Another win for fags.
Moderator: Jesus H Christ
Re: Another win for fags.
The issue for me isn't more or less unusual arrangements, Phibes - because people should be free to do as they please.
I don't CARE what people want to do with their life.
The issue for me is government sanctioning of homosexual marriage.
It's preposterous.
'TARD, your thinking is deep within the current government-marriage paradigm.
Take your mind into a different paradigm, one in which the government is completely OUT of marriage, and you could find that all legal implications would find a natural resolution.
I don't CARE what people want to do with their life.
The issue for me is government sanctioning of homosexual marriage.
It's preposterous.
'TARD, your thinking is deep within the current government-marriage paradigm.
Take your mind into a different paradigm, one in which the government is completely OUT of marriage, and you could find that all legal implications would find a natural resolution.
Re: Another win for fags.
Well if you mean by "taking government out of marriage" (a very clumsy phrase), that religious based ballot prop initiatives denying people marriage rights be stricken from the books, sure. That is what you meant, right? Because these Deuteronomists are the ONLY obstacle to people marrying whomever they like. Usually Mormons, but standard loony Christers are all in as well, as Bachmann essentially bases her entire campaign on this non-issue.
Before God was, I am
Re: Another win for fags.
Of course.Well if you mean by "taking government out of marriage" (a very clumsy phrase), that religious based ballot prop initiatives denying people marriage rights be stricken from the books, sure. That is what you meant, right?
I'm in favor or government not handing out marriage licenses to ANYONE.
But I also know that this will be happening right around... never.
That being the reality, the logical and rightful standard for marriage is MAN-WOMAN.
Any government (federal or state) which sanctions MAN-MAN marriage has lost all sense of reality and has launched itself to Planet Dipshit.
- War Wagon
- 2010 CFB Pickem Champ
- Posts: 21127
- Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:38 pm
- Location: Tiger country
Re: Another win for fags.
What words in the constitution grant marriage as a fundamental right?
Probably the same words you use to justify abortion.
Once again, fuck you.
Probably the same words you use to justify abortion.
Once again, fuck you.
Re: Another win for fags.
The Constitution doesn't grant rights, dumbass. It protects them from government interference.War Wagon wrote:What words in the constitution grant marriage as a fundamental right?
Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:39 pmUnlike you tards, I actually have functioning tastebuds and a refined pallet.
Re: Another win for fags.
With very few exceptions, anyone can marry anyone - of the opposite sex. Gays can marry members of the opposite sex also. Those rights are protected. If they choose not to, that is their right also....Jsc810 wrote:Since it is all so logical and rightful to you, would you mind explaining why you think it is appropriate to deny a fundamental constitutional right to a class of citizens merely because your delicate sensitivities are offended?
“It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.”
Re: Another win for fags.
Jsc, I DON'T think the freedom to marry should have ever been denied to gays, and I've said it twice in this thread.
Marriage isn't something the gov is constitutionally called on to be involved in.
So in a correct constitutional republic - fags, go get married.
I don't care.
It's your life and it's your business.
But the gov PUT ITSELF into it, as it does in SO many areas which it clearly does not belong.
And they've set a standard: man-woman.
If the government IS going to be involved, yes, surely man-woman is the correct standard.
I don't doubt that this will go to the supreme court and that ultimately, gay marriage will be given universal equality to hetero marriage.
Conservatives ought to give up trying to block gay marriage and instead push for what is rightful and correct - which is government OUT of marriage entirely, and government staying within it's constitutional boundaries.
Marriage isn't something the gov is constitutionally called on to be involved in.
So in a correct constitutional republic - fags, go get married.
I don't care.
It's your life and it's your business.
But the gov PUT ITSELF into it, as it does in SO many areas which it clearly does not belong.
And they've set a standard: man-woman.
If the government IS going to be involved, yes, surely man-woman is the correct standard.
I don't doubt that this will go to the supreme court and that ultimately, gay marriage will be given universal equality to hetero marriage.
Conservatives ought to give up trying to block gay marriage and instead push for what is rightful and correct - which is government OUT of marriage entirely, and government staying within it's constitutional boundaries.
