Counties to Supreme Court on 'gay' marriage: Drop dead!

Counties to Supreme Court on 'gay' marriage: Drop dead
'This will be as inspirational as Alamo, without the guns'

---

Posted: July 07, 2008
9:45 pm Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
At least two counties in California have begun reviewing a plan to uphold the state's laws regarding marriage as being between one man and one woman and disregard a state Supreme Court opinion that has yet to be implemented by the Legislature.

More at: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69044

Pleasantly surprising, and yet, still disappointing.

Surprised that any county of people in California hard the courage to fight back with what's right (the will of the people).

Disappointed that no other counties have the courage to do what's right.

Complacency will ruin. Always has, always will.

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.

I don't know if you could describe it as evil. But I am getting sick and tired of judicial activism.

If straight people are allowed to marry 7 or 8 times, gay people should be allowed to marry at least once.

U.S. divorce rates for various faith groups, age groups, & geographic areas:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

Gays can marry as many times as they like as far as I'm concerned ..they can pay child support too..just like me...I could care less.I still remember the same stupid argument about blacks marrying whites etc...all BS..hey if it's two consenting adults I don't care what they do in their bedroom... really don't see why anyone else would..just like I don't care what my neighbors are doing either..never think about it...seems weird people care...but .. whatever....I do care if this thing RV's or not..GO RV!!...

Jonas Aardvark wrote:If straight people are allowed to marry 7 or 8 times, gay people should be allowed to marry at least once.

U.S. divorce rates for various faith groups, age groups, & geographic areas:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

When do I get my 6 or 7 other wives? Ohhhh, you meant married, divorced, married, divorced, married, div.....

And here I thought you were speaking about morals, not just being hard to please.

TerryTate wrote:

Jonas Aardvark wrote:If straight people are allowed to marry 7 or 8 times, gay people should be allowed to marry at least once.

U.S. divorce rates for various faith groups, age groups, & geographic areas:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

When do I get my 6 or 7 other wives? Ohhhh, you meant married, divorced, married, divorced, married, div.....

And here I thought you were speaking about morals, not just being hard to please.

Sorry, you'll have to move to Utah if you wish to engage in such antics

Jonas Aardvark wrote:

TerryTate wrote:

Jonas Aardvark wrote:If straight people are allowed to marry 7 or 8 times, gay people should be allowed to marry at least once.

U.S. divorce rates for various faith groups, age groups, & geographic areas:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

When do I get my 6 or 7 other wives? Ohhhh, you meant married, divorced, married, divorced, married, div.....

And here I thought you were speaking about morals, not just being hard to please.

Sorry, you'll have to move to Utah if you wish to engage in such antics

Nope. Still not legal there either... Now Saudi Arabia, thats a different story...

dinarcrazedidiot wrote:I don't know if you could describe it as evil. But I am getting sick and tired of judicial activism.

I suppose that depends on what you use as a moral basis. I choose the Word of God.

puresourceenergy wrote:Gays can marry as many times as they like as far as I'm concerned ..they can pay child support too..just like me...I could care less.I still remember the same stupid argument about blacks marrying whites etc...all BS..hey if it's two consenting adults I don't care what they do in their bedroom... really don't see why anyone else would..just like I don't care what my neighbors are doing either..never think about it...seems weird people care...but .. whatever....I do care if this thing RV's or not..GO RV!!...

This is the exact type of complacancy that has eroded the America that we grew up with. I don't care what two consenting adults do either....IN PRIVATE!.

This whole issue has nothing to do with doing what you/ they want to do in private! It has to do with dulling our morals. It about an extreme minority of people that want to be "in your face", flaunting it in public (reference San Francisco for one), and making the masses look up to them as though they are special...enlightened above the rest, and yes, a recruiting tool of sorts. They want special status to feel better and for financial gain, i.e. special employment rights (affirmative action rights)

They already have the same rights as heterosexuals. They can live together the same as any man/ woman relationship without marriage. They want the everyone to think that homosexuality is "normal". While it may not be unusual, it is not normal! If it was normal, they would be able to procreate themselves. They are wanting new recruits.

They move in steps, under the guise of progressiveness. It's not progressive at all...It is regressive. Regressive and degenerate.

Gay people in committed relationships are of no threat to you. They are not out to recruit your children into their 'evil' lifestyle. You really should focus on the hypocrisy, lies and cover up of the countless number of 'mostly' male straight people, wearing wedding rings, who engage in homosexual behavior. You probably have no idea how prevalent homosexual behaviour is in this society.

These are your brothers, fathers, uncles, sons, friends and co-workers. Where did these men learn this behaviour? From each other. Not from gay people in committed relationships.

