Posted on 03/25/2013 2:48:36 PM PDT by Nachum
3/25/13 - On Monday, a debate on CNN over the issues headed to the Supreme Court this week relating to the constitutionality of prohibitions on same-sex marriage and the right of same-sex couples to receive the same federal benefits as straight couples exploded. Heritage Foundation scholar Ryan Anderson got into a heated and tense exchange with CNN anchor Don Lemon after he asserted that there are no laws currently on the books that make gay marriage "illegal." Lemon resented Anderson's assertion, calling it "absurd."
"Just to clarify, the issue here is not legality," Anderson began, "so, in all 50 states, there is nothing illegal about same-sex marriage."
"Hang on," Lemon interjected. "You said same-sex marriage is not -- is not illegal?"
"When something is illegal, it's criminal to engage in that activity," Anderson clarified.
The two engaged in crosstalk before Lemon insisted that, as the anchor of his program, he can interrupt any guest as often as he likes. "It is illegal -- gay people don't have the same rights," Lemon insisted.
"It's not illegal," Anderson countered. "When something is illegal you can go to jail for doing it."
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
That’s it, St Thomas. Create chaos, generations of rudderless and compassless humans, and the revolution is easy as pie.
homosexuals can marry any willing member of the opposit sex.
there is no love test
there is no orgasm test
there is no mating test.
It’s not illegal — it’s unlawful.
An ill eagle is a sick bird.
I saw this. The CNN anchor was acting like an idiot. The anti-GM marriage guy was fun to watch, but came across as a little dorky.
This whole thing is a stupid argument. Get the state out of God’s business. If the state wants to grant these folks the same contractual rights as married folks, that is up to the state.
It ain’t “marriage” in the eyes of God.
The FAQCT is that marriage, after beign taken over from the church BY the government, and bastardized to the point of being unrecognizable- isstrictly about money- period- The government PAYS married couples to HAVE CHILDREN to create future taxpayers- and they give incentives to encourage hetero couples to reproduce- The government can and does prevent marriage for many reasons (no you may not marry your hairbrush- no you may not marry two women at same time no you may not marry your dog etc etc etc) and beign married is NOT a right- it is a privilege for hte purposes of procreation (although hte government does allow sterile couples to marry- however they are allowing these marriages based o nthe fact that the majority will be healthy marriages that do NOT endanger society via diseases, drug use, abuse of othersw as is the case with a lot of gay people[ Yes, there are soem gay ‘couples’ that stay true to each other don’t do drugs, or have extramarital sex and will never develop aids or other nasty diseases- but statistics prove these folsk are in the minority in the gay comunity)
Gay peopel feel as though they are entitled to the privileges and incentives of married couples- but the FACT is that they are NOT qualified to receive the same incentives and financial privileges because they contribute nothign to future generations as far as procreation goes
The other FACt is that kids who are adopted in gay marriages grow up unstable and insecure and end up costign hte states farm ore often than do kids of two parents of opposite sex- this is a statistical FACT- over and over again it is proven- Why in the world would we want to encourage soemthign that is so harmful and detrimental to most kids who through NO fault of hteir own are thrust into two mommy or 2 daddy atmospheres? Does thel eft hate children? Why woudl they intentionally want ot harm kids htis way?
—>>It’s not really about money. It’s about social revolution. To completely change society.
Very true, I agree.
I hit post before I finished.. I think it’s actually both: money for some and some want to be accepted as being normal. No large groups ever to be on the same identical page idea by idea..
CNN has really been beating the drums for homosexual marriage. There are fluff pieces and stacked panels, and the anchors are so excited that the Supreme Court might redefine marriage. I happened to catch Don Lemon live the other day, and I saw a horrible exchange on a panel stacked essentially 4-1 (since Lemon isn’t even attempting to be nonbiased) where he and some pansy named David Sirota compared supporters of traditional marriage to 1950s era racists and segrationists.
Of course I agree with your entire post that was obviously typed in a fit of rage...LOL Calm down my FRiend.
You only believe the things you choose to believe about a person (or people) you have never met.
You come across as very angry. You must be an a$$. I'd put my morals up against yours any day.
Your superiority is in your head. Go take your anger out on somebody who gives a crap what you think! I don't!!
Bless your heart!
Care to name them so that I can respond directly to that silly and ignorant claim?
Here they are again. I didn't exaggerate, I knew exactly what I was posting, everyone of these is a fact.
"Why do you call a man who supports abortion, homosexual scout leaders, is a leader in an anti-Christian cult, who supports homosexualizing the military, gun control, is a pathological liar, and who gave America “gay marriage” and who was against the republican pro life party platform, “moral”?"
You have your opinion...I have mine! I don't care to change yours and you sure aren't going to influence my thinking about anything.
You are nothing more than a temporary irritation! I don't play with people who come across as angry attack dogs.
I refuse to be your punching bag! Get rid of some anger! Go bounce a ball! Hammer some nails into a board.
It’s a good thing Lemon has a side job packing fudge. His anchor skills are pathetic.
There is a little more to it than that, the Catholic church could not impose total legal control over the regions that they controlled until the mid 1500s in regards to marriage, and even that left our England.
“Concluding in 1563, the Council of Trent decreed that
marriages previously contracted by verbal consent alone and without parental consent would be held valid, but in the future all marriages not celebrated in the presence of a priest and witnesses would be null and void.
This, in essence, abolished informal, private marriage on the European continent.
In England, after the Act of Supremacy in 1534 and England’s break with the Roman Catholic Church, England no longer recognized the canon law of the Roman Catholic
Church.
Therefore, at the time of the Council of Trent, because the English Reformation had already taken place, the results of the Council of Trent did not apply to England.
The Church of England, and the ecclesiastics who had jurisdiction to determine the validity of marriage, while generally requiring formal marriages, continued to allow marriages per verba de praesenti.
The canons of the Church of England, like those of the Catholic Church, created a distinction between a valid marriage which was legally binding on the parties and an
“illegal” marriage which, because it was not solemnized through the intervention of the church, was subject to ecclesiastical penalties. In addition, even though the Church of England recognized these marriages as valid, the lay or temporal courts under the civil law did not bestow full marital rights on the parties to such marriages, perhaps to impede the growth of clandestine marriages. The lay courts required publicity of the marriage in order
to endow the parties with certain marital rights.”
Lol, I not angry about anything, but you seem upset to be learning something about your Mitt Romney.
Does this fit your normal description of what ascribe to moral men, especially a Bishop?
“” One issue I want to clarify concerns President Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue” military policy. I believe that the Clinton compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military. That goal will only be reached when preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians is a mainstream concern, which is a goal we share.””
How about this?
“” “My position has been the same throughout my political career, and it goes back to the days of 1970,” he said. “There was a woman who was running for political office, U.S. Senate. She took a very bold and courageous stand in 1970, and that was in a conservative state. That was that a woman should have the right to make her own choice as to whether or not to have an abortion. Her name was Lenore Romney, she was my mom. Even though she lost, she established a record of courage in that regard.” “”
*snooze*
I’ll take that as a yes to the question, does that “fit your normal description of what you ascribe to moral men”
I didn't read the question because as I said, I don't care what you think.
You can take anything anyway you want to. Not important to me!!!
Evidently your intention was purely a defense of Mitt Romney that you knew was dishonest, but that you want to try and spread.
Considering his immoral agenda you shouldn’t try to portray him as moral as you promote it.
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.