Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gays didn't kill marriage. We did.
6/26/2015 | Marie

Posted on 06/26/2015 12:40:06 PM PDT by Marie

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-136 last
To: miss marmelstein

I might have to see that one.

I’d stream it on Netflix, if I had streaming speed for Netflix. :P


121 posted on 06/26/2015 2:46:39 PM PDT by CatherineofAragon ( ((("This is a Laztatorship. You don't like it, get a day's rations and get out of this office."))))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

I’ll have to check with my medieval group to confirm my understanding. I’ll get back!


122 posted on 06/26/2015 2:47:49 PM PDT by miss marmelstein (Richard the Third: "I should like to drive away not only the Turks (moslims) but all my foes.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

How many handmaidens did King David have?


123 posted on 06/26/2015 3:18:32 PM PDT by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

“Also, I thought you were on a thread denigrating Scott Walker’s idea on fighting gay marriage...”

Yes, I mentioned that in my other post as the only thread I can remember the whole day talking about any “strategy” to fight gay marriage. I wasn’t denigrating his idea, just observing that with the state of the government today, I don’t think even an amendment would restrain them.


124 posted on 06/26/2015 3:26:07 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Marie

Smack-dab BINGO!

IMO, the same way others on this board get into a frothy panic when the thought of killing SS/Medicare/etc. come up.

You know, the same group that screams “Hands off *my* XYZ”...pay no mind to the Constitution.

Instead of rising up to cut off the head of Liberal/Socialism; We the People contently let their own greed and social standing (aka EMOTIONS) take over.


125 posted on 06/26/2015 4:00:56 PM PDT by i_robot73 ("A man chooses. A slave obeys." - Andrew Ryan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

Thanks. Not positive on the issue myself.


126 posted on 06/26/2015 5:34:05 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

Didn’t I already cite David as an example of disobedience, even though God at the end of the day called him “a man after my own heart”? The examples of Bathsheba, Michal et al are set as examples of how not to behave, especially in light of Deuteronomy 17:17.


127 posted on 06/26/2015 5:44:37 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

So which was it? Disobedient or a man after Gods on heart?

Can’t be both.

L


128 posted on 06/26/2015 5:46:09 PM PDT by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

I can’t get a straight answer from friends - just that it was Catholic law that you couldn’t marry your first cousin without a dispensation or marry your brother’s widow without one. I still think European royalty got away with it more than the English but I can’t prove it at the moment.


129 posted on 06/26/2015 5:54:15 PM PDT by miss marmelstein (Richard the Third: "I should like to drive away not only the Turks (moslims) but all my foes.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

Catholic doctrine from around 800 to 1215 went well beyond first cousins. It even included “relatives” thru godparents.

The prohibited degree of consanguinity was to the 7th degree, which meant sixth cousins were prohibited from marrying. Given the necessarily intermarried nature of royalty and nobility, this provided a rich source of revenue from dispensations.

in 1215 it was change to the 4th degree, which meant any couple who shared a great-great grandparent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibited_degree_of_kinship#Medieval_canon_law


130 posted on 06/26/2015 6:11:12 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

David had eight wives named in the Bible, I believe, with some unspecified additional number.


131 posted on 06/26/2015 6:13:31 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

The Church did not institute dispensations at the drop of a hat - although that’s how it is often portrayed. Richard the Third, as the Duke of Gloucester, married his first cousin without a dispensation because it was so long in coming. In fact, for centuries, people thought he married illegally before the dispensation showed up in the Vatican archives. It came a while after his marriage. Henry the 8th, of course, is a notorious example of a monarch who got a really rough time from the Pope about dispensations. But then Henry did have an ability to set people’s teeth on edge.

I have no idea how much dispensations cost or even if they cost anything at all. I’m not particularly interested in Canon law - only as it applies occasionally to medieval English monarchs.


132 posted on 06/26/2015 6:19:34 PM PDT by miss marmelstein (Richard the Third: "I should like to drive away not only the Turks (moslims) but all my foes.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

Yes it can be both, or else there is no repentance and/or forgiveness—both of those too.

Solomon is famed for his wisdom, but he fell into the trap of disobeying the command not to multiply wives to himself too, never mind letting those wives talk him into building shrines to foreign gods. Ecclesiastes is an outline and summary of his repentance of those sins.


133 posted on 06/26/2015 6:22:59 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

I’m not sure what you are saying—are you suggesting that if the Advocate agrees, I must be wrong? Or if the Advocate agrees, I should change my mind because I wouldn’t want to agree with them?


134 posted on 06/26/2015 6:43:25 PM PDT by Chicory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Chicory

I am not suggesting you change your mind - simply that I hear this kind of stuff from the gay press all the time - that they would be better exponents of marriage since straight people have so belittled it. I think that’s bull.
Many gays have convinced themselves that if they “marry”, they’ll quit the drugging and drinking and orgies. They won’t.


135 posted on 06/26/2015 6:50:18 PM PDT by miss marmelstein (Richard the Third: "I should like to drive away not only the Turks (moslims) but all my foes.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Marie

Ridiculous post. Fags and liberals redefined marriage against God’s laws in a way that makes lucifer proud.


136 posted on 06/26/2015 7:02:03 PM PDT by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-136 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson