a girl he barely knows instead of doing extra work to make himself stronger (the beta of today).
Things change that make certain previously abhorrent behavior acceptable on a national level, but not on a smaller society basis.
This corruption of the term marriage is one that no religious person should back down on. Words have tremendous meaning and you see the weaponization of words from the simple like imbecile --> retard ---> mentally challenged, or fascism meaning god knows what today other than people I don't agree with. People who back down today will leave their kids further down the hill of the decent in degeneracy which is made so easy today. I'm no saint and will never pretend to be, I've done some ****ed up ****, but I ultimately reject that part of me rather than turning it into some pride point.
Your refusal and many others to acquiesce to civil unions is a sign that this isn't a rights issue like you pretend in this but snake in the grass warfare against religion in general.
|
|
|
VeteranXX
|
That's a spectacularly long answer to a simple yes/no question.
|
|
|
Veteran³ Immigrant
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amadeus
That's a spectacularly long answer to a simple yes/no question.
|
maybe you should cherry pick out just one word you don't like
like deviance vs. deviant and play a semantics game about for 10 more pages instead
edit: I got a fun word for us to focus on
Quote:
New HIV drug Gammora passed its first human clinical trial yesterday eliminating 99% of the virus within 4 weeks of treatment. Outstanding leap for medicine
|
"GAMMORA"
|
|
Last edited by Captain Tele; 11-08-2018 at 16:37..
|
VeteranXV
|
I want reasons why things shouldn't be allowed!
Thanks for stating reasons loser lol.
The degenerate left mental processes in action.
I've been drifting away from Trump over the last year but his sheer ability to decloak subversive elements themselves that don't wish to engage in debate but instead push their spurting will down others yearning throats is unparalleled and could have been used during the 50s.
|
|
|
Veteran³ Immigrant
|
recent events sure have changed my mind about my public school indoctrination on the McCarthy era, Womans suffrage turning into feminism, and exactly what took place in the past few World Wars.......very eye opening indeed
No wonder the UK needs to open its military to foreign fighters, people who have never lived inside their country, because recruitment ability among native English populations (is that even such a thing......google says no) is at record lows.
I am realizing what they are realizing. Dunkirk was too white. Not just the movie......but the actual battle itself.
Let the sodomites fight their own battles now I say......I don't fight for people who spit on me in return.
Who I marched for in equal rights parades, as a straight cis male, only to quickly be called a bigot because I don't want to physically partake in their activities that I'm just not into or interested in.
You care about my 1st and 2nd Amendment rights again.......I'll care more about your desires to do whatever it is you do and want to do. Until then get ****ed.
|
|
Last edited by Captain Tele; 11-08-2018 at 16:44..
|
VeteranXV
|
It's been coming out that McCarthy was onto some ****. Hippy profs indoctrinated a generation into thinking he was the equivalent of the satanic cult chasres of the 80s. Of course as people died and **** like the KGB archives got opened which is most important, many handlers had dossiers on people in front of congressmen and how they were under their influence.
These dossiers are also partly why I'm pro two dudes banging. If subversive elements can't hold something over you, you are less likely to get strong armed into undermining the country. Many great gay patriots out there but if we lived in an theological dictatorship they would be forced to conceal themselves and undermine the greater society by pretending to blend in with a little toe tapping at the airport to scratch their itch every now and again.
Of course he took it too far in that commies have the freedom to live in America, they just need to be reminded they are retarded on a daily basis and warn the youngins that their pied piper songs of peace and harmony are no more than the allegorical snake and eve in the garden of eden.
Amadeus fights against religion because he's another weaponized degenerate who has fallen hook line and sinker for the communist agenda whose seeds were planted during the McCarthy era. You can't truly love the state if you love god more, every totalitarian government knows this. Socialism while being so close to many strains of religion needs to stamp it out as you can't have a preacher telling you that shipping off ukranians to gulags or jews to summer camp in poland is bad as that undermines the state's agenda. Muslims get this better than us given their proximity to the USSR during the cold war.
|
|
|
Veteran³ Immigrant
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esteban_Villa
Amadeus fights against religion because he's another weaponized degenerate who has fallen hook line and sinker for the communist agenda whose seeds were planted during the McCarthy era. You can't truly love the state if you love god more, every totalitarian government knows this. Socialism while being so close to many strains of religion needs to stamp it out as you can't have a preacher telling you that shipping off ukranians to gulags or jews to summer camp in poland is bad as that undermines the state's agenda. Muslims get this better than us given their proximity to the USSR during the cold war.
|
this is really worth pointing out imo
it is the entire point and purpose of this thread
that is why no matter how many times people say "GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF MARRIAGE".....out of that kind of decision making.
It does nothing for him. That means absolutely nothing.
That is like saying take big government out of COMMUNISM
he knows his goals will become limited if someone isn't pushing and coercing his message for him. if his kind of goal degeneracy isn't subsidized and forced.
in his mind we don't just need prepubescent trans kids......we need subsidized trans kids surgeries and medicaid sponsored hormone therapy.
in his mind we don't just need kid diddling.......but camps where it is taught and encouraged
to break the norms......to undermine the stigma association
He doesn't just believe that gays can get married (which I could accept) but that adults should be able to have child brides (which I don't accept, most of us could never accept) and for that reason he knows that a laissez faire approach is not in his best interests in here or anywhere else.......
|
|
Last edited by Captain Tele; 11-08-2018 at 16:58..
|
VeteranXX Contributor
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esteban_Villa
You can't truly love the state if you love god more, every totalitarian government knows this.
|
THIS!
|
|
|
VeteranXX
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esteban_Villa
Amadeus fights against religion because he's another weaponized degenerate who has fallen hook line and sinker for the communist agenda whose seeds were planted during the McCarthy era.
|
Actually, to the extent that I fight against religion (by posting on a small internet forum for a dead video game), I do it to curb the spread of unfounded beliefs and ideologies. That includes communism, by the way.
|
|
|
Veteran³ Immigrant
|
basically this is Amadeus on the topic of gay rights
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
AGENT: claudebot / Y
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:40.
|