Fundamentalist Christians Boycotting McDonald's over Gay Marriage

[spywizard]

Of course they have that right not to go there. What do you call it? they discriminate against people who are gay or support them. IMO that is a hate group.

Lol im not a liberial. Just because i dont use a fiction book to run my life you think i am? You dont want gay stuff forced down your throught. well thats how i feel about religion. I sick of everyone thanking god. Having to see these dumb god bill boards. And not to mention a church on every corner

So using your logic.. are all gays (i assume they are not) are they all part of a hate group?? Seems they boycott a lot of business to get them to change.. ie, forcing a reaction, or action.. it's a Rhetorical question.

http://current.com/items/89049343_ga...for_pulling_ad

[DeputyLoneWolf]

Nonsense.

Whatever makes you think this is true?

It is not nonsense, thats exactly where he led them after they came out of Egypt.

And before you just dismiss it as nonsense you need to read the Bible as a history book. There are no errors in it and if you are open minded enough to read it you will see that.

[gixxerboy1]

So using your logic.. are all gays (i assume they are not) are they all part of a hate group?? Seems they boycott a lot of business to get them to change.. ie, forcing a reaction, or action.. it's a Rhetorical question.

http://current.com/items/89049343_ga...for_pulling_ad

I know you said it’s rhetorical but I would like to answer. It would depend on the reason they are boycotting. If it was because they packaging was bad for the environment. Or the way they made their nuggets was inhumane or some other possible legit reason then no. If Gays boycotted because McDonalds joined a Chamber of Commerce to another group. Yes. What if McDonalds joined the black chamber of commerce? You don’t think it’s the same if the AMA boycotted them then?

Just watched that video. I dont think thats a reason to boycott. But like i said everyone has the rights to do it. But when the reason they are boyotting are from discrmination i think thats a hate group

[gixxerboy1]

[QUOTE=DeputyLoneWolf;4066958]

This statement shows that you have no sense of right and wrong and believe that if we can justify something in our own mind then its ok no matter what, even if its strapping a bomb to one's chest and blowing up innocent men women and children. There are absolutes and people need to remove the blinders and see that. If I said that it was not wrong in my mind to kill you and that my pastor told me to I bet you would have a problem with that. Am I right?

But lets say I was an Iraqi and my religious teacher told me to go blow up civilians in Iraq? What you are saying is that that would be just fine because I can justify it in my own mind. You make no sense and it's sad...

apparently you didnt understand what i wrote. No im not saying it is justified. But to them it is. Yes the strap bomb to their chest and blow shit up it is wrong. But to them it isnt. We drop bombs from planes and blow shit up. To most of the US that is justified to. But it is still wrong. They have no other means but suiced bombs. So thats thier last resort. Do think if they had an air force they would use it. So they are fighting the only way they can

[thegodfather]

I don't expect you to understand this but this is the truth. God gave the Israieli people Israel. That is there land given to them by God's own hand period. And just watch as the future unfolds, they will keep it no matter who tries to take it from them.

If that is the case, then why didn't God come down and conquer the land for them? Why did the United States&UK have to intervene and give the Israeli people billions of dollars worth of weapoons and training to take the land back? That was the United States&UK, NOT God. And if memory serves the state of Israel was not supposed to be established until AFTER Armageddon.

Anyway your statement about them ONLY using suicide bombs is also without merit. One of the key things they use are roadside bombs made from unexploded ordinane, they are called I.E.D.'s, Improvised Explosive Devises. In Palestine (had YOU taken the time to EDUCATE YOURSELF) you would know that one of Israel's main greivances is that Palestinians fire over 800 Qassam Rockets into Israel on a yearly basis. Palestinians also confront the Israeli army infrequently, kidnapping soldiers at times (I.e.- PRISONERS OF WAR!!). Yet while we do the same thing we can sit here comfortably and detest their actions against us, whilst our actions against them are JUSTIFIED! While you sit here comfortably and detest the way our prisoners are treated when they are abducted in those foreign lands, you probably cannot imagine the pain and suffering of MILLIONS of people at the behest of the United States military.