- Diego in Seattle
- Rouser Of Rabble
- Posts: 9741
- Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:39 pm
- Location: Duh
Re: Another win for fags.
The issue isn't just "rights." Try re-reading the 14th Amendment, dumbfuck.War Wagon wrote:What words in the constitution grant marriage as a fundamental right?
9/27/22“Left Seater” wrote:So charges are around the corner?
Re: Another win for fags.
Diego, the institution of marriage (man/woman) has pre-dated the U.S. legislature by a LONG time.
So a new legislature coming along and saying, "No, no... THIS is marriage," and COMPLETELY remaking it, takes absurdity to new heights.
As The Seer has said, understanding what the instition of marriage is (in it's man/woman form which has pre-dated our legislature), nobody is being denied any right.
Anyone is free to marry.
Further, government can justify it's involvement in marriage on the basis of seeking to promote family stability and procreation.
Fag marriage does neither and instead is done for the gratification of buttfucking deviants.
Only people who have become twisted and confused would support it.
Son, somewhere along the trail, you lost your mind.
Track back and see if you can find where you lost it.
So a new legislature coming along and saying, "No, no... THIS is marriage," and COMPLETELY remaking it, takes absurdity to new heights.
As The Seer has said, understanding what the instition of marriage is (in it's man/woman form which has pre-dated our legislature), nobody is being denied any right.
Anyone is free to marry.
Further, government can justify it's involvement in marriage on the basis of seeking to promote family stability and procreation.
Fag marriage does neither and instead is done for the gratification of buttfucking deviants.
Only people who have become twisted and confused would support it.
Son, somewhere along the trail, you lost your mind.
Track back and see if you can find where you lost it.
Re: Another win for fags.
Getting back to the initial thread..
A gathering of First Ladies

A gathering of First Ladies

Before God was, I am
- Diego in Seattle
- Rouser Of Rabble
- Posts: 9741
- Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:39 pm
- Location: Duh
Re: Another win for fags.
So the government had no business abolishing slavery, as that institution had been around much longer than the U.S. legislature by a LONG time as well. Got it (not suprising for a conservative to feel that way).poptart wrote:Diego, the institution of marriage (man/woman) has pre-dated the U.S. legislature by a LONG time.
So a new legislature coming along and saying, "No, no... THIS is marriage," and COMPLETELY remaking it, takes absurdity to new heights.
Again, re-read the 14th Amendment. Rights aren't the only thing that are being protected.As The Seer has said, understanding what the instition of marriage is (in it's man/woman form which has pre-dated our legislature), nobody is being denied any right.
As long as they marry the person who you choose? Got it. That sure is equal.Anyone is free to marry.

So you're saying that hetero couples who are infertile should be denied the ability to marry? Got it. So if Wolfman were to be single & he met the woman that is his current wife, they shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't procreate? Got it.Further, government can justify it's involvement in marriage on the basis of seeking to promote family stability and procreation.
Based on what? Oh, that's right...you believe that this country should be a theocracy...got it. You don't have a problem with government being run by the Phelps inbreds, do you?Fag marriage does neither and instead is done for the gratification of buttfucking deviants.
Which was what was said about interracial marriages a few decades ago. Try moving your life up a few decades, dipshit.Only people who have become twisted and confused would support it.
Someone who believes in imaginary beings is saying that I've lost my mind? That's rich!Son, somewhere along the trail, you lost your mind.
Track back and see if you can find where you lost it.

9/27/22“Left Seater” wrote:So charges are around the corner?
-
- Certified Cockologist
- Posts: 2085
- Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 7:18 am
Re: Another win for fags.
