Thread: Rick Santorum openly admits to wanting Christian theocracy

Originally Posted by Questerr

Marriage is a legal contract. Fullstop.

Yes. Between a man and a woman. Why should such a noble institution be degraded into a rump ranger cess pool?

Originally Posted by Questerr

If you've read the thread, then you've already seen that JFK specifically said that he would not impose his Catholicism on others.

If you actually read the thread, then your post to me was completely nonsensical.

i can remind you AGAIN. Don't act like there's not a lot of redundancy in any topic on this board as peoples' remarks overlap others. So. Put a sock in it.

and by the way. JFK's religion was a big concern to a lot of people. Not particularly to me cause i know just how obedient to the church catholics are. LOL

Originally Posted by Never Left

Prove it. I ignore nothing. That is an overstatement of the Church's position.

http://www.zimbio.com/Gay+and+Lesbia...+Bryan+Fischer

http://ecolocalizer.com/2012/02/09/s...-made-illegal/

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012...rol/?mobile=nc

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ric...ntrol-illegal/'

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/arti..._Birth_Control

Originally Posted by A Common Anomaly

No, they don't.

Gay and lesbian same-sex couples, whether married or not, are denied a whole host of benefits that the federal government provides to heterosexual married couples. There are over one thousand federal laws in which marriage status is a factor. These laws confer rights, protections, and benefits to married couples. Partners in same-sex couples cannot receive these important benefits -- from Social Security survivor benefits to federal tax benefits to federal employee health and retirement benefits.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...its-30326.html

All solved with Civil Unions. Next complaint, please. Gays have the same marriage rules as everyone else.

Originally Posted by MisLed

I've had a couple leftists on this board tell me that they did such and such to annoy a conservative. Well i guess that can go both ways. And the good part is that conservatives are right.

I have no idea what you are blathering about. Plus, Santorum is only a far right, big government social conservative, and not an actual conservative. However, Republicans are addicted to their big government, social conservatives.

Originally Posted by Montoya

Does this guy really think he has any chance of winning the presidency?.

Without a strong Christianity America will be degraded to a Third World poor Nation with the Sharia Law and donkeys on streets.Santorum is the best candidate for Potus!

Originally Posted by A Common Anomaly

No, they don't.

Gay and lesbian same-sex couples, whether married or not, are denied a whole host of benefits that the federal government provides to heterosexual married couples. There are over one thousand federal laws in which marriage status is a factor. These laws confer rights, protections, and benefits to married couples. Partners in same-sex couples cannot receive these important benefits -- from Social Security survivor benefits to federal tax benefits to federal employee health and retirement benefits.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...its-30326.html

Who cares? You have made no point except to confirm that gays are not what marriage is. Legislating perversity is a poor standard upon to rest society.

Originally Posted by Never Left

Yes. Between a man and a woman. Why should such a noble institution be degraded into a rump ranger cess pool?

When did that definition come about?

It used to be a man and many women, or a woman and her rapist, or a man and the woman who was forced to marry him.

Who made that the official definition?

Originally Posted by MisLed

i can remind you AGAIN. Don't act like there's not a lot of redundancy in any topic on this board as peoples' remarks overlap others. So. Put a sock in it.

and by the way. JFK's religion was a big concern to a lot of people. Not particularly to me cause i know just how obedient to the church catholics are. LOL

He is attempting to engage you in cirrcular argument that degrades the principles upon which you stand. Its all he has, so enable it, or not.

Originally Posted by Never Left

As statement of faith that confirms a lack of faith, and therefore principle.

So you always stand by your relgious belief 100% of the time regardless of the circumstances?

I'd hate to go to your church. Seeing the women seperated from the men and forced to cover their heads at all times would be aggravating to me.