Here they go again: Christians bash on marriage

[Neo-Scholastic]

Take YOUR fucking marriage vows SERIOUSLY, forsaking all others means FORSAKING ALL OTHERS.  If your marriage implodes, your alternative is to live out the rest of your life CHASTE, not in some abomination of a second marriage, hooked up to another goddamned divorce whore !!!

Apart from the vulgarity, I agree entirely.

[The Valkyrie]

It's not just the gay marriage they're against but also "egalitarian marriage between man and a woman"

The group asserted its belief in these separate gender roles in its 1987 manifesto, “The Danvers Statement,” which affirmed a “complementarian” view of gender roles in a push against secular feminism and egalitarian marriages.
It supports the biblical teaching that men must be Christlike leaders at home and in the church, and upholds wives’ submission in marriage.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn...0672c1a135

I mean what the fuck does that even mean? I guess one lesson that I learned is that you can crap, lie, seep hate and discriminate all you want as long as you say it's in the name of Jesus because Christians will brake their neck to rationalize it how you're speaking the truth and that you're well meaning. Because they're programmed to do it.

It means, "strong, independent women scare us and we must force them into being slaves to male whims, once again!"

[Fake Messiah]

It means, "strong, independent women scare us and we must force them into being slaves to male whims, once again!"

Yeah this all make it seem like Christians are in crisis, that people believe/ attend churches less and less and the only way to fix that is if every Christian family had 15 kids, because in order to have a Christian you have to work on him/her from the early age. No adult is going to believe you if you come to him and say "Few thousand years ago some guy ate fruit from a wrong tree so you need to give us money."

Also the sad part is they never mention successful women like Marie Curie and what she contributed to the world thanks to feminism. No. To them there are no successful women apart from those that give birth and cook. Even when you look at stuff like catholic orders where you had some orders like Jesuits where it was allowed for them to dabble in science there was no such case for nuns, they were all more valuable as washers and floor sweepers.

[vorlon13]

Take YOUR fucking marriage vows SERIOUSLY, forsaking all others means FORSAKING ALL OTHERS.  If your marriage implodes, your alternative is to live out the rest of your life CHASTE, not in some abomination of a second marriage, hooked up to another goddamned divorce whore !!!

Apart from the vulgarity, I agree entirely.

I see the First Amendment as absolutely prohibiting anyone in government (US at least) in participating in any actions that would dissolve a freely entered into Christian marriage.

I'd love to see someone bring the right case and present the right arguments to SCOTUS to see if they wouldn't concur at some point.  It's not like they'd be ruling on legalizing child sacrifice under the First, but I bet there would be howls of outrage of a similar volume if this case made it there.

A related case maybe to 'test the waters' would be for like Hobby Lobby to continue to cover exes on company health insurance under the same legal theory, but charging a higher copay for the employee, which would trigger the lawsuit. It would be VERY interesting to see how the amicus opinions get parsed out on that one.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Apart from the vulgarity, I agree entirely.

I see the First Amendment as absolutely prohibiting anyone in government (US at least) in participating in any actions that would dissolve a freely entered into Christian marriage.

I'd love to see someone bring the right case and present the right arguments to SCOTUS to see if they wouldn't concur at some point.  It's not like they'd be ruling on legalizing child sacrifice under the First, but I bet there would be howls of outrage of a similar volume if this case made it there.

A related case maybe to 'test the waters' would be for like Hobby Lobby to continue to cover exes on company health insurance under the same legal theory, but charging a higher copay for the employee, which would trigger the lawsuit. It would be VERY interesting to see how the amicus opinions get parsed out on that one.

Yeah that would be kind of interesting. Or banning usury in a capitalist country; although I think the idea was not interest of any kind, just predatory lending.

But

[vorlon13]

Retroactively invalidating all (ostensibly Christian) divorces would be somewhat more than just 'interesting'.

[drfuzzy]

Brilliant, funny article from Evan Hurst at Wonkette:  https://wonkette.com/622326/godly-christ...hates-fags
If there is anyone here who is triggered by profanity or someone bashing the Southern Baptists     you won't like it.

[vorlon13]

Brilliant, funny article from Evan Hurst at Wonkette:  https://wonkette.com/622326/godly-christ...hates-fags
If there is anyone here who is triggered by profanity or someone bashing the Southern Baptists     you won't like it.

well, I'm glad they cleared that up !!

Praise Jesus for his double crucifixion and still caring about all this shit 2000 years later !!!

[John V]

To them there are no successful women apart from those that give birth and cook.

Go read Proverbs 31. Amazing how often I have to point that passage out. You guys just believe what you want to believe without actually reading the source material.

Apart form that, pretty much what Neo said. Men and women tend to have differences, and matching roles to strengths in the marriage works out well in most cases. My wife's a big fan of it.

Note also that submission doesn't imply inferiority within Christianity. Jesus said "The greatest among you will be your servant" to a group of men. Jesus humbled himself to appear in human form, and submitted to the will of the father. A lot of the problem is that you guys think that power and authority imply superiority.

[drfuzzy]

To them there are no successful women apart from those that give birth and cook.

Go read Proverbs 31. Amazing how often I have to point that passage out. You guys just believe what you want to believe without actually reading the source material.

Apart form that, pretty much what Neo said. Men and women tend to have differences, and matching roles to strengths in the marriage works out well in most cases. My wife's a big fan of it.

Note also that submission doesn't imply inferiority within Christianity. Jesus said "The greatest among you will be your servant" to a group of men. Jesus humbled himself to appear in human form, and submitted to the will of the father. A lot of the problem is that you guys think that power and authority imply superiority.

       Where's the puking emoji?  I thought we had a new puking emoji.  
Submit means inferior.  "accept or yield to a superior force or to the authority or will of another person"  "For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church."  Oh yeah, real equality there.  Proverbs 31 extols the virtues of a woman who works from dawn to dusk, obeys, and keeps her mouth shut.  Oh joy.  A happy brainless slave.


Riiiiight.   There are even groups like the "Christian Domestic Discipline" folks who advocate the "Head of the House" should "discipline" -- with a belt, preferably -- his wife for any reason, including refusing sex.  Such wonderful people.  http://www.christiandomesticdiscipline.com/home.html

And Proverbs?  Yeah, I was forced to memorize that craptastic pile-of-shit evil book when I was a kid.  Didn't even have to look that one up.  

What amazes me is that people seem to think that all they have to do is mention a verse from that evil collection of moronic fairy tales, and then we'll just go "oh yeah you're right".  Fascinating.