I guess you dont read your history much? huh dipshit? ROME started out fine, that is until they let the gays run things, then things got perverted quickly, and Rome started goin downhill fast.
read history much dipshit? torwards the end of rome, gays were fully out in the open, I mean FULL BLOWN, were talking handjobs in the street, sodomy out in the open, sick fags flaunting their openness in front of children, and of course, the open sanctioning of children into their lifestyle.
today, we here in the USA are at the beginning stages, you are slowly seeing the gay agenda creep forward, with emphasis on the word, "creep" THERE is a little known organization called, "NAMBLA" ever heard of them? heck, you probably have their "mission statement stuck to your bedroom wall with your dried up cum. BUT, I digress, we are slowly but surely going the way of the roman empire, with each passing decade, we become more and more decadent, and gays become more and more brazen.
torward the end of rome, it was not uncommon to see gays sucking each other off in broad daylight. incest was more common than normal relations. Rome wasnt built in a day, BUT, the sick queer lifestyle sure brought it to its knees. :twisted:
read history much dipshit? torwards the end of rome, gays were fully out in the open, I mean FULL BLOWN, were talking handjobs in the street, sodomy out in the open, sick fags flaunting their openness in front of children, and of course, the open sanctioning of children into their lifestyle.
today, we here in the USA are at the beginning stages, you are slowly seeing the gay agenda creep forward, with emphasis on the word, "creep" THERE is a little known organization called, "NAMBLA" ever heard of them? heck, you probably have their "mission statement stuck to your bedroom wall with your dried up cum. BUT, I digress, we are slowly but surely going the way of the roman empire, with each passing decade, we become more and more decadent, and gays become more and more brazen.
torward the end of rome, it was not uncommon to see gays sucking each other off in broad daylight. incest was more common than normal relations. Rome wasnt built in a day, BUT, the sick queer lifestyle sure brought it to its knees. :twisted:
I'll pull you out of that one bunk hilton and cast you down with the sodomites. The warden, shawshank redemption.
- Diego in Seattle
- Rouser Of Rabble
- Posts: 9741
- Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:39 pm
- Location: Duh
Re: Another win for fags.
Yeah, homosexuality was the cause of the fall of Rome.
Any other bright conclusions?
And since you're such a fan of learning from history, try looking up feudalism & how that worked out dipshit.

And since you're such a fan of learning from history, try looking up feudalism & how that worked out dipshit.
9/27/22“Left Seater” wrote:So charges are around the corner?
-
- Certified Cockologist
- Posts: 2085
- Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 7:18 am
Re: Another win for fags.
hey dipshit? who said it was the ONLY cause? all I am saying is that it moved it along quite nicely.Diego in Seattle wrote:Yeah, homosexuality was the cause of the fall of Rome.Any other bright conclusions?
And since you're such a fan of learning from history, try looking up feudalism & how that worked out dipshit.
dumb fuck! :twisted:
I'll pull you out of that one bunk hilton and cast you down with the sodomites. The warden, shawshank redemption.
Re: Another win for fags.
Diego, as usual, when someone produces multiple "So you're saying..." takes, they defecate all over themself.
You didn't disappoint.
Once upon a time, the gov sanctioned slavery.
Currently, the gov sanctions marriage.
The gov should do as they did with slavery - and stop sanctioning it.
But I don't expect them to stop sanctioning marriage, so the next best thing is to maintain the obvious and rightful standard for the institution of marriage which existed LONG before the U.S. legislature came into being.
Equating government sanction of slavery to government sanction of marriage makes you a cataclysmic 'tard.
No, seriously - you're an honest to goodness 'tard, 'tard.
What is it about the 14th amendment that has your face turning blue?
Alan Keyes will answer this question VERY well for you right here.
Jsc, I know what the Bible says about the subject.
Greg Carey didn't show me anything there except the reality that he apparently has a VERY poor understanding of Scripture.
There is NO Scriptural support for homosexuality and there obviously is no support to be found for homosexual marriage.
You didn't disappoint.
Once upon a time, the gov sanctioned slavery.
Currently, the gov sanctions marriage.
The gov should do as they did with slavery - and stop sanctioning it.
But I don't expect them to stop sanctioning marriage, so the next best thing is to maintain the obvious and rightful standard for the institution of marriage which existed LONG before the U.S. legislature came into being.
Equating government sanction of slavery to government sanction of marriage makes you a cataclysmic 'tard.
No, seriously - you're an honest to goodness 'tard, 'tard.
