Liberty Counsel and Judges fight perverted redefinition of real, natural Marriage
-
but then again, you have no point, since you are misusing the term "natural law".
It's what liberals do.
**************************
Natural lawFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaFor other uses, see Natural law (disambiguation).Thomas Aquinas, the leading proponent of natural law.Natural law is a philosophy that certain rights or values are inherent by virtue of human nature, and universally cognizable through human reason. Historically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze both social and personal human nature to deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The law of nature, being determined by nature, is universal.[1]
-
so, it isn't "law of nature"....
it's "natural law".
Jblu translation;
-
Who cares? Kim Davis was married like 50 times, and pretty much everybody else who gets married gets divorced too.
If you don't like it, don't let them get married in your church. Letting them get the license has no effect on anybody.
It's not like by giving them equal rights has any affect on your day to day life. You could make the argument for illegal immigrants or refugees getting handouts, but the only problem some people have with gays is "I don't like it my bible says no"
-
baloney. There are a lot of reasons people abhor sick perverted garbage,
and what the Bible says is often not one of them.
Of course it has a lot of affect on a lot of people. Hundreds of millions of people believe
that marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN.
It's science.
-
baloney. There are a lot of reasons people abhor sick perverted garbage,
and what the Bible says is often not one of them.
Of course it has a lot of affect on a lot of people. Hundreds of millions of people believe
that marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN.
It's science.
baloney. There are a lot of reasons people abhor sick perverted garbage,
and what the Bible says is often not one of them.
Of course it has a lot of affect on a lot of people. Hundreds of millions of people believe
that marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN.
It's science.
Really now? As a biologist, you have piqued my interest. This is the 2nd post of yours that i've noticed that you mentioned that homosexual marriage goes against science, so i'm assuming that is your hypothesis. Which discipline of science are you referring to? Please post your peer-reviewed research that supports your theory.
"That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence”. - Christopher Hitchens "The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you". - Neil deGrasse Tyson -
-
baloney. There are a lot of reasons people abhor sick perverted garbage,
and what the Bible says is often not one of them.
Of course it has a lot of affect on a lot of people. Hundreds of millions of people believe
that marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN.
It's science.
baloney. There are a lot of reasons people abhor sick perverted garbage,
and what the Bible says is often not one of them.
Of course it has a lot of affect on a lot of people. Hundreds of millions of people believe
that marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN.
It's science.
Im curious as to the other reasons ?
As I've never heard a single one that doesn't end up sounding like 'in the bible, it's a sin'.
There is no other logical reason to deny gays the right beyond that line.
As for 'it's science'. Ron Burgundy ??
-
He has no argument. He's attempted this many times. No one that is against gay marriage has any real argument. He's just fighting for team Wrong Side of History.
and it appears my posts either got deleted or didn't show up from earlier, but I made a similar comment laughing at the term "natural marriage". Every time he uses it (or one of his chain emails does), I find it hilarious.
no, wait, i forgot.... Magnets. That's his science. Magnets.
-
Who cares? Kim Davis was married like 50 times, and pretty much everybody else who gets married gets divorced too.
If you don't like it, don't let them get married in your church. Letting them get the license has no effect on anybody.
It's not like by giving them equal rights has any affect on your day to day life. You could make the argument for illegal immigrants or refugees getting handouts, but the only problem some people have with gays is "I don't like it my bible says no"
This is the correct stance.Who cares? Kim Davis was married like 50 times, and pretty much everybody else who gets married gets divorced too.
If you don't like it, don't let them get married in your church. Letting them get the license has no effect on anybody.
It's not like by giving them equal rights has any affect on your day to day life. You could make the argument for illegal immigrants or refugees getting handouts, but the only problem some people have with gays is "I don't like it my bible says no"
-
baloney. There are a lot of reasons people abhor sick perverted garbage,
and what the Bible says is often not one of them.
Of course it has a lot of affect on a lot of people. Hundreds of millions of people believe
that marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN.
It's science.
Really now? As a biologist, you have piqued my interest. This is the 2nd post of yours that i've noticed that you mentioned that homosexual marriage goes against science, so i'm assuming that is your hypothesis. Which discipline of science are you referring to? Please post your peer-reviewed research that supports your theory.
Really now? As a biologist, you have piqued my interest. This is the 2nd post of yours that i've noticed that you mentioned that homosexual marriage goes against science, so i'm assuming that is your hypothesis. Which discipline of science are you referring to? Please post your peer-reviewed research that supports your theory.
Stuart
I think he means that nature designed rod "A" to fit into slot "B" to produce an outcome "C"...and marriage is the "moral" way by which civilized people are supposed to procreate.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=marry
I know, I know, morality is not absolute, its another can of worms.
I would love to see Alabama get its way however, but when it comes to it, representatives of the govt should comply. Give unto Caesar what is Caesars and give unto God what is Gods.
I'm sure God won't hold it against Kim Davis if she issues a marriage license to a couple of homos.