A war, which by the way, was started on the WHIM of an Executive branch that never had its power checked by the other two branches of government. A war which was NOT DECLARED BY CONGRESS, making it an illegal and unjustified act. Read the Constitution, you cannot goto war without a declaration.

I am more scared of the people like you who live within my borders that want to spend this country into unwinable wars and murder millions of people because your "God" told you to, then I am of a people who just want us to get off of their land!

[Tock]

It is not nonsense, thats exactly where he led them after they came out of Egypt.

And before you just dismiss it as nonsense you need to read the Bible as a history book. There are no errors in it and if you are open minded enough to read it you will see that.

"Read the bible as a history book," eh?

Well, tell me this, if you would be so kind . . .

The first chapter of the book of Exodus tells us there were more Hebrews in Egypt at that time than there were Egyptians. So, after Moses finally led his people out of the country, and after the Egyptian military was completely obliterated, why is it that the only record of these two nation-breaking events is found in the pages of the Hebrew scriptures?

Archeologists and historians have been digging in the middle east for quite a long time now, and have recovered a wealth of artifacts that enable them to piece together quite a detailed record of what has happened in the region for the past several thousand years. With this in mind, doesn't it strike you as rather odd that nobody else would have noticed and recorded Egypt's weakened military condition? Isn't it odd that none of the competing kingdoms of the time attempted an invasion?

I hate to be the first to tell you this, but the story of the Exodus as portrayed in the bible, well, it never happened. It is a fiction, a fable, a story, much like the tale of Paul Bunyan, Johnny Appleseed, or Santa Claus. And while it is not difficult to find folks of a fundamentalist viewpoint that embrace these stories (indeed, their entire theology would shatter if they entertained a notion that any part of the Bible was less than 100% literal and 100% reliabe and true), the majority of scholars (many of whom consider themselves to be Christian) who study this stuff do not.

I understand that many people would like to think that the Bible is a gift from a supernatural god, and that it is 100% inerrant. But, alas, it is not.
Nobody knows who the anonymous authors are who wrote the first 5 books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Levitiicus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), or much of the rest of it.


Here's a little challenge that you can take to your clergyman . . .

Kings did not rule over Israel until Saul, who was the immediate predecessor to King David, who lived about 1000 BC. However, in the Book of Genesis, which purports to offer a first-hand account of Noah's flood, the Tower of Babel, and the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah, there's a curious little verse nestled in amongst the begats in Chapter 36. It reads,

Genesis 36:31 -- And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.

Ask your pastor to explain to you how the person who wrote the accounts of Adam & Eve, the Exodus, and Noah's Flood, ask him how that fellow could have known about kings who ruled over Israel.
If he is a reasonable clergyman, he would suggest that probably, the book of Genesis and all of its tales of floods and Adam & Eve and etc. were most likely written after the time when kings ruled over Israel. If he turns out not to be a reasonable fellow, I'm sure you'll be able to find a spiritual leader who will prove to be a more reliable source of information.

Another amusing challenge:
Calculate the total square footage available on Noah's Ark from the information provided in the Bible (I'll give you a hint: it's close to 2.5 acres). Then explain how between 2 and 7 of every species of animal on the planet managed to fit in the Ark, along with enough food and water to feed them for 14 months (which is the time, you will recall, they were shut up inside the boat).
For extra credit, explain how kangaroos managed to swim across the sea, from the middle east, through Asia, to Australia?

Just for grins, were there dinosaurs on Noah's Ark, or not? Most reasonable people would not make that claim. But look at what these folks have to say, and tell me if you agree:

www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&cPath=4 8&products_id=2265


--------------
I got so wrapped up in my little discourse that I forgot to mention what the point of it all was . . .

