That is my point exactly Holly. I don't think the majority of Americans have any problem with some kind of a law which would acknowledge homos in a monogamous relationship, granting them the same rights as a married couple. As I wrote above:
"By example, there is no other definition of and for marriage, other than the term's religious connotation. The premise that there is some kind of "civil definition" of marriage is incorrect. Marriage is in total, an ecclesiastical function; marriage always has been and continues to be." On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Hollywood <[email protected]>wrote: > > KIT, > > Actually a sorta agree with you on this. Gay activists are fucking > up,IMHO, by making the word marriage such an issue. they should > concentrate their energy on getting "civil domestic contracts" passed > into law in each state. As you say , such laws can give them all the > legal rights as marriage. that's all that really counts anyway. > > There are extremists and nut-jobs aplenty on BOTH sides of any issue. > > On May 15, 10:29 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > Apples and oranges....Just as important, the push by secularists is not > > about equal rights either. When the majority of Californians voted to > > amend the California Constitution to state that marriage is between a man > > and a woman, those secularists had a domestic partner law, which granted > > every right to a homosexual couple, that a man and a woman joined in > > matrimony has. Check it out: > > > > http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001... > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:22 PM, J.C. <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Nor was it, at one point, considered discriminatory to be opposed to > > > interracial marriage. > > > > > On May 15, 9:18 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hey J.C.!! > > > > > > (LOL, Here We Go Again!!) > > > > > > First, I am not a Biblical scholar, as you are!! Having said that, > I > > > note > > > > that you only reference the Old Jewish Testament, and not the New > > > > Covenants, Christians believe Christ released them from the bonds of > > > strict > > > > adherence to the Old Testament Law and superimposed God's judgment > with > > > > Grace. For those who read the Old testament and find harshness, this > > > means > > > > the New covenant supersedes anything in the Old Testament. > > > > > > Moreover, Jesus Christ told us that the whole law, *e.g.;* the "Old > > > > Testament" could be summarized in two commands: "*Love God with all > your > > > > heart, soul and mind*"; and "*Love your neighbor as yourself*" *See* > > > Luke > > > > 12:28-32. > > > > Further, Christ also taught us that, “*B**ecause this is my blood of > the > > > > new covenant that is being poured out for many people for the > > > forgiveness of > > > > sins*.” (*See* Matthew 26:28); and. “*For if there had been nothing > wrong > > > > with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for > another*.” > > > * > > > > See* Hebrews 8:7; and, “*By calling this covenant "new," he has made > the > > > > first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon > disappear*.” > > > * > > > > See* Hebrews 8:13. > > > > > > From our messages back in February of this year: > > > > > > With purposeful , extensive, methodical propaganda, planning, massive > > > > amounts of funding by the likes of George Soros, Hollywood elitists > and > > > > others, and with controlled, extensive media manipulation, it is my > > > opinion > > > > that you, and many Americans have been intentionally misled and > mislead. > > > > There has been a concerted effort by a select hard core group of > > > socialists > > > > and secularists, who want to destroy the traditional values of this > > > Nation, > > > > the very core values that made this Nation great. > > > > > > By example, there is no other definition of and for marriage, other > than > > > the > > > > term's religious connotation. The premise that there is some kind > of > > > > "civil definition" of marriage is incorrect. Marriage is in total, > an > > > > ecclesiastical function; marriage always has been and continues to > be. > > > If > > > > one studies the history of marriage in this Nation, the several > States > > > got > > > > involved in the contract of "Marriage", only because of the conflict > of > > > > varying religious tenets, and in part, to regulate miscegenation back > in > > > the > > > > early to mid nineteenth century. As stated, marriage is now, and has > > > always > > > > been between a man and a woman, and this is at the very core of > > > traditional > > > > values in western civilization. The definition of marriage extends > > > > throughout recorded history of western civilization. > > > > > > The term, "same sex marriage" is an oxymoron, there can be no such > thing, > > > > without literally changing the definition of marriage. That is the > goal > > > of > > > > these socialists and secularists; e.g.; to redefine the definition of > > > > marriage. This would be the equivalent of changing the definition > of > > > > "Murder", or "giraffe"; or any other noun, adjective or adverb. > > > > > > Despite the concept that many individuals and entities are trying to > sell > > > > the American public, (including Mags, and this Moonbat "ThosPayne) in > his > > > > article that Mags posted captioned: "When Same-Sex Marriage Was a > > > Christian > > > > Rite") most of which are from socialist-elitist movements here in > the > > > > United States, and in this particular case, e.g.; the push for "gay > > > > marriage"; it is the militant gay movements within the United States, > > > that > > > > has, and attempts to portray any individual that is opposed to gay > > > marriage > > > > as somehow being bigoted, and equivalent to being racist, comparing > > > > themselves to the black community and the black leadership that > pushed > > > for > > > > racial equality who were treated unjustly during the mid to late 20th > > > > century. > > > > > > It is not discriminatory for Americans to be opposed to, and > rejecting > > > same > > > > sex marriages as being a part of normal, mainstream behavior > > > > > > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 10:58 PM, J.C. <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > Oh, are we back to the biblical definition of marriage? Would that > be > > > > > Abraham taking his handmaiden? Jacob and his two wives? Lot's > > > > > daughters getting him drunk and sleeping with him? David having > the > > > > > husband of the woman he wanted killed? All the other plural > marriages > > > > > and concubines that show up? Or are we talking about the property > > > > > aspect of it? > > > > > > > Come on, Baby...you can do better than that. > > > > > > > On May 15, 8:35 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > The term, "Gay Marriage" or "Same Sex Marriage" is an oxymoron, > but > > > we > > > > > have > > > > > > been down this road before J.C.!!! > > > > > > > > (LOL!!) > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 10:29 PM, J.C. <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > You can look, but don't touch. > > > > > > > > > On May 15, 8:20 pm, SgtUSMC <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Well, I'm sure she practices abstinence, at least. > > > > > > > > > > On May 15, 9:53 pm, "J.C." <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Ms. Rambo? I don't think so. She is nothing more than a > > > hypocrite > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > the highest order. It is alright for her to pose semi-nude > and > > > to > > > > > > > > > prance around in a bikini while her chosen party tells all > the > > > > > other > > > > > > > > > girls how modest they should be, just as long as she > espouses > > > their > > > > > > > > > views on gay marriage. She is nothing more than a pretty > > > little > > > > > > > > > convenience - and more likely than not with implants. > > > > > > > > > > > On May 15, 7:02 pm, "d.b.baker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 15, 8:25 pm, "J.C." <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're kidding, right? No one forced her to be in the > Miss > > > > > America > > > > > > > > > > > pageant, or forced her to pose semi-nude, or forced her > to > > > do > > > > > > > > > > > anything... > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes they did do something; they tried to force her "out." > > > > > > > > > > > > Fools, they thought they were setting up a bimbo, but > instead > > > > > they > > > > > > > got > > > > > > > > > > Ms. Rambo. > > > > > > > > > > > > And we can still hear those raging queens screaming. - > Hide > > > > > quoted > > > > > > > text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