-
Really now? As a biologist, you have piqued my interest. This is the 2nd post of yours that i've noticed that you mentioned that homosexual marriage goes against science, so i'm assuming that is your hypothesis. Which discipline of science are you referring to? Please post your peer-reviewed research that supports your theory.
Stuart
I think he means that nature designed rod "A" to fit into slot "B" to produce an outcome "C"...and marriage is the "moral" way by which civilized people are supposed to procreate.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=marry
I know, I know, morality is not absolute, its another can of worms.
I would love to see Alabama get its way however, but when it comes to it, representatives of the govt should comply. Give unto Caesar what is Caesars and give unto God what is Gods.
I'm sure God won't hold it against Kim Davis if she issues a marriage license to a couple of homos.
Stuart
I think he means that nature designed rod "A" to fit into slot "B" to produce an outcome "C"...and marriage is the "moral" way by which civilized people are supposed to procreate.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=marry
I know, I know, morality is not absolute, its another can of worms.
I would love to see Alabama get its way however, but when it comes to it, representatives of the govt should comply. Give unto Caesar what is Caesars and give unto God what is Gods.
I'm sure God won't hold it against Kim Davis if she issues a marriage license to a couple of homos.
This, is the fucking point I've mentioned multiple times; Although with a bit more tact.
-
I think the contradictory line in the first sentence of the cited "article" shows just how dubious it actually is:
"The fight for natural marriage..."
The concept of marriage, in itself, is not a natural phenomenon; there are no examples in nature of institutionalized marriage anywhere in the animal kingdom. Marriage is a strictly man-made construct, and unique to humanity. Therefore, it is rather poor logic to attempt to legitimize heterosexual marriage over homosexual marriage in humans by using "natural laws".
But then again, when you have an agenda, you'll grab at any straw man in arms reach.
Yes, marriage itself is directly against nature.I think the contradictory line in the first sentence of the cited "article" shows just how dubious it actually is:
"The fight for natural marriage..."
The concept of marriage, in itself, is not a natural phenomenon; there are no examples in nature of institutionalized marriage anywhere in the animal kingdom. Marriage is a strictly man-made construct, and unique to humanity. Therefore, it is rather poor logic to attempt to legitimize heterosexual marriage over homosexual marriage in humans by using "natural laws".
But then again, when you have an agenda, you'll grab at any straw man in arms reach.
So is most of religion and civilization itself. Perfect allegory is in the old film Island of Dr Moreau, redone as island of lost souls. I believe it was from at HG Wells story where the mad scientist tries to turn animals into human beings yet they revert to their animal nature. Are we not men?
WSS
-
Yet since marriage is a contract basically for procreation and family then there can be a distinct difference between natural and unnatural. That doesn't mean right or wrong. That means that a mock apple pie made with Ritz crackers is not the same as an apple pie made with Macintosh apples
WSS
-
Really now? As a biologist, you have piqued my interest. Jblu
**************************************
Well, Emily jblu latella......
You see.... you take two magnets. Now, watch how, always, that N repels N, and S repels S when you try to put them together.
It's science. Now,try doing N-S, and S-N. See?
Sure, with biology, human beings' sexuality isn't as concretely true as that, but it's still unnatural, per natural law -
it's a grotesque anomaly. Like a two-headed snake. Not normal. Kinda makes most people puke kind of not normal.
So, there ya go. You can't argue with simple science, ya know. Perverted definition of REAL MARRIAGE supporters
just get hosed, because they are science deniers, and sciencephobes.
-
He's 100% serious too. That's the funny thing.
-
baloney. There are a lot of reasons people abhor sick perverted garbage,
and what the Bible says is often not one of them.
Of course it has a lot of affect on a lot of people. Hundreds of millions of people believe
that marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN.
It's science.
baloney. There are a lot of reasons people abhor sick perverted garbage,
and what the Bible says is often not one of them.
Of course it has a lot of affect on a lot of people. Hundreds of millions of people believe
that marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN.
It's science.
no it's always something from the bible. Let it go Cal. We've moved on.
-
It's the procreation thing that's getting Cal tripped up. He doesn't understand that most of us now consider marriage as the union between two people who love each other, procreation is secondary to that. Cal is still living 2000 years ago.
-
like I could personally give a shit that two guys or two girls can't technically procreate with each other. If they love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives with each other and create a stable union which imo is more important to society than simple procreation....than so be it. It's none of my business.
-
@westside-steve said:
Cal has been more honest than most around here. He and I don't particularly agree on this one area but I've never heard him say that he believes that homosexuality is a sin and is against the Bible and blah blah blah. He's been pretty straightforward about the fact that homosexuality creeps him out.
(No different than sadomasochism. It's kind of fucked up and not natural even though it exists. Personally if two people want to do it it's up to them but it is fucked up)
I think most people who want to prove him wrong feel the same way but are being a little hypocritical about it.
WSS
-
Props to cal for being honest about his dumbass reasoning I guess...
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login