What is it about the 14th amendment that has your face turning blue?
Link?Diego wrote:you believe that this country should be a theocracy...got it
Of course not.So you're saying that hetero couples who are infertile should be denied the ability to marry?
Alan Keyes will answer this question VERY well for you right here.
Jsc, I know what the Bible says about the subject.
Greg Carey didn't show me anything there except the reality that he apparently has a VERY poor understanding of Scripture.
There is NO Scriptural support for homosexuality and there obviously is no support to be found for homosexual marriage.
Re: Another win for fags.
Jsc, homosexual marriage is not be something that ---> I <--- would do.
But as I've said, I think free people should be free to do it if they want to.
Now given the fact that we are NOT free, and that our government is sanctioning marriage, the correct thing to sanction is male/female marriage only, imo.
If a pastor, for example, wants to look at Scripture and then conclude that it seems fine for him to marry a homosexual couple, that is his call to make.
As a pastor, I would not marry a homosexual couple.
In Genesis, we see that God created man and woman to be together - and in their union together, they even become ONE flesh. Genesis 2:20-25.
There is NEVER any indication in any portion of Scripture that God has granted man/man this sort of relationship, and the ability to be ONE flesh together.
And quite to the contrary, there are numerous places where we see that homosexual behavior is very clearly... troubling and detrimental.
Romans 1:1-32 - Paul explains about how people have chosen to push God away, that it has led them to worship idols ---> and how this has led to sexual perversions, most notably homosexuality.
I don't find any Scriptural basis for concluding that two homosexuals can stand before God and make a ONE flesh union.
It's a folly
A farce.
Now if you want to ask me if a homosexual can be a Christian, it is MY answer that it is certainly possible.
But as I've said, I think free people should be free to do it if they want to.
Now given the fact that we are NOT free, and that our government is sanctioning marriage, the correct thing to sanction is male/female marriage only, imo.
If a pastor, for example, wants to look at Scripture and then conclude that it seems fine for him to marry a homosexual couple, that is his call to make.
As a pastor, I would not marry a homosexual couple.
In Genesis, we see that God created man and woman to be together - and in their union together, they even become ONE flesh. Genesis 2:20-25.
There is NEVER any indication in any portion of Scripture that God has granted man/man this sort of relationship, and the ability to be ONE flesh together.
And quite to the contrary, there are numerous places where we see that homosexual behavior is very clearly... troubling and detrimental.
Romans 1:1-32 - Paul explains about how people have chosen to push God away, that it has led them to worship idols ---> and how this has led to sexual perversions, most notably homosexuality.
I don't find any Scriptural basis for concluding that two homosexuals can stand before God and make a ONE flesh union.
It's a folly
A farce.
Now if you want to ask me if a homosexual can be a Christian, it is MY answer that it is certainly possible.
- indyfrisco
- Pro Bonfire
- Posts: 11684
- Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 1:15 pm
Re: Another win for fags.
Per the bible, I guess it is ok if they get married as long as they don't have sex.
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination
Goober McTuber wrote:One last post...
-
- World Renowned Last Word Whore
- Posts: 25891
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:07 pm
Re: Another win for fags.
poptart wrote:Now if you want to ask me if a homosexual can be a Christian, it is MY answer that it is certainly possible.

Joe in PB wrote: Yeah I'm the dumbass
schmick, speaking about Larry Nassar's pubescent and prepubescent victims wrote: They couldn't even kick that doctors ass
Seems they rather just lay there, get fucked and play victim
- indyfrisco
- Pro Bonfire
- Posts: 11684
- Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 1:15 pm
Re: Another win for fags.
Why do you even care how he interprets a book you don't believe in? I swear...some people around here seem to enjoy having the exact same arguments with the exact same people over the exact same issues over and over and over. You're not going to change his mind. He's not going to change yours.Jsc810 wrote:I honestly want to understand where he's coming from, Biblically speaking. Whatever he cites as support for his position, I will go read. I want to make sure that I'm getting all of it, that's why I'm asking.
Goober McTuber wrote:One last post...