The Bible is pretty much a work of fiction. Sure, there's some historical names and dates and places it provides that have worked out ok, but on the big stuff, like global floods and the Exodus and whether or not people should take the Bible's advice and execute witches, gays, and sabbath-breakers, while selling our daughters into slavery, it's "iffy." The Hebrew's claim to middle east property is based on another "iffy" proposition, namely, that the events outlined in the Book of Exodus actually happened. IMHO, I don't think they did. You can make up your own mind, but I hope that you do so after looking into the matter a bit more, and see what "respected experts" on several sides of the issue have to say, and what their opinion is based upon . . .

I dunno about you, but I'm heading out for a McDonald's . . .

[Billy-the-kid]

[QUOTE=thegodfather;4067476]

A war, which by the way, was started on the WHIM of an Executive branch that never had its power checked by the other two branches of government. A war which was NOT DECLARED BY CONGRESS, making it an illegal and unjustified act. Read the Constitution, you cannot goto war without a declaration. [B][SIZE="2"]


This is called selective amnesia. in 2002 the House voted 296-133 and the Senate voted 77-20 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction.

TheGodfather is the enemy within. Not only do we have to fight terrorists around the world, but we have justify our right to defend ourselves against these people. Anytime they get an opportunity to make our President, Military, or Country look bad; they do. They never have anything positive to say about the USA and never have anything negative to say about our enemys (the people who want our infidel asses dead)!

[Tock]

It's time to take a break, kids . . . Let's all go to McDonalds!

[j4ever41]

haha thats funny tock.

[spywizard]

I know you said it’s rhetorical but I would like to answer. It would depend on the reason they are boycotting. If it was because they packaging was bad for the environment. Or the way they made their nuggets was inhumane or some other possible legit reason then no. If Gays boycotted because McDonalds joined a Chamber of Commerce to another group. Yes. What if McDonalds joined the black chamber of commerce? You don’t think it’s the same if the AMA boycotted them then?

Just watched that video. I dont think thats a reason to boycott. But like i said everyone has the rights to do it. But when the reason they are boyotting are from discrmination i think thats a hate group

so you are an advocate for situational ethics as long as those reasons or justifications met the standards that = your acceptable code of conduct??

you can see where this is going don't you??

[spywizard]

[quote=Billy-the-kid;4067541]

A war, which by the way, was started on the WHIM of an Executive branch that never had its power checked by the other two branches of government. A war which was NOT DECLARED BY CONGRESS, making it an illegal and unjustified act. Read the Constitution, you cannot goto war without a declaration.

[b][size="2"]


This is called selective amnesia. in 2002 the House voted 296-133 and the Senate voted 77-20 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction.

TheGodfather is the enemy within. Not only do we have to fight terrorists around the world, but we have justify our right to defend ourselves against these people. Anytime they get an opportunity to make our President, Military, or Country look bad; they do. They never have anything positive to say about the USA and never have anything negative to say about our enemys (the people who want our infidel asses dead)!

that's because they are jealous, (they in their own mind will never be good enough)

Its hard being so pretty "Mohammad Ali"

[Tock]

haha thats funny tock.

Ya . . . I saw Billy-The-Kid there, too. Turns out he's an ok guy; he paid for my cheeseburger . . .
But, I had to let him say grace . . .

[SMCengineer]

This is called selective amnesia. in 2002 the House voted 296-133 and the Senate voted 77-20 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction.

Actually, it's called ignorance at it's finest. An "Authorization for the use of Military Force" is not a Declaration of War and is the antithesis of conservatism. The "Authorization for the use of military force" essentially removed the legislative process and relinquished Congresses power/responsibilty of Declaring War to the executive branch, which was basicaly done for political reasons (ie not being responsible for voting on a Declaration of War and losing votes because of it). I suppose you also believe the war was justified because the UN gave us permission to invade?

