Minnesota for Marriage quotes Bible passage saying gays 'are to be put to death'

Jun 27, 2012 Full story: City Pages 1,229

Minnesota for Marriage quoted a Bible passage saying gays "are to be put to death" in a Facebook post last night, then claimed it was "hacked." The anti-gay marriage folks' Facebook page was updated last night to quote Biblical passage Leviticus 20:13, which reads as follows: a Z"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, ... (more)

Full Story
Pat

Pekin, IL

#995 Aug 18, 2012
ToManyLaws wrote:
Religion has no place in laws.....CONSTITUTION SAYS SO...
There is no rational argument for homosexual 'marriage.' Homosexual 'marriage' is a cruel lie with no real basis in how homosexual live!

No significant percent of the homosexual population has 'married' in ANY country that allows it, and studies have shown that few such 'marriages' are even exclusive relationships.

The homosexual 'marriage' movement is a hate based political charade attacking what others hold sacred.

No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage. No economically or physically unequal genders are involve. No child is ever born as a direct result, and no such relationship can provide a child with a father and mother. Having both is one of the most accurate statistical predictions of a child's future success in life.

Homosexual themselves overwhelmingly reject 'marriage' as an actual practice in EVERY country that allows the concocted oxymoron.

Now, forget trying to disenfranchise others in order to push your concocted failed philosophy of homosexual 'marriage' into law.

“Waytogo”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#996 Aug 18, 2012
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>There is no rational argument for homosexual 'marriage.' Homosexual 'marriage' is a cruel lie with no real basis in how homosexual live!
No significant percent of the homosexual population has 'married' in ANY country that allows it, and studies have shown that few such 'marriages' are even exclusive relationships.
The homosexual 'marriage' movement is a hate based political charade attacking what others hold sacred.
No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage. No economically or physically unequal genders are involve. No child is ever born as a direct result, and no such relationship can provide a child with a father and mother. Having both is one of the most accurate statistical predictions of a child's future success in life.
Homosexual themselves overwhelmingly reject 'marriage' as an actual practice in EVERY country that allows the concocted oxymoron.
Now, forget trying to disenfranchise others in order to push your concocted failed philosophy of homosexual 'marriage' into law.
LIAR!!!!!!!!!! Keep the KKK nazi fascist stuff rolling there bigot hitler lover..........Lucky for this nation 75% of people under age 40 support same sex marriage...ONLY TIME WHEN CAVEMEN DIE OFF WE CAN MOVE FORWARD........

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#997 Aug 18, 2012
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>There is no rational argument for homosexual 'marriage.' Homosexual 'marriage' is a cruel lie with no real basis in how homosexual live!
No significant percent of the homosexual population has 'married' in ANY country that allows it, and studies have shown that few such 'marriages' are even exclusive relationships.
The homosexual 'marriage' movement is a hate based political charade attacking what others hold sacred.
No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage. No economically or physically unequal genders are involve. No child is ever born as a direct result, and no such relationship can provide a child with a father and mother. Having both is one of the most accurate statistical predictions of a child's future success in life.
Homosexual themselves overwhelmingly reject 'marriage' as an actual practice in EVERY country that allows the concocted oxymoron.
Now, forget trying to disenfranchise others in order to push your concocted failed philosophy of homosexual 'marriage' into law.
you don't even understand what marriage is. the government is what makes up marriage, how could they not be involved. marriage is, and alwyas has been the purview of the state.

Learn the very basics about a subject before you parrot words you do not understand.
Pat

Pekin, IL

#998 Aug 18, 2012
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>you don't even understand what marriage is. the government is what makes up marriage, how could they not be involved. marriage is, and alwyas has been the purview of the state.
Learn the very basics about a subject before you parrot words you do not understand.
You are very wrong. Government was a late comer to marriage in many places. In Pennsylvania, for example, there was no civil registration of marriage until 1876, when divorce started becoming more common and delinquent husbands started leaving their wives and children for the state to support. That function had mostly been done by the church prior to that.

So, you see, nothing homosexual is involved in the states interests in marriage.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#999 Aug 18, 2012
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>You are very wrong. Government was a late comer to marriage in many places. In Pennsylvania, for example, there was no civil registration of marriage until 1876, when divorce started becoming more common and delinquent husbands started leaving their wives and children for the state to support. That function had mostly been done by the church prior to that.
So, you see, nothing homosexual is involved in the states interests in marriage.
Relgion didn't even get into the marriage game until the 14th century and then just to bless the state sponsored marriage on the steps of the church.