-
- Eternal Scobode
- Posts: 21259
- Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:35 pm
Re: Another win for fags.
Well, duh. Jaysus himself was roaming the desert and draining ballsacks like they were refreshing bottles of Dasani.poptart wrote:Now if you want to ask me if a homosexual can be a Christian, it is MY answer that it is certainly possible.
Re: Another win for fags.
IndyFrisco wrote:I swear...some people around here seem to enjoy having the exact same arguments with the exact same people over the exact same issues over and over and over.
Miracle Whip sucks.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
-
- Eternal Scobode
- Posts: 21259
- Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:35 pm
Re: Another win for fags.
Yeah, but not as much as Thousand Island.
- indyfrisco
- Pro Bonfire
- Posts: 11684
- Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 1:15 pm
Re: Another win for fags.
I got some fresh salmon at Walmart today.
Goober McTuber wrote:One last post...
Re: Another win for fags.
War Wagon wrote:What words in the constitution grant marriage as a fundamental right?
As mv stated, there's no rights granted anywhere in the Constitution.
And the Constitution doesn't mention marriage anywhere, which tends to lean towards the poptart stance that it's none of the Fed's business.
As far as marriage being a "fundamental right," JSC cited the multiple SCOTUS decisions that confirm marriage as a fundamental right.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
-
- Certified Cockologist
- Posts: 2085
- Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 7:18 am
Re: Another win for fags.
umm.. sorry to burst ur bubble Indy, but, that salmon you got at walmart? its farm raised and not wild, therefore, you might as well be eating a McDonalds filet-O-fish, yes, I said it, the McDonalds famous filet-O-fish is flaky north atlantic COD, mild and tasty, with a creamy tartar sauce that is to die for, OH, and a freshly steamed and impossibly billowy soft bun, the only drawback on this cullinary work of art as I see it? the processed american cheese, they should have used smoked gouda instead,IndyFrisco wrote:I got some fresh salmon at Walmart today.
oh well, gotta cut back somewhere I guess.
but seriously, next time, get fresh wild norweigan salmon instead, omega 3's cancer fighter. :twisted:
oh, and stay away from mcdonalds, its a cancer trap for your colon. :twisted:
unless you are LTS, and your colon is shot to hell :twisted:
I'll pull you out of that one bunk hilton and cast you down with the sodomites. The warden, shawshank redemption.
- Shlomart Ben Yisrael
- Insha'Allah
- Posts: 19031
- Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 5:58 pm
- Location: filling molotovs
Re: Another win for fags.
bradhusker wrote:...you might as well be eating a McDonalds filet-O-fish, yes, I said it, the McDonalds famous filet-O-fish is flaky north atlantic COD, mild and tasty, with a creamy tartar sauce that is to die for, OH, and a freshly steamed and impossibly billowy soft bun, the only drawback on this cullinary work of art as I see it? the processed american cheese, they should have used smoked gouda instead,
oh well, gotta cut back somewhere I guess.
Filet-o-fish or anything else from McDonalds is a delicacy for you?
That explains so much.
rock rock to the planet rock ... don't stop
Felix wrote:you've become very bitter since you became jewish......
Kierland drop-kicking Wolftard wrote: Aren’t you part of the silent generation?
Why don’t you just STFU.
-
- Certified Cockologist
- Posts: 2085
- Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 7:18 am
Re: Another win for fags.
oh really marty? it explains so much for you? this, coming from a guy who eats breakfast and lunch at 7-11.Martyred wrote:bradhusker wrote:...you might as well be eating a McDonalds filet-O-fish, yes, I said it, the McDonalds famous filet-O-fish is flaky north atlantic COD, mild and tasty, with a creamy tartar sauce that is to die for, OH, and a freshly steamed and impossibly billowy soft bun, the only drawback on this cullinary work of art as I see it? the processed american cheese, they should have used smoked gouda instead,
oh well, gotta cut back somewhere I guess.
Filet-o-fish or anything else from McDonalds is a delicacy for you?
