"Show me a reference (in the Bible) where there's a woman with multiple wives; or a man with multiple husbands"
Despite all that you ridicule in the Bible, you still can't produce this one...I can laugh at you now....huh?
Vrede wrote:"Riiight, all those women living together just waited until it was their turn with the one guy."
There's still "a guy" involved...my point to begin with.
Two men in one marriage, two women in one marriage is abomination and confusion. There can't be two wives; there can't be two husbands in a solo marriage. To use a bit of Homerfobe's vernacular, 'which is the stag, and which is the fag'?
Sugar-coat it and call me all the names you want, it doesn't change anything.
Vrede wrote:
"Riiight, all those women living together just waited until it was their turn with the one guy."
My point was about SSM, not "Homosexuality". You're deflecting. Polygamy creates a large population of young, single, frustrated males.
How contradictory! According to your highly-scientific knowledge in the previous sentence, how do you get "young, single, frustrated males"? If the women are lusting after each other, how is the male the frustrated one? (unless he's jealous he can't keep up )
Sugar-coat it and call me all the names you want, it doesn't change anything.
Correct, you're a Bible cherry picking bigot. ...and you're a lyin', deflectin', word twistin' troll. Sugar-coat it and call me all the names you want, it doesn't change anything.
... Waller urged Klansmen and other white nationalists to support "the Christian community's protests that are surly [sic] coming against tyranical [sic] Federal judges," ...
Vrede wrote:Yes, y'all bigots whining about unconstitutional popular votes and imaginary states' rights, as I quoted you doing. Pay attention.
You swore, possibly to God, to uphold and defend the US Constitution. When did that solemn oath expire? When my enlistment was up. I also swore to defend my country. Now I'm on my own with a mind of my own, and I didn't swear to defend corruption and sexual perversion....so I have a choice....you can like it or lump it.
...and when did you take that oath..? When you joined ACLU?
The Sodom myth is a condemnation of being inhospitable. Bible much? The "Sodom myth"...hardly. Even if it were a myth, we still know who/what the name implies. The "inhospitable part was refusing the advances of homosexuals. Are we being "inhospitable" when we say believe homosexuality is a perverted, deviant, unnatural desire?
You constantly snarl about "bigots whining"...what do you call all the racket from the Sodomites? All we ever hear is whining, moaning, groveling, crying that someone looked at them cross-eyed and they want to sue for a hate crime or discrimination.
"Imaginary states' rights"...they may as well be imaginary; according to the perverts, there aren't any; only theirs.
Well, to be accurate, the oath to "defend the Constitution" is part of the enlistment process and pertains to one's duties as a member of the military. I think Mr.B has been free to trample on, rather than defend the Constitution for many years now. Look at it like a court oath to "tell the truth..." That applies to testimony given in the instant case in that particular court. After you leave, you won't be committing perjury to continue your lying dog-breath ways.
bannination wrote: "Considering the horrible morals it teaches you'd think you would wish it was just a myth." You are of course, speaking of the men coming in the middle of the night wanting to "know" the visitors, right?
You said it...homosexuality teaches horrible morals...and that's no myth.
"Did the cities exist? Best we can say is maybe." Only a Sodomite would know for sure...or admit.
bannination wrote: "Considering the horrible morals it teaches you'd think you would wish it was just a myth." You are of course, speaking of the men coming in the middle of the night wanting to "know" the visitors, right?
You said it...homosexuality teaches horrible morals...and that's no myth.
... sure, and the father sleeping with his daughters after wanting to offer them to the rapists. From what I gather, you think that if they had raped the daughters instead it would have been less evil than homo rape. -- Cause that's what you're stuck on, homo-rape.
Wanna tell me what "good" we're supposed to take away from that story? "That righteous men sleep with their daughters." "That righteous men should let their daughters be raped rather than their guests". ..... "Destroying an entire cities due to one group of people is acceptable."
O Really wrote:Well, to be accurate, the oath to "defend the Constitution" is part of the enlistment process and pertains to one's duties as a member of the military. I think Mr.B has been free to trample on, rather than defend the Constitution for many years now....
Thanks, I already accepted that such an oath, even if sworn to God, is only valid as long as one is being paid. I learn something new every day.
God probably understands that contracts have terms and oaths have limits. Plus, s/he probably doesn't have much interest in oaths, yet another man-made concoction to pretend to be on some equalish relationship with God.
O Really wrote:Well, to be accurate, the oath to "defend the Constitution" is part of the enlistment process and pertains to one's duties as a member of the military. I think Mr.B has been free to trample on, rather than defend the Constitution for many years now....
Thanks, I already accepted that such an oath, even if sworn to God, is only valid as long as one is being paid. I learn something new every day.
Not only that, the oath is administered en mass; no one can tell if you're actually repeating the words, so I guess that's one way out of it if you're so inclined. I mean, just holding your hand up and listening to the words without actually saying them would technically get you off. I guess.
I doubt many people take their "oath" upon enlistment very seriously. Particularly those who were, back in the day, drafted. It's not like you could say, "no, I won't defend the Constitution" and they'd just turn you loose. I think most probably separate "following orders that they say protect the US" from an actual philosophical understanding of what the Constitution says or what "protecting" it might entail.
Vrede wrote:You're probably correct but that doesn't mean that someone that's since become "butt-holier than thou" (neoplacebo - "hominy", "dubmass" and now this, you're on a roll) shouldn't still honor the oath.
Well, I guess they at least ought to formalize their rejection of the original oath. Stand up somewhere and say "I (state your name) hereby revoke my previous oath to protect the Constitution, and no longer accept its terms or related interpretations as may be issued by the Supreme Court from time to time. From this day hence, I will consider myself to be the sole arbiter of what the Constitution says, or to what it applies and to the extent to which it can be ignored." Yeah, that's the ticket.
According to your highly-scientific knowledge in the previous sentence, how do you get "young, single, frustrated males"? If the women are lusting after each other, how is the male the frustrated one? (unless he's jealous he can't keep up 
)