TheGodfather is the enemy within. Not only do we have to fight terrorists around the world, but we have justify our right to defend ourselves against these people. Anytime they get an opportunity to make our President, Military, or Country look bad; they do. They never have anything positive to say about the USA and never have anything negative to say about our enemys (the people who want our infidel asses dead)!

Anyone who believes that fighting the "terroists in Iraq" is more important than capturing Osama Bin Laden is the enemy within. I doubt TheGodfather is one of those people, but you sure seem to believe that "Islamofascists" (whatever the hell that even means) are the real threat. I see you also like to use jingoiistic rhetoric as though saying something bad about the president is anti-patriotic or insulting to the military. Do you take your talking points directly from Karl Rove or FOX news? Critizing the government (re: not the people or the military) is what essentially led to the constitution and the birth of America.

[Billy-the-kid]

First , I do think the war was justified and we need to send every one of those terrorist bastards a one way ticket to see Allah.

Second, I believe fighting terrorists in Iraq and finding Osama Bin Laden are equally important.

Let me ask you Blome: who is the real threat to the American people; President Bush or the terrorists?

It seems some people only have negative things to say about the USA, the President, and the military. And you sit there and call that patriotic. I bet it would take you and the Godfather 2 hours before you could come up with 3 positive things to say about "our counrty".

And finally, FOX news is to liberal for me, I only listen to talk radio!!!!!

[SMCengineer]

First , I do think the war was justified and we need to send every one of those terrorist bastards a one way ticket to see Allah.

Second, I believe fighting terrorists in Iraq and finding Osama Bin Laden are equally important.

Let me ask you Blome: who is the real threat to the American people; President Bush or the terrorists?

It seems some people only have negative things to say about the USA, the President, and the military. And you sit there and call that patriotic. I bet it would take you and the Godfather 2 hours before you could come up with 3 positive things to say about "our counrty".

And finally, FOX news is to liberal for me, I only listen to talk radio!!!!!

God I wish you weren't banned cause I would rip this post apart.

[Nicotine]

[QUOTE=Billy-the-kid;4064910]That just shows how out of touch with reality you are. Is Hamas or the Taliban freedom fighters, or are they a hate group? Don't call them terrorists, we may offend someone. The KKK is a hate group my friend, Christains are not.

QUOTE]

hamas and taliban freedom fighters fight, out of hate.

kkk is hate.

not ALL christians hate...... but, i dont have a family because when i came out, all of a sudden over night i became a horrible person and that they were going to hell if they even so much talked to me.

my mother said "god will give you aids, then we wil all be free".

how is that not hate?

[Tock]

[quote=Nicotine;4076620]

That just shows how out of touch with reality you are. Is Hamas or the Taliban freedom fighters, or are they a hate group? Don't call them terrorists, we may offend someone. The KKK is a hate group my friend, Christains are not.

QUOTE]

hamas and taliban freedom fighters fight, out of hate.

kkk is hate.

not ALL christians hate...... but, i dont have a family because when i came out, all of a sudden over night i became a horrible person and that they were going to hell if they even so much talked to me.

my mother said "god will give you aids, then we wil all be free".

how is that not hate?

That's terrible. Tragic, ignorant, and yes, hateful too.

Some parents kick their underage kids out when they discover that they're gay. Leave 'em to fend for themselves on the street.

How can they do that to their own kids, I'll never know.

[J.S.N.]

those people are bigots. these same fat crackers who're protesting against the gays now were probably doing the same thing against the coloreds in the 1960's.

[BgMc31]

those people are bigots. these same fat crackers who're protesting against the gays now were probably doing the same thing against the coloreds in the 1960's.

ummmmm we're not called 'colored' anymore brotha...

[inheritmylife]

those people are bigots. these same fat crackers who're protesting against the gays now were probably doing the same thing against the coloreds in the 1960's.

Awesome...

[Tock]

That's terrible. Tragic, ignorant, and yes, hateful too.