That explains so much.
what the hell do u know about north atlantic cod anyway? :twisted:
I'll pull you out of that one bunk hilton and cast you down with the sodomites. The warden, shawshank redemption.
-
- World Renowned Last Word Whore
- Posts: 25891
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:07 pm
Re: Another win for fags.
FTFY.bradhusker wrote:umm.. sorry to burst ur bubble Indy, but, that salmon you got at walmart? its farm raised and not wild, therefore, you might as well be eating a McDonalds filet-O-fish, yes, I said it, the McDonalds famous filet-O-fish is flaky north atlantic COD, mild and tasty, with a creamy tartar sauce that is to die for, OH, and a freshly steamed and impossibly billowy soft bun, the only drawback on this cullinary work of art as I see it? the processed american cheese, they should have usedIndyFrisco wrote:I got some fresh salmon at Walmart today.smoked goudaTillamook Cheddar instead,
Joe in PB wrote: Yeah I'm the dumbass
schmick, speaking about Larry Nassar's pubescent and prepubescent victims wrote: They couldn't even kick that doctors ass
Seems they rather just lay there, get fucked and play victim
Re: Another win for fags.
WRONG.bradhusker wrote:ROME started out fine, that is until they let the gays run things, then things got perverted quickly, and Rome started goin downhill fast.
read history much dipshit? torwards the end of rome, gays were fully out in the open, I mean FULL BLOWN, were talking handjobs in the street, sodomy out in the open, sick fags flaunting their openness in front of children, and of course, the open sanctioning of children into their lifestyle.
Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:39 pmUnlike you tards, I actually have functioning tastebuds and a refined pallet.
-
- World Renowned Last Word Whore
- Posts: 25891
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:07 pm
Re: Another win for fags.
What?!? The shittiest shit troll in recent memory doesn't have a complete grasp of history? Say it ain't so!mvscal wrote:WRONG.bradhusker wrote:ROME started out fine, that is until they let the gays run things, then things got perverted quickly, and Rome started goin downhill fast.
read history much dipshit? torwards the end of rome, gays were fully out in the open, I mean FULL BLOWN, were talking handjobs in the street, sodomy out in the open, sick fags flaunting their openness in front of children, and of course, the open sanctioning of children into their lifestyle.
Joe in PB wrote: Yeah I'm the dumbass
schmick, speaking about Larry Nassar's pubescent and prepubescent victims wrote: They couldn't even kick that doctors ass
Seems they rather just lay there, get fucked and play victim
- Diego in Seattle
- Rouser Of Rabble
- Posts: 9741
- Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:39 pm
- Location: Duh
Re: Another win for fags.
Not suprising that the crowd that selectively forgets the part of the 2nd Amendment that goes "in order to form a well-regulated militia can't seem to acknowedge that privileges are protected by the Constitution just as much as rights.
9/27/22“Left Seater” wrote:So charges are around the corner?
Re: Another win for fags.
Nobody cares.Diego in Seattle wrote:I fuck small boys in the ass.
Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:39 pmUnlike you tards, I actually have functioning tastebuds and a refined pallet.
Re: Another win for fags.
Diego in Seattle wrote:Not suprising that the crowd that selectively forgets the part of the 2nd Amendment that goes "in order to form a well-regulated militia can't seem to acknowedge that privileges are protected by the Constitution just as much as rights.
I see you're still struggling with the phrase "well regulated militia."
Since no one here (or anyone else) seems to be able to explain it, maybe you should crack a book sometime.
Federalist Paper #29 would be a good start... or #2. Several of the people who... wrote the fucking Constitution made the definition pretty clear. You know, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington... they were all quite clear about it.
I guess it's too bad they're all dead, so you can't tell them what they meant, eh?
But fortunately, they did a great deal of writing on the subject -- you should check it out sometime. You could then realize you've been quite wrong this whole time -- not up for debate.
The SCOTUS thinks you're wrong, too.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
Re: Another win for fags.
The phrase is irrelevant. The right of self-defense is the most fundamental right of them all.Dinsdale wrote:Diego in Seattle wrote:Not suprising that the crowd that selectively forgets the part of the 2nd Amendment that goes "in order to form a well-regulated militia can't seem to acknowedge that privileges are protected by the Constitution just as much as rights.