Since recorded history, marriage has been a social construct under the purview of the state. As a legal, binding contract, who else could it be under?
the church glommed onto the concept and now tries to call it sacred, even thoght there is no marriage rite in the bible.

Our nation's interest in SSM is to uphold our constitution.
Pat

Pekin, IL

#1000 Aug 18, 2012
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Relgion didn't even get into the marriage game until the 14th century and then just to bless the state sponsored marriage on the steps of the church.
Since recorded history, marriage has been a social construct under the purview of the state. As a legal, binding contract, who else could it be under?
the church glommed onto the concept and now tries to call it sacred, even thoght there is no marriage rite in the bible.
Our nation's interest in SSM is to uphold our constitution.
Your silly oxymoron has been exposed for the fraud that it is on this very page.

There is no logical reason to disenfranchise Americans on the legal definition of marriage.

Homosexuals themselves have *OVERWHELMINGLY* rejected 'marriage' in EVERY country that allows it.

Now run along and forget trying to undemocratically force you nonsense on others.

Actually, I was a little early on Pennsylvania: http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.p...

Now, you have no basis for the lies you made up. Admit it.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1001 Aug 18, 2012
*YAWN*

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1002 Aug 18, 2012
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>Your silly oxymoron has been exposed for the fraud that it is on this very page.
There is no logical reason to disenfranchise Americans on the legal definition of marriage.
Homosexuals themselves have *OVERWHELMINGLY* rejected 'marriage' in EVERY country that allows it.
Now run along and forget trying to undemocratically force you nonsense on others.
Actually, I was a little early on Pennsylvania: http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.p...
Now, you have no basis for the lies you made up. Admit it.
Exce[t for supporting our constitution and the concept of all men being created equal and the seperation of church and state. other than those very founding ideals of our nation, no...no reason to have legal SSM...

Regardless of what backwards PA did in the 19th century, marriage is the purview of the state. Always has been.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1003 Aug 18, 2012
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>Your silly oxymoron has been exposed for the fraud that it is on this very page.
There is no logical reason to disenfranchise Americans on the legal definition of marriage.
Homosexuals themselves have *OVERWHELMINGLY* rejected 'marriage' in EVERY country that allows it.
Now run along and forget trying to undemocratically force you nonsense on others.
Actually, I was a little early on Pennsylvania: http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.p...
Now, you have no basis for the lies you made up. Admit it.
what lies did I make up?
Doctor Lickalotta

Alpharetta, GA

#1004 Aug 18, 2012
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>You seemed to have stopped reading after a few paragraphs.(i understand, there were big words and you thought you read what you wanted to find...)
you seem to make a lot of false assumptions; the meaning of that article, my gender and gender preference, my favorite sources...
perhaps you should look at the other assumptions you have made prior to gaining any factual data. they are most likely as incorrect as the ones you have posted here.
No Ma'am
.
Females don't transmit AIDS directly to other females
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/women/resources...
Pat

Pekin, IL

#1005 Aug 18, 2012
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Exce[t for supporting our constitution and the concept of all men being created equal and the seperation of church and state. other than those very founding ideals of our nation, no...no reason to have legal SSM...
Regardless of what backwards PA did in the 19th century, marriage is the purview of the state. Always has been.
You have failed to show why the state has any rational interest in being involved in any legal homosexual relationship, especially contrary to the will of most of the electorate.

If you want to marry, do so. If you want to engage in sodomy, don't exptect discriminatory benefits and subsidies for your perversion. It offers no benefits to society.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1006 Aug 18, 2012
Doctor Lickalotta wrote:
<quoted text>
No Ma'am
.
Females don't transmit AIDS directly to other females
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/women/resources...
you made an assumption that even the article you quote doesn't make...

Are you saying lesbians are immune to the HIV virus?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1007 Aug 18, 2012
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>You have failed to show why the state has any rational interest in being involved in any legal homosexual relationship, especially contrary to the will of most of the electorate.
If you want to marry, do so. If you want to engage in sodomy, don't exptect discriminatory benefits and subsidies for your perversion. It offers no benefits to society.
No, i showed that it will be in line with our constitution and the founding ideal of all men being created equal and make us a more moral nation.

you do not understand what the word sodomy means, do you?