Some parents kick their underage kids out when they discover that they're gay. Leave 'em to fend for themselves on the street.

How can they do that to their own kids, I'll never know.

Here's a case in point where Bible teachings cause family breakups:
http://www.independentmail.com/news/...-gay-son-home/

Anderson man chases gay son from home

By Pearce Adams (Contact)
Originally published 05:53 a.m., July 18, 2008
Updated 05:53 a.m., July 18, 2008


ANDERSON COUNTY — Violence broke out Sunday in Anderson when an 18-year-old man returned home from a gay pride parade and was assaulted by his father.

According to the Anderson County Sheriff's Office, the battering took place about 1 p.m. Sunday on P Street.
During the assault, the teen's 49-year-old father yelled, cursed, swung a baseball bat, prayed and tried to “cast the demon of homosexuality out of him,” according to the teen's version of events to Deputy S.C. Weymouth, the incident report states.

About 2 p.m. Wednesday, the teen said his father punched him when he returned to the house for clothes that he left on Sunday, the report states.

The teen told deputies that his father “has a problem with him being gay and that is why he hit him with the baseball bat Sunday,” Weymouth said in his report.

The teen filed both complaints about 10 p.m. Wednesday.

Deputies, who have not been able to make immediate contact with the teen's father, report that both incidents are under investigation.

[IronReload04]

About 77% of all Americans are Christains. When you have a "Family Business" like McDonald's that has a play area for our children; a good business practice would be to stay neutarl on the gay issue.

What the Hell is the National Gay & Lesbian Chamer of Commerce anyway? This very small special interest group has no real economic muscle behind it. This is just Left Coast B.S. If you'r gay, that is fine with me; but stay out of my face with it. I don't care who you sleep with, and I don't care, keep it to yourself.

Disney World got hurt bad when they promoted their annual Gay Days. Nothing is sacred to the "Left" anymore. Can't my kid go to Disney World or eat a burger without sexuality being an issue?

homosexuality does not equal molestation.....

[Carlos_E]

Public Utility Opposes Prop 8

Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), the largest public utility company in Northern California, has announced that they oppose Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage amendment.

Giving a financial and public relations boost to gay marriage proponents, PG&E announced today that it is giving $250,000 to the No on Proposition 8 campaign.

The utility also said it will spearhead the formation of a business advisory council that will seek to get other businesses around California to to defeat the ballot initiative that would amend the state constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman.

AT&T and Wells Fargo have also contributed to efforts to opposite this discriminatory amendment.

I wonder if those Northern California anti-gays who are boycotting McDonalds are willing to stand on principle. Will they be willing to go without water and power, or does their passion only extend to changing burger brands?

[Flagg]

It is not nonsense, thats exactly where he led them after they came out of Egypt.

And before you just dismiss it as nonsense you need to read the Bible as a history book. There are no errors in it and if you are open minded enough to read it you will see that.

History book? So you believe the earth is only 10,000 years old and that God created it in 7 days, you ****ING MORON. Go to a natural history museum and find out about carbon dating. While you're there, see if they have fossils of dinosaurs, you know, those life forms that were ommited from the Bible and whose ancient remains that produces oil that we are so addicted to? But let me guess, God put those bones there. We're not supposed to understand the ways of God, etc.

Conveniant.

[mirandavanz]

Hey Godfather, 2 pionts!

1) First, your correct, there are some things I don't want to tolerate, so I'm intolerant. I don't want to explain to my 5 or 7 year old why 2 dudes are kissing or how they are married, and now it is ok, because it is an alternative lifestyle. NO WAY!!! Not on my watch. Let my kids be kids, they don't need to see that shit! And if family businesses like McDonalds or Disney World want to support those Gay groups, so be it. But my family won't be there. So call me intolerant. Tell me my family belongs to a hate group because we won't eat at McDonalds. I'm holding on to my traditional American values.