Are these men who are on the 'down low' gay? Nope. Just horny and human. But you'll never know about their antics, because they aren't talking.

So, go ahead and blame gay people for all your woes, if you choose to do so.

Oh, the hypocrisy.

Jonas Aardvark wrote:Gay people in committed relationships are of no threat to you. They are not out to recruit your children into their 'evil' lifestyle. You really should focus on the hypocrisy, lies and cover up of the countless number of 'mostly' male straight people, wearing wedding rings, who engage in homosexual behavior. You probably have no idea how prevalent homosexual behaviour is in this society.

Oh, the hypocrisy.

Every step of degradation starts somewhere. Remember when they started their "journey" of public "acceptance"?

It started when they promised that they just wanted to teach in schools. The subject was to be left out of teaching children.

From there it has gone to an "alternative lifestyle", with classes being taught in Elementary schools, Junior highs, High schools, and NOW, public colleges actually giving college courses with credits towards degrees.

For those taxpayers that have kids in public schools, that is LUDICROUS! If the VAST majority of taxpayers don't want their kids taught this crap, they are forced to pay additional for private education. It should be the other way around! If the small percentage wants extra, they should be willing to shell out for it on their own.

"Gay people in committed relationships are of no threat to you."

Tell me then why there is such a push to make everyone else either conform to their thinking and lifestyles. Why not just keep their private lives private?

"You probably have no idea how prevalent homosexual behaviour is in this society."

Nor do I care how prevalent it is. It's neither my business or yours what those people do in their private lives.
Next, they will probably WANT TO KNOW what we all do in our own private lives. Bringing government into everyone's lives is NOT good, no matter what angle they try to come in at.

The government needs to stay out of bedrooms. When people of a state pass a law the defines marriage, the law should stand. It was voted on by a majority of the people, and should not be overturned by activist judges.

This is the hypocricy of the left:
If it's a liberal law, it's okay. If it's conservative (conserving traditional values), disregard it, or push from all angles to get it nullified --legally or illegally. The end justifies the mean.

Gay people are like anyone else, in that they all have their individual world views. Not all gay people are pushing for gay marriage. Not all gay people want adoption rights. Not all gay people flaunt themselves at Pride parades. Not all gay people want their 'agenda' taught to your children.

There is a huge contingent of gay people who hold no political leanings, just like in the heterosexual community. Most just want to be left alone to live out their lives in harmony with their fellow human beings.

Unfortunately, the 'us versus them' mentality that has been created, on both sides of these issues, stands in the way of people coming together to live balanced lives, in harmony with each other.

Can't we all just get along ?

GypsyRose wrote:

For those taxpayers that have kids in public schools, that is LUDICROUS! If the VAST majority of taxpayers don't want their kids taught this crap, they are forced to pay additional for private education. It should be the other way around! If the small percentage wants extra, they should be willing to shell out for it on their own.

Corruption of the innocent, where corruption is not needed. Please don't try to tell me that this is normal, acceptable or needed in a society which is sprialing out of morality boundries. Teaching a 4 year old about sex whether straight or homosexual is a bit much.

UK Government Program Teaching Four-Year-Olds about HomosexualityProgram Underway in 14 Schools
By Gudrun Schultz
ENGLAND, United Kingdom, March 16, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Primary schools in the United Kingdom have begun teaching children as young as four about homosexuality, in anticipation of new anti-discrimination laws coming into effect next month, the Daily Mail reported earlier today.

Homosexuality-themed story books are being used in fourteen schools to introduce the children to the homosexual lifestyle. Among the texts in use are "King and King", a fairy-tale about a prince who rejects three princesses before falling in love with another prince, "Spacegirl Pukes", about a little girl with two mommies, and "And Tango Makes Three," telling the story of two male penguins who fall in love at a New York zoo.

Funny, I didn't see anything in that article about 'SEX'. The problem is in the wording. Leave the words 'heterosexuality' or 'homosexuality' out of the discussion, and you get a different picture. The only words that jumped out at me in the article were 'Love' and 'Two Mommies'.

'Love' and 'Two Mommies' aren't really that frightening, now are they ?

Anytime people are exposed to the word 'sex' in newspaper headlines, they get scared of their own insecurities.

GypsyRose wrote:

For those taxpayers that have kids in public schools, that is LUDICROUS! If the VAST majority of taxpayers don't want their kids taught this crap, they are forced to pay additional for private education. It should be the other way around! If the small percentage wants extra, they should be willing to shell out for it on their own.

