Romney wins Iowa caucus by 8 votes.
Forums › General Discussion › Romney wins Iowa caucus by 8 votes.-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
There are martyrs in every religion. That proves nothingBayern Munich wrote:
Wonder if that was the thoughts of the apostles while they were being stoned, crusified and murdered because of it.⌖🔥Belial🔥⌖ wrote:
Exactly, it's a book that has little to no truth in it, but in the us, people use it as a reason to discriminate.Once again supahun. Should we take away all rights from a class of peope because it's interpreted we should in a fairy tale book?
-
Superyan wrote:
You have no standard by which to justify what is and what isn't. Your out look is subjective and simply ignorant of context of scripture and of its teaching. You just don't like The concept of God, which you must surrender your life to.... You will rebell with every thread of your soul.Totally wiping out cities? Touché.
Killing all the men and raping the women? Enslaving all the children?
No. That is wrong. I don't care what those people did. That is just plain wrong. -
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Hey Guys!Superyan wrote:
You have no standard by which to justify what is and what isn't. Your out look is subjective and simply ignorant of context of scripture and of its teaching. You just don't like The concept of God, which you must surrender your life to.... You will rebell with every thread of your soul.Totally wiping out cities? Touché.
Killing all the men and raping the women? Enslaving all the children?
No. That is wrong. I don't care what those people did. That is just plain wrong.
10 commandments
Do not murder.
Do not commit adultery
I have a great idea! Let's go kill an entire city! Wait! Isn't that murdering? Nahhhhhhh!Hey! Let's burn all those witches even though we have no evidence they are witches! Wait! Isn't that murder? Nahhh!
Hey! Let's rape everyone's wife in this village! Wait! Isn't that adultery? Nahhh!!!
-
Superyan wrote:
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Bayern Munich wrote:
Wonder if that was the thoughts of the apostles while they were being stoned, crusified and murdered because of it.⌖🔥Belial🔥⌖ wrote:
Exactly, it's a book that has little to no truth in it, but in the us, people use it as a reason to discriminate.Once again supahun. Should we take away all rights from a class of peope because it's interpreted we should in a fairy tale book?
Can I have a logical conversation without spouting irrelevant comments I guess notOk?
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
the American Indians had this definition hundreds of years ago. So did the Chinese. It isn't changing anything. Just giving others equal rights⌖🔥Belial🔥⌖ wrote:
You can change the definition of Marraige just because of a behavior.You say they are allowed to be homosexual yet thfey don't have the same rights. They can't marry
-
God ain't so tough. He got his butt kicked by Iron chariots...
"And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."
—Judges 1:19So why would anyone believe the bible's take on anything when an omnipotent god can get whooped by a slightly advanced technology?
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
That's all you doing to me. Sprouting crap out. Plus, mine is true. Poor innocent Girls... Opps! I mean witches.Superyan wrote:
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Bayern Munich wrote:
Wonder if that was the thoughts of the apostles while they were being stoned, crusified and murdered because of it.⌖🔥Belial🔥⌖ wrote:
Exactly, it's a book that has little to no truth in it, but in the us, people use it as a reason to discriminate.Once again supahun. Should we take away all rights from a class of peope because it's interpreted we should in a fairy tale book?
Can I have a logical conversation without spouting irrelevant comments I guess not
Ok?
-
⌖🔥Belial🔥⌖ wrote:
It proves the irony of your statement₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
There are martyrs in every religion. That proves nothingBayern Munich wrote:
Wonder if that was the thoughts of the apostles while they were being stoned, crusified and murdered because of it.⌖🔥Belial🔥⌖ wrote:
Exactly, it's a book that has little to no truth in it, but in the us, people use it as a reason to discriminate.Once again supahun. Should we take away all rights from a class of peope because it's interpreted we should in a fairy tale book?
-
Ojibwe wrote:
Wow! God wouldn't stand a chance nowadays would he? :SGod ain't so tough. He got his butt kicked by Iron chariots...
"And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."