You talk about a lot of things you don't understand. you don't even know the basic idea of what marriage is, yet you parrot talking points you can't grasp the concept of like a caged pet.

wanna cracker?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1008 Aug 18, 2012
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>Your silly oxymoron has been exposed for the fraud that it is on this very page.
There is no logical reason to disenfranchise Americans on the legal definition of marriage.
Homosexuals themselves have *OVERWHELMINGLY* rejected 'marriage' in EVERY country that allows it.
Now run along and forget trying to undemocratically force you nonsense on others.
Actually, I was a little early on Pennsylvania: http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.p...
Now, you have no basis for the lies you made up. Admit it.
So you called me a liar, but won't back that up? What does that say about your morals?

i think we're done here...

“laugh until your belly hurts”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#1009 Aug 18, 2012
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>it only threatens your health if you have sex with other gay men.
that is the strangest statement i've ever seen you make, tick... we know that hiv/aids has nothing to do with who has sex with whom. we also know that it's a fact that over 50% of all newly reported instances of hiv/aids in the u.s. within the past year were among monogamous, married black women. beijing has also reported that hiv/aids is at epidemic levels among monogamous, married women.

funny that the ignorant still want to believe that aids is a 'gay disease'.

“laugh until your belly hurts”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#1010 Aug 18, 2012
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>you made an assumption that even the article you quote doesn't make...
Are you saying lesbians are immune to the HIV virus?
more or less... there's no spread of the disease other than by some sort of penetration. lesbians don't penetrate each other. think about it.
Jared

Pekin, IL

#1011 Aug 19, 2012
dunce with weevils wrote:
<quoted text>
that is the strangest statement i've ever seen you make, tick... we know that hiv/aids has nothing to do with who has sex with whom. we also know that it's a fact that over 50% of all newly reported instances of hiv/aids in the u.s. within the past year were among monogamous, married black women. beijing has also reported that hiv/aids is at epidemic levels among monogamous, married women.
funny that the ignorant still want to believe that aids is a 'gay disease'.
You are making up lies again. HIV/AIDS remains a majority homosexual disease in America and the largest category of new infection is young homosexuals.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/ba...

Your lies are deadly to your fellow homosexuals, dunce.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1012 Aug 19, 2012
dances with weebles wrote:
<quoted text>
that is the strangest statement i've ever seen you make, tick... we know that hiv/aids has nothing to do with who has sex with whom. we also know that it's a fact that over 50% of all newly reported instances of hiv/aids in the u.s. within the past year were among monogamous, married black women. beijing has also reported that hiv/aids is at epidemic levels among monogamous, married women.
funny that the ignorant still want to believe that aids is a 'gay disease'.
Wouldn't that be due to their partners having sex with infected people, or their partners being infected when they became a couple?

“laugh until your belly hurts”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#1013 Aug 19, 2012
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Wouldn't that be due to their partners having sex with infected people, or their partners being infected when they became a couple?
the studies don't say and i'd hate to jump to conclusions... it's entirely possible, however. it has nothing to do with homosexuality, however.
Jared

Pekin, IL

#1015 Aug 19, 2012
dunce with weevils wrote:
<quoted text>
the studies don't say and i'd hate to jump to conclusions... it's entirely possible, however. it has nothing to do with homosexuality, however.
Dunce, did you even look at the CDC link? It once again proved you to be a racist liar.

HIV/AIDS remains a majority homosexual disease in America, and young homosexuals remain the LARGEST category of new infections.

Your lies are deadly, dunce.

Some studies indeed indicate that anal sex is one of the most efficient means of transmitting HIV. The major reason that your fellow homosexuals remain the largest category of new infection as well as existing cases is: EXTREME PROMISCUITY.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Republican Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 10 min Ari son of Anarchy 155,271
Secret Service director faces grilling over sec... 15 min Lawrence Wolf 6
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 21 min ChromiuMan 117,295
Obama vows "relentless" fight against ISIS 25 min Le Jimbo 387
Eric Holder Lame-Duck Fight? White House Points... 32 min Le Jimbo 30
Can Sarah Palin save Pat Roberts in tight Kansa... 48 min scirocco 28
Ted Cruz wins Values Voter straw poll, again 1 hr Democrat Blunder 8

Republican People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE