GOP lawmakers in North Carolina introduce bill to restore ban on same-sex marriage

[Jazzhead]

I'm guessing here that Jazzhead isn't married.

I'm guessing here that you've been divorced. 

[INVAR]

Adultery and infidelity are what's immoral. 

Says who?  You?

[mirraflake]

He also hasn't got a clue as to how moral men think.  If he thinks debauchery is what all men do, he lives in a sordid little world.

.
Invar  posted up thread  60 percent of pastors admit to viewing porn on a regular basis and my stats shoed 77 percent of Christian men admit to it.  Keep your head in the sand.
@musiclady

[DiogenesLamp]

@DiogenesLamp

I was at another site when I saw pics from the Folsom Street Fair, and there were things I didn't expect, including men drinking each other's urine.  With respect to you, I don't care to revisit any of it.

It isn't us that needs to see the evidence of "gay" culture.   It is those who defend it that need to see what it is that they think they wish to defend. 

[DiogenesLamp]

One of the things my friend told me about his trip to the Rainbow Farm was the guy in an outdoor bathtub with guys peeing on him.

And this is the stuff they aren't afraid to show the world.  I think it is a safe bet that the depravity extends well beyond what they are willing to show in public.   

[Smokin Joe]

It isn't us that needs to see the evidence of "gay" culture.   It is those who defend it that need to see what it is that they think they wish to defend.

They have assured us they are very knowledgeable. 

[mirraflake]

It isn't us that needs to see the evidence of "gay" culture.   It is those who defend it that need to see what it is that they think they wish to defend.

No one here is defending that crap. Every gay person I  know hates it. If you think only gays pee in each other's mouths I have some news for you. The weirdest of gay kooks heads to sf and is not representative of the entire gay world.
@DiogenesLamp

[INVAR]

.
Invar  posted up thread  60 percent of pastors admit to viewing porn on a regular basis and my stats shoed 77 percent of Christian men admit to it.  Keep your head in the sand.

The difference is, a majority of those men do not justify the addiction or think porn is a-okay.  A good majority of them struggle with it, having been poisoned with exposure to it and would prefer not to have their proclivities to watching it necessary to get them off.   Like any addiction - it takes more viewing and often more exposure to heinous and bizarre sex acts for them to achieve orgasm.   A huge amount of shame darkens their walk, and some give up on God, and/or lose their marriages because of their inability to overcome the problem.  Oftentimes what some men watch, they need their spouses to mimic in order for a healthy sex life to take place between them.  And sometimes the things they watch - takes them directly into seeking out and performing the behavior they are watching.

[Smokin Joe]

.
Invar  posted up thread  60 percent of pastors admit to viewing porn on a regular basis and my stats shoed 77 percent of Christian men admit to it.  Keep your head in the sand.
@musiclady

Wasn't that admit to having seen it?

Besides, among Christian men, define "porn".
Is that 'soft' porn, hard core, XXX, kiddie porn, gay porn, Lesbian porn, orgy porn, animal porn, snuff flicks, what exactly are you calling 'porn'?

For some people, nekkid calves (lower human leg) are a turn on and 'porn'. In some cultures, apparently a low neckline and mid thigh dress are an invitation to be raped.
Playboy? Maxim? GQ? MTV? Do those count?

[Hoodat]

I'm guessing here that you've been divorced.

Your guess is correct.  Now, back to that equal protection question.  Please show how California's marriage law violates equal protection.  You keep indicating that equal protection is the constitutional basis for tyranny.  So let's hear it.  How did state law violate equal protection?

At this point, it has become an issue of integrity.  In order to salvage any, you could simply admit that your repeated assertion was baseless and refrain from offering it again.  Or an alternative would be to abandon integrity entirely and cling to the lie, repeating it again and again and again while pretending to be immune from the consequences of it.  Your call.

[mirraflake]

Wasn't that admit to having seen it?

Besides, among Christian men, define "porn".
Is that 'soft' porn, hard core, XXX, kiddie porn, gay porn, Lesbian porn, orgy porn, animal porn, snuff flicks, what exactly are you calling 'porn'?

For some people, nekkid calves (lower human leg) are a turn on and 'porn'. In some cultures, apparently a low neckline and mid thigh dress are an invitation to be raped.
Playboy? Maxim? GQ? MTV? Do those count?