—Judges 1:19So why would anyone believe the bible's take on anything when an omnipotent god can get whooped by a slightly advanced technology?
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
You've already done this by allowing hetereosexual divorce.⌖🔥Belial🔥⌖ wrote:
You can change the definition of Marraige just because of a behavior.You say they are allowed to be homosexual yet thfey don't have the same rights. They can't marry
-
⌖🔥Belial🔥⌖ wrote:
No the definition from every culture from sea to sea has never changed its meaning. It's between a man and a woman... You can't change it to justify a behavior.₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
the American Indians had this definition hundreds of years ago. So did the Chinese. It isn't changing anything. Just giving others equal rights⌖🔥Belial🔥⌖ wrote:
You can change the definition of Marraige just because of a behavior.You say they are allowed to be homosexual yet thfey don't have the same rights. They can't marry
-
Ojibwe wrote:
So I allowed it? Hmmm₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
You've already done this by allowing hetereosexual divorce.⌖🔥Belial🔥⌖ wrote:
You can change the definition of Marraige just because of a behavior.You say they are allowed to be homosexual yet thfey don't have the same rights. They can't marry
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Just burn him. I mean just claim him as a witch and burn him. That's what people did in the good old days right? Claimed whoever upset them as witches.Ojibwe wrote:
So I allowed it? Hmmm₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
You've already done this by allowing hetereosexual divorce.⌖🔥Belial🔥⌖ wrote:
You can change the definition of Marraige just because of a behavior.You say they are allowed to be homosexual yet thfey don't have the same rights. They can't marry
-
Superyan wrote:
That's kind of what god did in the tower of babel story. People were getting too smart so he made it impossible to communicate. He was scared we'd surpass him.₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Just burn him. I mean just claim him as a witch and burn him. That's what people did in the good old days right? Claimed whoever upset them as witches.Ojibwe wrote:
So I allowed it? Hmmm₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
You've already done this by allowing hetereosexual divorce.⌖🔥Belial🔥⌖ wrote:
You can change the definition of Marraige just because of a behavior.You say they are allowed to be homosexual yet thfey don't have the same rights. They can't marry
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Explain the American Indians and the Chinese having same sex marriage then⌖🔥Belial🔥⌖ wrote:
No the definition from every culture from sea to sea has never changed its meaning. It's between a man and a woman... You can't change it to justify a behavior.₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
the American Indians had this definition hundreds of years ago. So did the Chinese. It isn't changing anything. Just giving others equal rights⌖🔥Belial🔥⌖ wrote:
You can change the definition of Marraige just because of a behavior.You say they are allowed to be homosexual yet thfey don't have the same rights. They can't marry
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Why should only some people be allowed to marry. It makes no sense. everyone should get that right.⌖🔥Belial🔥⌖ wrote:
No the definition from every culture from sea to sea has never changed its meaning. It's between a man and a woman... You can't change it to justify a behavior.₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
the American Indians had this definition hundreds of years ago. So did the Chinese. It isn't changing anything. Just giving others equal rights⌖🔥Belial🔥⌖ wrote:
You can change the definition of Marraige just because of a behavior.You say they are allowed to be homosexual yet thfey don't have the same rights. They can't marry
-
No the definition from every culture from sea to sea has never changed its meaning. It's between a man and a woman... You can't change it to justify a behavior.
That isn't my standard... If you want to resort to uniformity of nature then I would say explain why ancients traditionally had ceremonies of the unification of a man and woman and called that marriage... One is right one is wrong. There are social and nurturing issues at hand when dealing with the term marriage. -
Either or, it's a unrelated issue to government. And it should remain a state issue not a federal issue. Before you know it balial is going to start advocating intergenerational marriage.... He sure in hell can't tell me why it's wrong
-
The chinese and the American Indians both had ceremonies for same sex marriage. Saying otherwise doesn't make it true
-
⌖🔥Belial🔥⌖ wrote:
I'm quite sure for different reasons than homos today. Why not advocate heterosexuality? By your standard, in the future we will go far as to say old men marrying little boys is right and lawful... You have no other answer than a circular one.The chinese and the American Indians both had ceremonies for same sex marriage. Saying otherwise doesn't make it true
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍⌖🔥Belial🔥⌖ wrote:
I'm quite sure for different reasons than homos today. Why not advocate heterosexuality? By your standard, in the future we will go far as to say old men marrying little boys is right and lawful... You have no other answer than a circular one.The chinese and the American Indians both had ceremonies for same sex marriage. Saying otherwise doesn't make it true
-
Superyan wrote:
So who determines right and wrong for you?Totally wiping out cities? Touché.