2) Second, And most important, You said "Hamas is in fact a freedom fighting group"? Your insane! They are a militant group known for numerous suicide bombings against civilians. They are listed as a terrorist group by the USA, Canada, Japan, the UK, ect... Hamas' charter states "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through JIHAD".

Do you know what Jihad is? Educate yourself Godfather. They are not freedom fighters, they are terrorists. Yes, terrorism is a tactic of war, for them. We Americans don't strap bombs to our kids backs and tell them to blow up a bus full of civilians for our political agenda.

Jihad actually means striving so they may have meant it as such and not how some other groups have defined it.

[Ernst]

Jihad actually means striving so they may have meant it as such and not how some other groups have defined it.

Striving to kill Israelis? Their actions speak volumes as to what they think it means. They bomb civilians.

[xlxBigSexyxlx]

[spywizard]

well, things change, people do as well, after all here's some information for ya, and a little research will show the "Why and Who" is forcing the change..

Welcome to Today.. So all of you be tolerant when your child has sex with an adult male, when she or he is 12... 13...14... and the male is 21 or 42.. con't complain.. tolerance.. go figure..

The Age of Consent

UK 16
Croatia 14


Canada 14
Czech Republic 15

Sweden 15
France 15
Denmark 15
Finland 15
German 14
Iceland 14
Italy 14
San Marino 14
Slovenia 14
Hungary 14
Lithuania 14

Until 1993, male homosexual acts were prohibited under the Lithuanian Penal Code, Article 1221, which was repealed in that year. The new law set an age of consent of 17 for male oral and anal intercourse, 16 for other male homosexual acts, and 14 for lesbian and heterosexual acts. In 2004, the law was amended to equalise the age of consent at 14 for all sexual acts.

Serbia is 14


Spain 12
History

Homosexual acts had been legal in Spain from 1822 to 1933, (with the exception of the offence of “habitual homosexual acts" in the years 1928-32) and even not specifically mentioned there, some homosexuals where arrested under the "Ley de Vagos y Maleantes" (Law against the Lazy and common deliquents) during the 2nd Spanish republic. Homosexual acts were illegal during Francisco Franco's regime, which created a specific law against them (Ley de Peligrosidad Social). A new Criminal Code was introduced in 1995 which specified an age of consent of 12 under Article 181f for all sexual acts; and this was raised to 13 in 1999.

Michael Swift
Writer
Gay Community News

[Tock]

Welcome to Today.. So all of you be tolerant when your child has sex with an adult male, when she or he is 12... 13...14... and the male is 21 or 42.. con't complain.. tolerance.. go figure..

Most, if not all, of those age of consent laws do allow fairly young adolescents to have sex, yes, but only with other adolescents no more than 2 years older/younger than them.

A while back an 18 year old was sent to prison for having sex with a 17 year old. I forget the state, but because of that, the laws in that state were changed to allow a 2-year fudge factor. Which is, IMHO, an excellent idea.

There's no need to make things seem like it's open season for inter-generational sex, because it's not. Kids under 18 are still well-protected.
What still seems to be a big problem, though, is polygamy. There doesn't seem to be enough young girls to supply the demand here in Texas, or in other parts of the western states. And there doesn't seem to be much stomach to enforce polygamy laws, either, surprisingly enough, despite graphic TV coverage of the ravages engendered from this practice.

The problem is not with gay sex, or with gays looking for sex with minors. You'll be hard pressed to find evidence that folks of your orientation (heterosexual) are more likely to abuse children than gays. And you'll be hard pressed to justify all the child neglect, abuse, and abandonment on the part of heterosexuals, which results in lots (billions) of tax $$$ for welfare (which gay people end up having to help support). And also, you'll be hard pressed to justify different age of consent laws for heterosexuals and gay people, or justifying any law that criminalizes homosexuality.

Seems to me that the #1 thing that Americans could do to save traditional marriage is to make divorce illegal. How many Americans get divorced every year? I dunno, but it's a lot. And it leaves families in shambles; broken homes, kids in poverty, ugh.