Corruption of the innocent, where corruption is not needed. Please don't try to tell me that this is normal, acceptable or needed in a society which is sprialing out of morality boundries. Teaching a 4 year old about sex whether straight or homosexual is a bit much.

UK Government Program Teaching Four-Year-Olds about HomosexualityProgram Underway in 14 Schools
By Gudrun Schultz
ENGLAND, United Kingdom, March 16, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Primary schools in the United Kingdom have begun teaching children as young as four about homosexuality, in anticipation of new anti-discrimination laws coming into effect next month, the Daily Mail reported earlier today.

Homosexuality-themed story books are being used in fourteen schools to introduce the children to the homosexual lifestyle. Among the texts in use are "King and King", a fairy-tale about a prince who rejects three princesses before falling in love with another prince, "Spacegirl Pukes", about a little girl with two mommies, and "And Tango Makes Three," telling the story of two male penguins who fall in love at a New York zoo.

This garbage is in US kindergarten classes as well, i.e. "Heather Has Two Mommies" and others like it. And it's beyond "a bit much". There is no other plausable reason other than perverted recruitment.

Unfortunately, the 'us versus them' mentality that has been created, on both sides of these issues, stands in the way of people coming together to live balanced lives, in harmony with each other.

Can't we all just get along ?

Not as long as the "fringes" of your friends keep trying to cram this crap down our throats any way they can.

There is a huge contingent of gay people who hold no political leanings, just like in the heterosexual community. Most just want to be left alone to live out their lives in harmony with their fellow human beings.

Then live that way.

Funny, I didn't see anything in that article about 'SEX'. The problem is in the wording. Leave the words 'heterosexuality' or 'homosexuality' out of the discussion, and you get a different picture. The only words that jumped out at me in the article were 'Love' and 'Two Mommies'.

What in the hell is wrong with you?

What else would they be teaching about it? It IS all about SEX! Devient, abnormal SEX. If it was normal, they could procreate themselves.

I love it - every argument for gay marriage is always the same:

1) why do you care what gays do?
2) there are many males who cheat on their wives, divorce rates are sky high among heteros, and there are even heteros who are closet homosexuals
3) no one is trying to convert anyone to a gay lifestyle


My response:

1) why do we care? Because things that people do affect others in many ways - I consider homosexuality unnatural behavior - that will never change, no matter how many protest. Without extraordinary efforts (scientific mostly), gay couples cannot procreate.

2) I see where this argument is going - two wrongs make a right??? heterosexual deviants and idiots don't detract from the fact that homosexuality is unnatural

3) wrong again - they are doing exactly that, when they are actively engaged in teaching "tolerance" and "acceptance" as part of a forced curriculum in schools

Good job Daddy. Keep on fightin' the fight!

You know some people won't be happy till we're allowed by, some activist group and judge, to have sex with dogs in the middle of the street.


Where's Rover? Come here you horny little devil! Lets go down to the local playground and show the kids how we love each other!!

Where will the moral degregation stop?

To teach little children about homosexuality is insidious and disgusting!

The knife cuts both ways. Why do you keep persisting in pushing your heterosexual agenda on the rest of us? Everywhere I turn I am constantly bombarded by your relentless, overt heterosexual messages. Every magazine, every television show, every billboard advertisement, every internet site - contains blatant sexual messages, designed to sell me something. If I were a heterosexual female, I would be mad as Hell that men are allowed to use my image to sell their products.

So, is heterosex only used for procreation? I think not. Do heterosexuals ever engage in recreational sex, for pleasure? Or to express love for one another?

Hypocrits, the lot of you...

To all Forum members who have staunch opinions on homosexuality based on religion.

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your sharing, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord(Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

puresourceenergy wrote:To all Forum members who have staunch opinions on homosexuality based on religion.

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your sharing, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

Wow!!!! You must really know your Bible!!! I'm impressed...



Nah...you just cut and pasted this tired old argument from the web...it's everywhere...you just didn't have the intellectual honesty to admit that this was not your material.

Gay people marring is like 2 male or 2 female dogs trying to get together and doing it. That life style belongs in the cesspool. Its one of the great plagues on the earth today.

End of story.

Jonas Aardvark wrote:If straight people are allowed to marry 7 or 8 times, gay people should be allowed to marry at least once.

U.S. divorce rates for various faith groups, age groups, & geographic areas:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

williambedloe wrote:

puresourceenergy wrote:To all Forum members who have staunch opinions on homosexuality based on religion.

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your sharing, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

Wow!!!! You must really know your Bible!!! I'm impressed...



