They've made an idol of their sexuality, and they are obsessed with it. They are a prime example of what the Bible defines as sexual idolaters.
Lesbian Lawmaker Threatens to Out GOP Adulterers who oppose 'marriage equality'
- Thread starter GFR7
- Start date
They've made an idol of their sexuality, and they are obsessed with it. They are a prime example of what the Bible defines as sexual idolaters.
TracerBullet
New member
You've already made Angel4Truth's basless claim about promiscuity look well thought out so you can stop obsessing about it
You make about as much sense as nailing jello to a tree.
Nazaroo
New member
Not sure I follow this:
You mean an "honest thief" is better than a "hiding thief/hypocrite"?
How are you defining adultery, because I think you will need a definition now.
Nazaroo
New member
Its not in her closet, its out in the open:
Gluttony, Sexual Perversion, and Gossiping.
Sins which are grouped together and ranked with similar evil and consequences.
That's a 3x Death Penalty, but who is counting, when she's not finished...
Nazaroo
New member
Wanting to be a Politician already shows she's dishonest.
Being a lawyer in the past already shows she has been for a while.
There fixed that for ya!
I am saying If adultery is truly evil, then it shouldn't matter who is exposing it.
My definition of adultery: an act of a sex between a married person with someone other than their spouse.
Nazaroo
New member
The next question then, is:
Is adultery really evil, and why?
Originally a religious reason has been historically used to justify it as a crime.
i.e., God said etc.
But if its just a breach of contract, i.e., a secular violation of an agreement,
who cares? How is it evil?
Unfair or outdated or unworkable contracts are dissolved everyday.
Modern divorce laws attempt to make it both legal and 'crime free',
to violate marriage vows.
This sounds alot like a religious definition of marriage.
You haven't stipulated whether it was secret or open,
consentual or non-consentual....
A secular definition would simply allow whatever you stipulated in
the marriage contract, like pre-nuptial agreements do.
Adultery is a more complex subject then many want to admit.
In biblical times, only men could divorce their wife, and only under the condition that she had committed adultery.
We live in a society now where people divorce for a myriad of things, and it's not only something men do, but women are actually the majority who divorce.
So it's completely flipped over from then until now- the women are divorcing and only a fraction of the time is adultery the justification.
The importance of this is easily seen if you just look specifically at how it was only allowed for men to divorce- a women's adultery was considered the ultimate shame to a family.
Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Think Middle East for a second :think:
There's not so much diversity on the matter, this was a belief held by the Pharisees, the Apostles, and Mohammad.
Jesus taught the men that whosoever looks at a women with lust commits adultery in his heart, but it logically follows that this alone wouldn't be means for divorce or otherwise men could divorce wives surely at some point in their lives for nothing.
The point to be made is that, with all these things said, what really is it to anyone who actually holds to the traditional belief of marriage that a LESBIAN would ridicule a A MAN on adultery?
It may even be a reason she left men. There is nothing of importance there, it is just an ironic spectacle of Fallen World™
In biblical times, only men could divorce their wife, and only under the condition that she had committed adultery.
We live in a society now where people divorce for a myriad of things, and it's not only something men do, but women are actually the majority who divorce.
So it's completely flipped over from then until now- the women are divorcing and only a fraction of the time is adultery the justification.
The importance of this is easily seen if you just look specifically at how it was only allowed for men to divorce- a women's adultery was considered the ultimate shame to a family.
Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Think Middle East for a second :think:
There's not so much diversity on the matter, this was a belief held by the Pharisees, the Apostles, and Mohammad.
Jesus taught the men that whosoever looks at a women with lust commits adultery in his heart, but it logically follows that this alone wouldn't be means for divorce or otherwise men could divorce wives surely at some point in their lives for nothing.
The point to be made is that, with all these things said, what really is it to anyone who actually holds to the traditional belief of marriage that a LESBIAN would ridicule a A MAN on adultery?
It may even be a reason she left men. There is nothing of importance there, it is just an ironic spectacle of Fallen World™
TracerBullet
New member
Adultery is a more complex subject then many want to admit.
In biblical times, only men could divorce their wife, and only under the condition that she had committed adultery.
We live in a society now where people divorce for a myriad of things, and it's not only something men do, but women are actually the majority who divorce.
So it's completely flipped over from then until now- the women are divorcing and only a fraction of the time is adultery the justification.
The importance of this is easily seen if you just look specifically at how it was only allowed for men to divorce- a women's adultery was considered the ultimate shame to a family.
Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Think Middle East for a second :think:
There's not so much diversity on the matter, this was a belief held by the Pharisees, the Apostles, and Mohammad.
Jesus taught the men that whosoever looks at a women with lust commits adultery in his heart, but it logically follows that this alone wouldn't be means for divorce or otherwise men could divorce wives surely at some point in their lives for nothing.
The point to be made is that, with all these things said, what really is it to anyone who actually holds to the traditional belief of marriage that a LESBIAN would ridicule a A MAN on adultery?
