First there's this asshole's people......
"It is shocking that the U.S. Supreme Court did not accept the appeal of District of Columbia citizens who were deprived of their right to vote on the definition of marriage. The Court's decision effectively upheld the finding of the Washington Human Rights Commission that it would be discriminatory to even give citizens a choice to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The consequences of changing the definition of marriage have broad ramifications for how the value of marriage to children and society is perceived and will affect decisions people make about marriage in their own lives. Already, 41% of children born today are deprived of a mother and father who have first chosen to make themselves irreplaceable to each through marriage. This is a human tragedy and a violation of the rights of the child." - Catholics For The Common Good
Yes, those kids born without a mother AND father are doomed. No child of a single parent has EVER amounted to anything....
Next up we have this giant asshole...
“But if you have been adopted in God’s family like I have, and like you have, if you’re a Christian and if you’re saved, and the Holy Spirit lives within you just like the Holy Spirit lives within me, then you know what that makes? It makes you and me brothers. And it makes you and me brother and sister. Now I will have to say that, if we don’t have the same daddy, we’re not brothers and sisters. So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I’m telling you, you’re not my brother and you’re not my sister, and I want to be your brother.” - Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley
Wow. Good luck with that Alabama.
7 comments:
These types of comments have no place in a speech by an elected official. He needs to keep his religious beliefs to himself!
"And it makes you and me brother and sister."
doesn't that make for a whole lot of incest? oh yuck.
Incest, not just for families anymore! Welcome to Alabama.
if he claimed i WAS his sister, i'd want a dna test
"The consequences of changing the definition of marriage have broad ramifications...."
But isn't that the broader point? There is NO "official" definition of marriage. And if we're then reduced to not "changing" the traditional sense, then what is that sense? Marriage for property? Marriage as property? Marriage for wealth? Marriage to a 13-year-old girl like in the heyday Dark Ages?
Exactly what version of marriage in the spectrum of the past of the Catholic Church - all of which were okay with the Pope - should we glom onto? Maybe when they taxed brothels and clerics with mistresses? Or maybe we can just stab back to the old testament when multiple wives were A-okay.
Honestly, anyone who discusses "traditional marriage" on the right has ZERO knowledge of the history of marriage, religion, or humanity.
If it's one thing the bible will teach you....it's that god had no problem whatsoever with incest and polygamy.
Yet these whack jobs keep screaming about how god insists on 'one man one woman'.
Cafeteria Christianity reigns supreme.
And, oh, my GOD. That pope is just incredibly CREEPY-LOOKING.
Post a Comment