Nah...you just cut and pasted this tired old argument from the web...it's everywhere...you just didn't have the
intellectual honesty to admit that this was not your material.

laughable sir..you refer to it as "material" as if it is a comedy routine by Jay Leno... when it is taken directly from the Bible..you yourself said it is "everywhere" and I personally have never seen it cut and pasted any other way.. it has and is everywhere, and as far as I know not one word has ever been changed when cut and pasted...only who it is addressed to have I seen different....never my intention to take credit for someones brilliant reminder to be tolerant ....I believe as God intended.. he is the only one to judge on judgement day...but that is probably a "tired and old argument" too..many apologies..did not occur to me anyone would think of trying to plagiarize something that you yourself said is "everywhere"...is there anyone who has not seen this article!!!??..it was meant to be a reminder...I did not sign my name to it.. but simply cut and pasted as you suggested exactly the way everyone else does...for the last decade or so..or for that matter give the author credit because I have no idea who originally researched it..I find it amusing and a great reminder of tolerance ...and thought others might also...not only have millions seen it on the web...but many more millions saw it on an episode originally of Aaron Sorkin's the West Wing..I don't know however if he actually wrote it..but I can tell you it aired many times....what is most disturbing is you refer to it as "tired old argument from the web"...what argument...it is factual from the Bible...but I suppose the parts of the Bible you choose not to agree with are "tired and old arguments"...I have always been fascinated by people who pick and choose their truths from the Bible according to their own need to judge others.. it sort of goes back to he who is without sin may cast the first stone...oooh ..I better clarify...I also did not write that ...or for that matter the Bible itself....guess I should make that clear too....fascinating really..all of these quotes are in the Bible...and yet you call them "tired and old" but just the ones you don't agree with..talk about intellectual honesty.... also was not my intention to anger you or anyone who does not agree with me...just remind in hopes of tolerance..that some things in the Bible are clearly no longer relevant in today's society..and judgement is for God only .....that said...I still hope it is a reminder for tolerance...and apologize to anyone who felt I was not "intellectulally honest"..lol

puresourceenergy wrote:

williambedloe wrote:

puresourceenergy wrote:To all Forum members who have staunch opinions on homosexuality based on religion.

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your sharing, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

Wow!!!! You must really know your Bible!!! I'm impressed...



Nah...you just cut and pasted this tired old argument from the web...it's everywhere...you just didn't have the
intellectual honesty to admit that this was not your material.

laughable sir..you refer to it as "material" as if it is a comedy routine by Jay Leno... when it is taken directly from the Bible..you yourself said it is "everywhere" and I personally have never seen it cut and pasted any other way.. it has and is everywhere, and as far as I know not one word has ever been changed when cut and pasted...only who it is addressed to have I seen different....never my intention to take credit for someones brilliant reminder to be tolerant ....I believe as God intended.. he is the only one to judge on judgement day...but that is probably a "tired and old argument" too..many apologies..did not occur to me anyone would think of trying to plagiarize something that you yourself said is "everywhere"...is there anyone who has not seen this article!!!??..it was meant to be a reminder...I did not sign my name to it.. but simply cut and pasted as you suggested exactly the way everyone else does...for the last decade or so..or for that matter give the author credit because I have no idea who originally researched it..I find it amusing and a great reminder of tolerance ...and thought others might also...not only have millions seen it on the web...but many more millions saw it on an episode originally of Aaron Sorkin's the West Wing..I don't know however if he actually wrote it..but I can tell you it aired many times....what is most disturbing is you refer to it as "tired old argument from the web"...what argument...it is factual from the Bible...but I suppose the parts of the Bible you choose not to agree with are "tired and old arguments"...I have always been fascinated by people who pick and choose their truths from the Bible according to their own need to judge others.. it sort of goes back to he who is without sin may cast the first stone...oooh ..I better clarify...I also did not write that ...or for that matter the Bible itself....guess I should make that clear too....fascinating really..all of these quotes are in the Bible...and yet you call them "tired and old" but just the ones you don't agree with..talk about intellectual honesty.... also was not my intention to anger you or anyone who does not agree with me...just remind in hopes of tolerance..that some things in the Bible are clearly no longer relevant in today's society..and judgement is for God only .....that said...I still hope it is a reminder for tolerance...and apologize to anyone who felt I was not "intellectulally honest"..lol

If you knew anything about the Bible in it's whole, you would not quote out of context like you do.

We are under the Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ now. We are not under the "law".

Yes God is the judge, but we are to fight the good fight for the Lord while we are here, and some of us have the courage to do so instead of swaying in the wind and giving into every worldly way.

So go ahead and use your reproductive organ to put in a nice filthy hole of excrement and human waste. Just quit trying to convince us normal, heterosexuals to cave into your ways.