User Profile: Sosorryforyou


Member Since: August 03, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • [-2] October 20, 2014 at 9:19pm

    Variance -

    Luke 16:18
    “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

    Matthew 5:32
    But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

    Mark 10:12
    And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

    Mark 10:11-12
    And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

  • [-3] October 20, 2014 at 8:40pm

    An illegal alien? Where do you get that? Oh right, to the likes of you and your ilk, all Latino-looking people must be illegal. Dolt.

  • [-9] October 20, 2014 at 7:38pm

    Because it’s not illegal and hopefully won’t ever be. Conservative groups legally do this as well as liberal ones. It’s done to help home bound voters and others who are unable to drop off their ballot. Voter suppression laws such as Arizona’s HB2305 need to go down in November.

  • [-6] October 20, 2014 at 5:59pm

    Yes. He even smiles several times at someone during the video. Hardly looks like a “violent thug” to me. I call BS on this story, especially because it’s so badly reported and biased without a shred of wrongful evidence.

  • [-1] October 20, 2014 at 12:26pm

    In this Country, we do not deny marriage based on the sins we think will be committed afterward, as long as the marriage is consensual. If we did that, we’d be opening up a whole can of abominations. And let’s be honest here. It’s the abomination of same-sex sex that is the point, right? God never said one word about homosexual marriage. The Christian Right doesn’t seem at all phased by what kinds of abominations heterosexual couples commit after marriage. They leave that judgement up to God. Why can’t they do the same for homosexual couples desiring to be married. By saying we should be against homosexual marriage because of the assumed abomination that they will have same-sex sex afterward their marriage, is no different than saying we should be against heterosexual marriage because of the assumed abomination that they will eat shellfish afterward. That’s the Christians Right’s logic and to most of us, it shows a whole lot of hypocrisy.

  • [9] October 20, 2014 at 11:26am

    Wrong. The Bible doesn’t say “homosexuality is a sin”. It says homosexual sex is a sin. That’s the abomination – the act, not a person’s human sexuality. Homosexuality is just human sexuality exactly like heterosexuality is human sexuality, and God created human sexuality. And when you start seeing it in that context, it changes everything.

    Responses (18) +
  • [-2] October 20, 2014 at 10:59am

    Foo – As usual, you have nothing to say except gibberish. Be mature and try to refute my statement. What does the Bible actually have to say about same-sex marriage? What does the Bible actually have to say about divorced individuals remarrying? Which one is God against (and since we only know what kind of marriage God is against because of what is specifically stated in the Bible, try to not spin it with your childish, incoherent rants)?

  • [-1] October 20, 2014 at 10:44am

    RJJ – I do it to show the hypocrisy on the Right. And although you state it’s a wrong, please show me where in the Bible is says same-sex marriage is not allowed. It says homosexual sex is wrong. Period. Now you will say it’s implied as God calls homosexuals an abomination, but by that logic, you must say that seafood loving individuals are an abomination. Let me show why this logic is flawed.

    God does not say being a homosexual is an abomination. Only their act of homosexual sex is.

    God does not say a sea-food lovin’ individual is an abomination. Only their act of eating seafood is.

    Therefore by this logic, if it is the act of abomination that causes someone to be against same-sex marriage, then those against same-sex marriage must believe anyone engaging in any type of abomination should not be able to marry, otherwise it’s hypocritical.

    But the Christian Right picks and chooses who they feel should not be marry based on nothing more than their discrimination of acts of abomination – but God never made such a discrimination.

  • [-7] October 20, 2014 at 10:07am

    The Bible has nothing to say about an “unholy alliance” between same-sex couples. The Bible is just against homosexuals engaging in sexual relations with each other. The Bible is against an “unholy alliance” of previously divorced individuals remarrying. I wonder how careful this couple is about not remarrying divorced individuals? That’s the real “marriage” sin mentioned in the Bible.

    Responses (8) +
  • [17] October 20, 2014 at 9:38am

    If the real issue was about not performing a marriage that they believe is against God’s will, then they’d never marry previously divorced couples, which I’m sure they have done, knowingly and unknowingly. This is the only “marriage” sin talked about in the Bible. But following God’s laws about marriage is not what this is about, is it? It’s about denying a couple their right to be married because of who they are – and that’s discrimination. AND a right God never said they couldn’t have.

  • [-1] October 18, 2014 at 9:10pm

    Cameron – “No union besides the one between a man and a woman was ever blessed by God or anyone else in the Bible”. There are a whole lot of things Christians feel are “blessed by God” that were never mentioned in the Bible. Christians believe God has blessed America, blessed our children’s schools, blessed our military vets, etc., etc., etc. My pastor neighbor even holds a “blessings of the motorcycles” service at his church once a year. So, if we can believe God blesses a whole bunch of stuff not mentioned in the bible, why is it so far fetched that he would bless a same-sex union, especially when he never said he didn’t?

  • [-5] October 18, 2014 at 10:15am

    I agree. We’ve had only one person enter the US with Ebola. ONE. Actually, seems to be working quite well.

  • [-2] October 17, 2014 at 10:19pm

    It’s not whether IDs are unConstitutional. But studies have shown that requiring IDs to vote places an undue burden on denying or abridging some minorities’ right to vote, and that’s what’s unConstitutional.

  • October 17, 2014 at 9:45pm

    83Plus & Tesumner – We see it as unConstitutional because studies have shown that it places an undue burden on some minorities’ right to vote.

  • [1] October 17, 2014 at 9:32pm

    RoDogg – Officer Wilson’s eye socket was not fractured.

  • [-3] October 17, 2014 at 7:12pm

    So you’re calling “local officials” communist or social Marxists? Even the conservative ones who are refusing Pres Obama’s request to detain these felons after their sentence is over so that they can be deported?

  • [-2] October 17, 2014 at 7:08pm

    What is insane about the Administration’s request? Letting illegal felons loose is what is insane.

  • [-3] October 17, 2014 at 7:04pm

    And what if that is infeasible at times, which apparently it is? Should they just be released into the general public? What’s the solution, Monk?

    Responses (2) +
  • [-4] October 17, 2014 at 6:49pm

    Multiple IDs? Please show us credible, backed up evidence of this, Watkins.

  • [-2] October 17, 2014 at 6:47pm

    It might make sense, but it might also be unConstitutional.

    Responses (2) +
123 To page: Go