I see you're still struggling with the phrase "well regulated militia."
Since no one here (or anyone else) seems to be able to explain it, maybe you should crack a book sometime.
Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:39 pmUnlike you tards, I actually have functioning tastebuds and a refined pallet.
Re: Another win for fags.
Jsc, you can see Genesis 18:20-33 through Genesis 19:1-38.
It's God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, where people had turned from Him and gone to their own wickedness ---> which led to sexual perversions, and homosexuality was rampant.
Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13, also.
These are Old Testament Scriptures, and believers in Christ are not bound by these laws, and the judgements called for are no longer binding, seeing as Christ has come as the one-time blood sacrifice for all sin.
But certainly, it is clear that if a person is into homosexuality, he is in an area which is not desirable or beneficial.
I cited Romans 1 (the whole chapter) before, which is in the New Testament.
Even after Christ came as the one-time blood sacrifice for all sin, we are still taught about the perils of homosexuality (and other sexual perversions).
See 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.
I value it as most important to note the Scripture I posted earlier - Genesis 2:20-25 (you could see Genesis 1:26-28, also).
Genesis 1 and 2 is speaking of God's creation state for mankind (before the fall of Genesis 3) - and it surely involves Man/Woman together as a unit - and even becoming ONE flesh.
I can think about that when I get angry at my wife - that is MY flesh I am angry at.
All of the problems and perversions came to mankind after the event of Genesis 3, which you might read, also.
It's God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, where people had turned from Him and gone to their own wickedness ---> which led to sexual perversions, and homosexuality was rampant.
Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13, also.
These are Old Testament Scriptures, and believers in Christ are not bound by these laws, and the judgements called for are no longer binding, seeing as Christ has come as the one-time blood sacrifice for all sin.
But certainly, it is clear that if a person is into homosexuality, he is in an area which is not desirable or beneficial.
I cited Romans 1 (the whole chapter) before, which is in the New Testament.
Even after Christ came as the one-time blood sacrifice for all sin, we are still taught about the perils of homosexuality (and other sexual perversions).
See 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.
I value it as most important to note the Scripture I posted earlier - Genesis 2:20-25 (you could see Genesis 1:26-28, also).
Genesis 1 and 2 is speaking of God's creation state for mankind (before the fall of Genesis 3) - and it surely involves Man/Woman together as a unit - and even becoming ONE flesh.
I can think about that when I get angry at my wife - that is MY flesh I am angry at.
All of the problems and perversions came to mankind after the event of Genesis 3, which you might read, also.
Re: Another win for fags.
Irrelevant or not, it was clearly defined at the time.mvscal wrote: The phrase is irrelevant. The right of self-defense is the most fundamental right of them all.
And not once was"sporting/hunting purposes" ever mentioned.
They did however mention that the People (aka "Militia") must have the ability to overcome any domestic standing army, and should have personal arms equivalent to those of any standing army that might be formed.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
Re: Another win for fags.
Saddle up, Dins, and don't forget your Depends. :wink:
"Who we fightin', by the way?"

"Who we fightin', by the way?"
Before God was, I am
Re: Another win for fags.
I don't know about that but the 2nd amendment is explicit in stating that the People armed are necessary to maintain order. Certainly our inner cities are in desperate need of armed citizens' militias to patrol the streets and keep their neighborhoods safe.Dinsdale wrote:They did however mention that the People (aka "Militia") must have the ability to overcome any domestic standing army, and should have personal arms equivalent to those of any standing army that might be formed.
Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:39 pmUnlike you tards, I actually have functioning tastebuds and a refined pallet.
Re: Another win for fags.
Sure, Avi, those milita types are gonna keep us safe from....corporate plutocrats? Radical activist right wing supreme court justices? Sociopathic Hebrews stalking little child Hebrews for at home butchery class? Christo/fascist moronic Tea Baggers?
C'mon..be clear in your ignorant lisping..
C'mon..be clear in your ignorant lisping..
Before God was, I am