Wow really pulling straws here. I think we all know whatvporn they were viewing and I don't think it was Maxim style of stuff

[musiclady]

The difference is, a majority of those men do not justify the addiction or think porn is a-okay.  A good majority of them struggle with it, having been poisoned with exposure to it and would prefer not to have their proclivities to watching it necessary to get them off.   Like any addiction - it takes more viewing and often more exposure to heinous and bizarre sex acts for them to achieve orgasm.   A huge amount of shame darkens their walk, and some give up on God, and/or lose their marriages because of their inability to overcome the problem.  Oftentimes what some men watch, they need their spouses to mimic in order for a healthy sex life to take place between them.  And sometimes the things they watch - takes them directly into seeking out and performing the behavior they are watching.

It ruins lives.  It destroys marriages.  And it destroys men.

Decent men who struggle with it are desperate to get free from its addiction and the ruination of their lives.   Decent men understand that it degrades women and makes us no more than objects without dignity.

And yet this fellow continues his crusade on this forum to belittle men who are winning the fight, or never succumb to the filth in the first place, and considers himself cool and the rest of us idiots because we don't see life through his dark and ugly lenses, and continues to tout the degradation of women.

I feel sorry for him.  He's pathetic.

[DiogenesLamp]

No one here is defending that crap. Every gay person I  know hates it. If you think only gays pee in each other's mouths I have some news for you. The weirdest of gay kooks heads to sf and is not representative of the entire gay world.
@DiogenesLamp

San Fransisco may not represent the image that most gays want to project,   but it is what happens when this "lifestyle"  is allowed to blossom into full flower.   This behavior is not limited to just San Fransisco.   I've seen reports of the same sort of debauchery taking place in Boston and New York.


I believe it would be worse still if they thought society would tolerate it.  If the bible can be believed,  when there is no authority to stop them,  Homosexuals appear to have no problems with the idea of raping male travelers. 


Both the Sodom and Gomorrah incident as well as the City of Benjamin incident (battle of Gibeah) are examples of Homosexuals trying to rape newly arrived males.   


In both cases it resulted in their cities and everyone living in them being destroyed.   

[musiclady]

Wasn't that admit to having seen it?

Besides, among Christian men, define "porn".
Is that 'soft' porn, hard core, XXX, kiddie porn, gay porn, Lesbian porn, orgy porn, animal porn, snuff flicks, what exactly are you calling 'porn'?

For some people, nekkid calves (lower human leg) are a turn on and 'porn'. In some cultures, apparently a low neckline and mid thigh dress are an invitation to be raped.
Playboy? Maxim? GQ? MTV? Do those count?

He thinks I'm naïve because I don't agree with his sordid worldview.  He thinks every man on this forum is stupid or lying if they don't agree with his distorted perception of right and wrong.

But more importantly, he thinks that degrading and using women is just fine, and spends a significant amount of his time on this forum bragging about how perverse men are, and how perverse he is.

I wonder if he has the "courage" to belittle women to their faces or if he only degrades us because he's protected by his anonymity.

[Hoodat]

It ruins lives.  It destroys marriages.  And it destroys men.

Decent men who struggle with it are desperate to get free from its addiction and the ruination of their lives.   Decent men understand that it degrades women and makes us no more than objects without dignity.

Preach it!

[Smokin Joe]

Wow really pulling straws here. I think we all know whatvporn they were viewing and I don't think it was Maxim style of stuff

You see, there is a fundamental difference between you and I. I wouldn't claim to know what anyone else was doing if I couldn't see, at a minimum, what they were doing.
You, otoh, are telling me what 77% of christian males surveyed saw.

The issue of defining obscenity has been a problem, and porn would be, too. I don't know what they saw. I guess I'm just not as smart as you. But I am in good company:

In 1964, Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or what is obscene, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced... but I know it when I see it ..."

This quote, and the intent behind it, is well known as summarizing the irony and difficulty in trying to define obscenity. For at least fifty years, the Supreme Court has been struggling with defining what speech is "obscene".

It is surprising that the difficulty in defining obscenity in our history did not fully begin until the mid-1900s. Supreme Court Justice Brennan, who served from 1956 to 1990, who was one of the great, and often liberal, legal minds of the 20th century, attempted repeatedly to define obscenity. The task was much more daunting than he had anticipated.
- See more at: http://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/movie-day-at-the-supreme-court-or-i-know-it-when-i-see-it-a.html#sthash.ykqkG6WR.dpuf

Now, I know the definition of what was considered the threshold for 'porn' was a fairly low bar in the sixties and seventies, many movies which have been since shown on television were rated 'X'. I don't know when these alleged 77% viewed what they considered "porn", nor do I pretend to know what they considered "porn" at that time. Sure, there is a level where everyone would generally agree that isn't a film they want to watch with their grandmother, but would what was porn then be porn now, or just a modest ad for ladies underwear?

[mirraflake]

It ruins lives.  It destroys marriages.  And it destroys men.

Decent men who struggle with it are desperate to get free from its addiction and the ruination of their lives.   Decent men understand that it degrades women and makes us no more than objects without dignity.

And yet this fellow continues his crusade on this forum to belittle men who are winning the fight, or never succumb to the filth in the first place, and considers himself cool and the rest of us idiots because we don't see life through his dark and ugly lenses, and continues to tout the degradation of women.

I feel sorry for him.  He's pathetic.

You are a hoot. You are changing the subject. You said majority of men do not view porn and I showed you stats otherwise. The stats for non Christian men is over 90 percent if I recall.
Where did I say porn wasn't bad. I said up thread many men have problems with it but most who view it don't. Numerous men have said in studies they used porn rather than adultery or divorce. That is a fact.
Speak to a marriage counselor who isn't a feminist and they will tell you what is breaking up marriages and it is not porn. Porn is not even in the top ten reasons for divorce.
@musiclady

[roamer_1]

Adultery and infidelity are what's immoral.  If porn can allow a man to keep his vows,  what's the harm?   

If you did it in your mind, you did it. That IS adultery. It dishonors your wife, and diminishes the act.

[Chosen Daughter]

.
Invar  posted up thread  60 percent of pastors admit to viewing porn on a regular basis and my stats shoed 77 percent of Christian men admit to it.  Keep your head in the sand.
@musiclady

This I already addressed in one of my posts when I said that the church is full of people who are broken and hiding.   But I'm curious.  The argument here seems like there are other sinners so homosexual sin is OK?  No, no sexual sin is OK.

"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."

Ephesians 5:31


Run away from sexual immorality [in any form, whether thought or behavior, whether visual or written]. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the one who is sexually immoral sins against his own body.

1 Corinthians 6:18 AMP


 A church should preach the truth about all sins.  All sinners are welcome. 

I saw a sign on a Lutheran church today.  It was a rainbow sign saying God loves all people no exceptions.  That is the truth.  God loves all people and they should be welcome in all churches.  That after all is the reason for church to save sinners.  I wondered though whether it meant they would never hear the truth in Gods Word about sin?  If so they are merely a social meeting place on Sunday mornings.

If a church refuses to teach on one sin they will refuse to teach on many.  Either their church leaders are sinning themselves or they are afraid of loosing people who may be offended by God's Word.  If the church refuses to preach on sin I guess that would make Jesus irrelevant.  No need for the blood he shed which breaks sin and death.  The Bible is clear that you cannot continue to sin.  Sexual sin of any kind is a sin against your own body which is the Temple of God.  Sexual sin, Pornography, homosexuality, infidelity..etc., is a sin against your own body and if you are married it is a sin against your wife.  Being that you have been joined and are one flesh.  You cannot continue to defile it.  And if you are saved you will know when you are sinning. 

No person should ever feel comfortable in their sin.

[Taxcontrol]

Unless Kennedy retires, it seems futile.

It will take a couple of years to file a lawsuit and make it through the courts so... maybe there is time

[Jazzhead]

Your guess is correct.  Now, back to that equal protection question.  Please show how California's marriage law violates equal protection.  You keep indicating that equal protection is the constitutional basis for tyranny.  So let's hear it.  How did state law violate equal protection?

At this point, it has become an issue of integrity.  In order to salvage any, you could simply admit that your repeated assertion was baseless and refrain from offering it again.  Or an alternative would be to abandon integrity entirely and cling to the lie, repeating it again and again and again while pretending to be immune from the consequences of it.  Your call.

 A puppy keeps peeing on my leg.   Fine, you answered my question,  so I'll answer yours.   You do know, don't you, that I wasn't "lying" about equal protection but merely stating the basis upon which the SCOTUS (in Obergefell ) ruled?   

Okay,  here's the basic deal.  Bob and Joe get married in Maryland, where same sex marriage is legal.   They later move to Ohio,  where their marriage isn't recognized.   Meanwhile,  I get married in Maryland too, and later move to Ohio.   Ohio recognizes my marriage.   

