ect includes those being disrespectful to ole Kat!:mmph:
Non Married Cohabitation Should Be Illegal
- Thread starter Arthur Brain
- Start date
ect includes those being disrespectful to ole Kat!:mmph:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
In other words aCW effectively wants a theocratic state that governs the details of people's supposedly 'private' lives. Typical self righteous puritan garbage...
This is because he is atypical to his environment.
hey you Brits left the EU, the market went way down and I bought it, so, thank you!
Now why don't you makes some deals straight with us?
Absolutely!
Yea some here are a pain. Like the moron who thinks he reported me for telling her or him to stop posting obscene material, s/he goes screaming, "I am being threatened!" :mmph: Give me a break, I am not chasing anyone with a broom down the street.:Clete: some people on the forum are really nuts!
Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Actually a righteous civil government has that right, along with a society that has strong mores' that frown upon immoral behavior. I'd shown in an earlier post that cohabitation on a large scale brings about loss of life (abortion) and dysfunctional homes where children frequently grow up without the guidance of a dad in the house.
Art Brain's attempt at a joke isn't so funny to those of us that have studied the results of cohabitation, and see it in today's moral relativist society.
I guess I should have asked eider if he and his two different wives were biologically of the opposite sex at birth, as I'm old fashioned and just assumed that was the case (his comment "Nobody has the right to control love, harmony, togetherness" raised serious warning flags).
On that note: a theocracy is a state mandated religion. I wasn't aware that in order to have laws that strengthen the nucleus of society (the traditional family) which prohibit the killing of unborn babies, shacking up together or engaging in homosexuality, that said government must first state that you must adhere to a certain religion.
How exactly does that work Art?
Actually a righteous civil government has that right, along with a society that has strong mores' that frown upon immoral behavior. I'd shown in an earlier post that cohabitation on a large scale brings about loss of life (abortion) and dysfunctional homes where children frequently grow up without the guidance of a dad in the house.
Art Brain's attempt at a joke isn't so funny to those of us that have studied the results of cohabitation, and see it in today's moral relativist society.
I guess I should have asked eider if he and his two different wives were biologically of the opposite sex at birth, as I'm old fashioned and just assumed that was the case (his comment "Nobody has the right to control love, harmony, togetherness" raised serious warning flags).
On that note: a theocracy is a state mandated religion. I wasn't aware that in order to have laws that strengthen the nucleus of society (the traditional family) which prohibit the killing of unborn babies, shacking up together or engaging in homosexuality, that said government must first state that you must adhere to a certain religion.
How exactly does that work Art?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Well, it would only raise 'warning flags' with you, let's face it. Your history of sleazy innuendo et al precedes you don't forget. Considering that you constantly blather on about Judea Christian law being the core of said implemented rulings I'm not getting your confusion here. You're the one who would enact these measures on the populus if given the chance...
Our laws, before we became a pro abortion, pro homosexuality, pro cohabitating, pro pornography society, were based on Judeo-Christian doctrine (and fortunately some laws still are based on Judeo-Christian doctrine).
You had implied that in order to legislate and enforce such laws, that our society would first have to be a "theocracy". When those laws were in place prior to secular humanists taking over, to my knowledge no one ever accused the United States of being a "theocracy", why would it be so in the future if it wasn't in the past?
People have been free to worship (or not worship) the religion of their choice throughout the history of the United States, why all of the sudden a concern about a state religion Arthur?
God tells husbands to love their wives. Like Jenny Gump, you don't know what love is.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Was It Judeo Christian to deny women the vote, deny black people the same rights as whites and tolerate children sweeping chimneys?
You act as if things have gotten worse since some sort of imagined American dreamland 'golden era'. The simple fact of the matter is that for your ideal to be enforced it would be through totalitarian means at the expense of liberty and freedom for people who have the right to exercise their rights to a private life without state intrusion. You'd take all that away if they weren't living "morally enough".
Again: how does passing and enforcing legislation that prohibits amongst other things abortion and sexual perversions equate to mandating a state religion, i.e. a theocracy?
eider
Well-known member
Thankyou for those kind words.
That sounds like an extract straight out of 1984.
Any government that might try to control the togetherness of couples, any couples, and sees itself as righteous, would be suffering from extreme schizophrenia. But then, I haven't witnessed an 'all-righteous' government.... ever.
Look..... folks find what they desperately search for.
A couple of examples?
Atheist Archeologist fails to find enough evidence for habitation on (early 1st century) Nazareth and so holds up his hands in 'glorious' success and writes a book called 'the myth of Nazareth'! Amateurs!
Another? Probably your findings, trying to seek control of people's togetherness.
The first, and most probably the second examople, are typical of agenda driven 'success from failure' non-science.
I like the way Art writes. When people have love, it exudes from everything that they say, do and (in this case) write. Humour is a deadly way of putting down wrongness.
eider
Well-known member
God tells people to take life partners. And now that people can legally take life partners I doubt that any control-freaks are going to be able to reverse that.
If you believe in a particular weay of life then live it, but don't try to enforce your way on other people. That would be evil
Like Forest, I know exactly what love is.
Nick...... your posts exude the spiritual stench of hatred. They do. I've never read a line of yours that had any love in it at all.
Like I said, you don't know what love is. A husband is to love his wife as the Lord Jesus Christ loved the church, giving himself for the church. And you call that stench of hate.
Very telling.
America is not a Christian theocracy - not yet, that is . The government , the law, and the police have absolutely no business prying into people's private lives and their bedrooms .
If you want to live in a country where there is no privacy, and the morals police are constantly prying into everyone's private life , move to Iran or Saudi Arabia .
If you want to live in a country where there is no privacy, and the morals police are constantly prying into everyone's private life , move to Iran or Saudi Arabia .
musterion
Well-known member
So you're into dudes.
It might come as a bit of a shock to you, but in an age of practicality, things of practicality are permitted- not privilege.
The way the white men saw it, was that it was their country- they found it, they built it, they ran it. Problem? Protest it. But don't it there and call the home owner wicked for not allowing others to dictate their own abode.
That's the thing about you liberal folk, which never fails to ring true- you think you're just entitled to things because *reasons* and all of history should have reflected just that.
The truth is that you all want things to be fair.. and yet not fair. You want an oxymoron of a social working.
eider
Well-known member
Jesus loved his own people, the low classes of the peasant orders, betrayed by the upper class which had turned quisling, greedy, ignoring the rules and laws layed down for them, copying the Hellenic values of the Romans. There was no middle class.
Read the Gospel of Mark. Most of it is a record of the memoirs of Cephas, passed on/down for only twenty years by oral tradition. Jesus was for his own, as was John the Baptist.
And Jesus never called himself 'Lord', nor 'Christ'..... he didn't speak Greek. He often referred to himself as 'Son of Man'. Church? Jesus was for his own, the subdued, mistreated, cheated and downtrodden working class Jews.
I still read hate in your sentences. For me it seems as if you turn a good message into a tortured scream. That's just the way I see it.
eider
Well-known member
The reek of prejudice........
I am into humanity, and freedom for all.
You refer to my personal desires? How cheap!
I have already written of my marital status on this thread. Do you want to share yours with us?
America becoming any type of theocracy is not going to happen. The freedom our country enjoys includes the freedom of every individual to include OR exclude religion from their lives. The topic is interesting for the very fact that a good portion of people who are against cohabitation did not remain abstinent until they were married.