It may even be a reason she left men. There is nothing of importance there, it is just an ironic spectacle of Fallen World™
“Left men”???
Wow, you really don’t have a clue do you.
I am using it in normal situation of intentional cheating. IF one is specifically keeping the adultery from the other, they know they are committing a transgression that would likely lead to the end of their marriage.
No, it really isn't. It's about deceit and emotionally abusive.
Obviously that no longer applies ... and with good reason.
Add to that the marriages that end in divorce due to domestic abuse, drug abuse, alcoholism, etc.
Of course. By men. There's a surprise.
Traditional marriage is meaningless when those who promote it disgrace it via adultery.
Nazaroo
New member
Not convinced yet.
Why should "marriage" automatically entitle a spouse to know all of the other spouse's personal business and/or necessarily limit interpersonal relationships with others, public or private, including sexual?
Mormons didn't seem to think so.
Seems again like you are honing in on a standard (Christian) historical definition of marriage.
GFR7
New member
Right, it is Christian. And thus, this standard should mean Rusha does NOT support same sex marriage. A more liberal definition of marriage which would allow gay marriage would, as Dan Savage says, soften it's stance on extra-marital sex.
Add all that, plus adultery together and you have maybe half of the cases women divorce men.
Typically it's for no reason at all except out of their mysterious unhappiness, not knowing what they want. And it's long and dramatic, and it typically becomes the fate of their next marriage as well. That's if it isn't out of their own adultery- even in cases where they may not have cheated they just so happen to often have someone lined right up- a preexisting, emotional adultery.
The intrinsic issues of women aren't nearly as expounded on (they are never expounded on) as much as men's, but that in no way dictates that those issues aren't there- we simply live in a society where it's somehow applicable to always put fault to men.
In fact, the very observation of that shines a mighty light on the biblical perspective. Are you, and women in general, more right then Jesus and the Apostles, and all the great saints?
Actually, don't even answer that- the answer won't even be relevant because by it's very nature it isn't even based in such wisdoms but rather vanity and pride. At the very best, fruit picking. (Eve started it, you see). At the worst, as mentioned.
Arent you a little concerned though about her admitted method?
Its basically IF she gets any evidence presumably she will be looking hard for some (shes admitted she only has gossip) THEN she will call people out, but seemingly only those who go against her ...
Looks like admitted extortion to me. Even if someone is found guilty, shell keep her mouth shut about them, unless they oppose her.
Shows she just as nasty as those who might be guilty of adultery (but she doesnt know they are, she admits its based on gossip)
At any rate, shes already shown shes a nasty sleazy person who do anything to get what she wants, even use gossip and extortion, showing herself openly dishonest.
Adultery is a more complex subject then many want to admit.
In biblical times, only men could divorce their wife, and only under the condition that she had committed adultery.
We live in a society now where people divorce for a myriad of things, and it's not only something men do, but women are actually the majority who divorce.
So it's completely flipped over from then until now- the women are divorcing and only a fraction of the time is adultery the justification.
The importance of this is easily seen if you just look specifically at how it was only allowed for men to divorce- a women's adultery was considered the ultimate shame to a family.
Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Think Middle East for a second :think:
There's not so much diversity on the matter, this was a belief held by the Pharisees, the Apostles, and Mohammad.
Jesus taught the men that whosoever looks at a women with lust commits adultery in his heart, but it logically follows that this alone wouldn't be means for divorce or otherwise men could divorce wives surely at some point in their lives for nothing.
The point to be made is that, with all these things said, what really is it to anyone who actually holds to the traditional belief of marriage that a LESBIAN would ridicule a A MAN on adultery?
It may even be a reason she left men. There is nothing of importance there, it is just an ironic spectacle of Fallen World™
Do you think only women can be guilty of adultery?
GFR7
New member
These were also my objections:
1. using gossip as "proof"
2. Not really caring about adultery per se, but only those adulterers who oppose her agenda of same sex marriage .
Exactly
People commit adultery usually because they are not satisfied with their marriage. It is most of the time not due in a simple inability to control lusts, that is more a subject of pre-engagements.
But the commitment makes it all that time until after marriage, then there is something which lacks that causes adultery.
This is why the Bible discusses heavily on submission, as a lot of stress is put into men these days which go unrealized- rebellion of the wife, coercion of the wife, a self-centered nature of the wife- and men are told to just deal with it and if they make a mistake then they are adulterous dogs.
But if the woman continues in her ways, there is certainly less, if any, such assault on the conscious because there is already a preexisting stigma projected toward the man regardless by those in her corner.
Therefore, the adultery of the woman is seen as more severe by biblical ideology- it is why they weren't given authority in marriage, and why only men could divorce them for adultery. And that reflects heavy on another thing- despite that, men are actually more inclined to forgive adultery then women are.
There's just a big complexity there that is ignored in this age which the sages and saints revealed greatly of.