Killing all the men and raping the women? Enslaving all the children?
No. That is wrong. I don't care what those people did. That is just plain wrong. -
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
That's a deflection. We are talojg two consenting adults.⌖🔥Belial🔥⌖ wrote:
I'm quite sure for different reasons than homos today. Why not advocate heterosexuality? By your standard, in the future we will go far as to say old men marrying little boys is right and lawful... You have no other answer than a circular one.The chinese and the American Indians both had ceremonies for same sex marriage. Saying otherwise doesn't make it true
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Wow your ignorance is bliss. It was Christians who changed the idea of marriage. Read up on the Theodosian Code. Before then it was a regular practice and acceptance for same sex marriage⌖🔥Belial🔥⌖ wrote:
I'm quite sure for different reasons than homos today. Why not advocate heterosexuality? By your standard, in the future we will go far as to say old men marrying little boys is right and lawful... You have no other answer than a circular one.The chinese and the American Indians both had ceremonies for same sex marriage. Saying otherwise doesn't make it true
-
I post about the Iowa caucus and it turn into homosexuality and gay/lesbian marriages.
-
Amish Hitman wrote:
The ceremony of marriage predates the Old testament so I dont know what your talking about... You instead of spouting off "ignorance is bliss" read my previous responses. Homosexuality is illogical. Advocate heterosexuality.₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Wow your ignorance is bliss. It was Christians who changed the idea of marriage. Read up on the Theodosian Code. Before then it was a regular practice and acceptance for same sex marriage⌖🔥Belial🔥⌖ wrote:
I'm quite sure for different reasons than homos today. Why not advocate heterosexuality? By your standard, in the future we will go far as to say old men marrying little boys is right and lawful... You have no other answer than a circular one.The chinese and the American Indians both had ceremonies for same sex marriage. Saying otherwise doesn't make it true
-
⌖🔥Belial🔥⌖ wrote:
Deflection? Nope it's a as clear as day. "consenting" adults? So are you suppressing their these men's rights to marry little boys who also love them? Hmm?₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
That's a deflection. We are talojg two consenting adults.⌖🔥Belial🔥⌖ wrote:
I'm quite sure for different reasons than homos today. Why not advocate heterosexuality? By your standard, in the future we will go far as to say old men marrying little boys is right and lawful... You have no other answer than a circular one.The chinese and the American Indians both had ceremonies for same sex marriage. Saying otherwise doesn't make it true
-
sloan97 wrote:
It could have become a debate on Creationism v Evolution.I post about the Iowa caucus and it turn into homosexuality and gay/lesbian marriages.
-
pepe genovese wrote:
Very easilysloan97 wrote:
It could have become a debate on Creationism v Evolution.I post about the Iowa caucus and it turn into homosexuality and gay/lesbian marriages.
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
You're sick for even seeing a correlation. Two consenting adults by nature should have rights.⌖🔥Belial🔥⌖ wrote:
Deflection? Nope it's a as clear as day. "consenting" adults? So are you suppressing their these men's rights to marry little boys who also love them? Hmm?₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
That's a deflection. We are talojg two consenting adults.⌖🔥Belial🔥⌖ wrote:
I'm quite sure for different reasons than homos today. Why not advocate heterosexuality? By your standard, in the future we will go far as to say old men marrying little boys is right and lawful... You have no other answer than a circular one.The chinese and the American Indians both had ceremonies for same sex marriage. Saying otherwise doesn't make it true
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC