KIT, I know. That's why I agreed with you.
On May 16, 8:39 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -- 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