But what gets more attention instead? Gay marriage. What's the bigger problem? Heterosexual marriage.

Well, here's the solution: Some folks have started up an effort to save traditional marriage in various states by banning divorce:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/pro...ohibit-divorce
A Petition for a California State Proposition that Prohibits Divorce Between Heterosexual Married Couples

Divorce destroys the sanctity of marriage and its powerful influence on the betterment of society. This proposition would keep the very meaning of marriage from being transformed into nothing more than a contractual relationship between two adults. Prohibiting divorce between heterosexual married couples will keep the interests of children and families intact. We will continue to celebrate marriage as the union of husband and wife, not as a relationship between "Party A" and "Party B." The marriage of a man and a woman has been at the heart of society since the beginning of time and it promotes the ideal opportunity for children to be raised by a mother and a father in a family held together by the legal, communal, and spiritual bonds of marriage. As a society we should put the best interests of children first, and those interests lie in traditional marriage. Permitting divorce destroys marriage as we know it and causes a profound harm to society. We should be restoring marriage, not undermining it.

And for those of you who voted yes on Prop 8 but disagree with this petition...Why? This petition is copied and pasted from literature from your website, ProtectMarriage.com, but applied to Divorce instead of Gay Marriage. So how can you argue with your own words?

Lots of folks quote from religious books to justify anti-gay laws.
Fine.
Will those same people quote from religious books to justify anti-divorce laws? Probably not. But One popular religious figure is quoted thusly:

Matthew 5--
"31": It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
"32": But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Seems that the same source that bans gay sex also bans divorce.


Read it and weep . . .

[spywizard]

Most, if not all, of those age of consent laws do allow fairly young adolescents to have sex, yes, but only with other adolescents no more than 2 years older/younger than them. .

Nope, you need to do more research.. google is a wonderful tool..

It is in most cases for male sex with children, some of those countries have a 3-4 year age difference is allowed.. but in many of them the laws are changed due to the efforts of the organization i stated..

And Satan can quote scripture just the same as anyone.

[Tock]

Nope, you need to do more research.. google is a wonderful tool..

It is in most cases for male sex with children, some of those countries have a 3-4 year age difference is allowed..

Ok, so your point here is . . . what?

but in many of them the laws are changed due to the efforts of the organization i stated..

Which organization was that?

Doesn't make much difference, really, who supports the principle of equality under the law. Why require women to be 21 years old to vote while men can vote at 18?
Well, we don't, because it would be stupid to do so.

It's just as stupid to let women have sex at 12 but make males wait until they're 14. Some states have such laws, and there's no rational reason to keep them.

And Satan can quote scripture just the same as anyone.

The Devil, you say . . . Did you have any scripture-quoting fellow in mind?

Surely it wasn't me. After all, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander." If fundamentalists say the Bible is good enough for gays to live by, then it ought to be good enough for fundamentalist to live by.


As the central character of the Bible is reputed to have said,

Matthew 23:
"23": Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
"24": Ye blind guides, which strain at gay marriage, and swallow legalized divorce.
"25": Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.



So, for the fundamentalists who want American law to more closely reflect the rules and commandments in the Bible, for those who think that the Bible gives enough reason to deny equal rights and responsibilities to gays, let me ask you this (it's a rhetorical question, BTW):
When are y'all going to "protect the family" and "protect traditional marriage" by insisting that divorce be made illegal?


Mark, chapter 10



"1": And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judaea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again.

"2": And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.

"3": And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?

"4": And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.

"5": And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

"6": But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

"7": For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

"8": And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

"9": What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

"10": And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.

"11": And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

"12": And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

---------------

Yep, Satan may well be able to quote from the Bible. But it's Pharasees and hypocrites who require everyone except themselves to abide by it.

[DSM4Life]

http://break.com/index/dancing-for-salvation.html