1.) then your statment would be factually false then if you are including "all of the above"
2.) i agree that why i didnt say that and i asked you what you meant
3.) true and it could also mean more, again why i asked you what you meant because i didnt want to assume
4.) because you have no reason too depending on what form the opposition takes
5.) they may not be but they also may be
6.) lol why would you ever think i dont like thier freedom to practice thier religion? as a Christian thats NEVER an issue for me in fact if that constitutional right was ever under attack you'd find me fighting it tooth and nail
They weren't racists, no, bigoted against homosexuals yes
"Amendment 2: This amendment establishes a lifetime prison sentence for any form of prayer within state territory"
Pretty simple i guess
1.)As soon as I learn that any of them are perpetrating acts of discrimination, I'll point that out.
2.) So far all I've seen is them expressing their religious beliefs, which they are entitled to have and which are protected by the Constitution.
1.) my example provide that but you said all of the above, are you saying that was a mispost now?
2.) again this would simply depend on where you were looking, examples/analogies were brought up in this thread, at least i thought they were, that were not people expressing thier religious beliefs but breaking the law and violating rights hence why they paid the price.
Or maybe they were simply expressing their rights to have religious beliefs that are protected by the Constitution and differ from any beliefs you & I have.
70% of those bigots in California who voted in favor of Prop 8 in 2008 voted for Barack Obama.
So there's a good chance that progressives/liberals may try to pass a law in a state that makes it a punishable offense to pray in the privacy of one's own home? Good luck with that. I thought progressives/liberals valued privacy?
1.)Which posters here broke the law? I may have come in late to this thread but the posts I read didn't give anything up that would make me believe any of them were committing crimes.
70% of those bigots in California who voted in favor of Prop 8 in 2008 voted for Barack Obama.
Bull ****.....you are pulling numbers out of your ass. Sure there were people who voted in favor of Prop 8 and voted for Obama but not even close to the numbers that you are claiming. DOH!
Obviously they weren't bigots if they voted for the black man.
big·ot
noun \ˈbi-gət\
: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)
They are different because, in the same book, they considered sinful
Lust, greed and gluttony etc. definitely brought Rome down and Yes I do thinks acceptance of sin in this country will be it's demise.
didnt say posters i said examples analogies and like i said i thought who your original qoute was to gave those analogizes or was replying to them
and you still havent clarified your statement "all of the above" yet, are you taking that back now?
Sorry, what I meant to post was that 70% of the black bigots who voted for Obama voted in favor of Prop 8.
I don't care about any of that, only exposing certain posters of obvious contradictions. When a ballot initiative coincides with their own beliefs despite violating the constitution and previous SCOTUS rulings, it's "our great democracy at work"; when a ballot drive takes away their guns or other things they desperately cling to it's "tyranny of the majority / unconstitutional"
That's more accurate...but even those numbers are overly inflated.
So then it's a moot point because there isn't a chance that states will try to ban prayer and/or guns.
We can come up with examples all day long of things that will never happen. They may put a proposal on my state's ballot banning dogs or prohibiting the eating of pizza on Tuesdays too. I'll worry about all of that when it happens.
I was talking only about the posters in this thread in the post you asked me to calcify/clarify.
"All of the above" were rights that the posters in this thread who were being attacked had/have.
so it was not all of the above because that would still make it false since my list in all of the above included illegal discrimaintion and thats not a right
70% of those bigots in California who voted in favor of Prop 8 in 2008 voted for Barack Obama.
So then it's a moot point because there isn't a chance that states will try to ban prayer and/or guns.
We can come up with examples all day long of things that will never happen. They may put a proposal on my state's ballot banning dogs or prohibiting the eating of pizza on Tuesdays too. I'll worry about all of that when it happens.
Interesting you used the term 'WE'
Is this some sort of group effort or are you delusional?
Lursa said:Thanks. Please point out anything in this passage that cant be applied to a gay couple as well?
"The term “one flesh” means that just as our bodies are one whole entity and cannot be divided into pieces and still be a whole, so God intended it to be with the marriage relationship. There are no longer two entities (two individuals), but now there is one entity (a married couple). There are a number of aspects to this new union.
As far as emotional attachments are concerned, the new unit takes precedence over all previous and future relationships (Genesis 2:24). Some marriage partners continue to place greater weight upon ties with parents than with the new partner. This is a recipe for disaster in the marriage and is a perversion of God’s original intention of “leaving and cleaving.” A similar problem can develop when a spouse begins to draw closer to a child to meet emotional needs rather than to his or her partner.
Emotionally, spiritually, intellectually, financially, and in every other way, the couple is to become one."