Ohio, like most states, imposes an inheritance tax, but waives the tax if one gives their wealth to their spouse.   Bob and I both die, and leave our estates to our spouses.   But Joe, Bob's spouse, is stuck paying an inheritance tax while my spouse pays nothing. 

See, Ohio can't have it both ways.   It can apply its inheritance tax waiver with respect to all spouses,  if it wants as a matter of public policy to provide a break for married couples and their families.   Or it can repeal its inheritance tax waiver and force all spouses to pay the tax.    But what it can't do is treat Bob's spouse differently than it treats mine.   We were both lawfully married in the United States,   and the Constitution guarantees my, and Bob's, natural right to travel and establish our households in any state in the Union we choose - Ohio included.    But Bob and his spouse must pay a tax for making such a choice whereas me and my spouse do not. 

That's an arbitrary denial of the Constitution's guarantee of the law's equal protection.   That's unConstitutional.   

[Jazzhead]

If you did it in your mind, you did it. That IS adultery. It dishonors your wife, and diminishes the act.

Merely thinking about sex is not adultery.  Let's not cheapen the sin, shall we?

Masturbation as an alternative to cheating on one's spouse is not adultery.  Let's not cheapen the sin, shall we?     

[Smokin Joe]

A puppy keeps peeing on my leg.   Fine, you answered my question,  so I'll answer yours.   You do know, don't you, that I wasn't "lying" about equal protection but merely stating the basis upon which the SCOTUS (in Obergefell ) ruled?   

Okay,  here's the basic deal.  Bob and Joe get married in Maryland, where same sex marriage is legal.   They later move to Ohio,  where their marriage isn't recognized.   Meanwhile,  I get married in Maryland too, and later move to Ohio.   Ohio recognizes my marriage.   

Ohio, like most states, imposes an inheritance tax, but waives the tax if one gives their wealth to their spouse.   Bob and I both die, and leave our estates to our spouses.   But Joe, Bob's spouse, is stuck paying an inheritance tax while my spouse pays nothing. 

That's an arbitrary denial of the Constitution's guarantee of the law's equal protection.   That's unConstitutional.   

All that is different is that in Ohio, Joe isn't recognized as Bob's spouse. Therefore, the law does not apply. You are aware, I assume, that in some states marriages between a man and a woman which would be legal in other states are not considered valid? SIL and husband married in Reno. SIL died, but the wedding is not recognized in ND. The fight over the estate is still going on two years later. There's a trucking business involved and one of the kids wants it.

If that is a problem, it should be researched beforehand. If I take my legally licensed North Dakota vehicle to California, they might not register it in California because the emissions standards are different. It won't be recognized as a legal vehicle there. Just one more reason not to move to California, imho, but a consideration. A common law marriage in one state might not be recognized in another, either. The same goes for marriage among first cousins (yes, some states permit this, others do not and consider it incest and prosecutable).

So in matters of estate planning, maybe the Bob and Joe of your example should have stayed some place that was more amenable to their relationship instead of imposing their idea of what is a valid marriage on millions of other people instead of doing a little estate planning.

[INVAR]

That's an arbitrary denial of the Constitution's guarantee of the law's equal protection.   That's unConstitutional.   

So screw the 10th Amendment when it comes to demanding each state permit aberrant behavior to be celebrated, practiced and accepted.

Merely thinking about sex is not adultery.  Let's not cheapen the sin, shall we?

You are an amazing blasphemer who claims to be Christian but spits in His Face each time you post with demonic logic.  Thinking about sex with someone other than your wife or husband IS adultery according to Jesus Himself:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’  But I tell you that anyone who looks at a person lustfully has already committed adultery with them in his heart." Matthew 5:28

[Smokin Joe]

Merely thinking about sex is not adultery.  Let's not cheapen the sin, shall we?

Masturbation as an alternative to cheating on one's spouse is not adultery.  Let's not cheapen the sin, shall we?     

Matthew 5:28 ESV
But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

If you're choking your chicken and not thinking of a woman (or whatever turns your crank), not even for a second, chances are your arm is going to get tired long before you get any results. Be honest for a change. The successful wanker is going to be envisioning some sort of sexual event beyond what they are doing, unless they get all hot and bothered looking at their hand.
So, wrong. Thanks for playing.