Wow... watch this Hannity clip with PHIL ROBERTSON on US moral decay

[Morpheus]

Phil Robertson, who is devout Christian, implied that there is nothing wrong with people marrying at younger ages (the 15 or 16 remark was taken out of context, as it's illegal to marry at that age and no one in Robertson's family has ever married that young). I showed what happens when a secular society doesn't take marriage serious and instead decides to have sexual relationships outside of marriage.

What really has homosexualists Art Brain, Rusha, WizardofOz and their fellow sexual anarchists (since you voted for the baby murderer B. Hussein Obama, that puts you in the same category) up in arms about Phil Robertson is what he said during a GQ magazine interview about homosexuality:

(Robertson doesn't mix words) :

http://www.towncrierdubuque.com/the...-homosexuality-vagina-man-desirable-mans-anus

And as Rush a put, I never said anything about his comments on homosexuality, nor do I care. At the time I did take issue with his statements about race, but here I am more concerned with his attitude, and yours apparently as well, about those who seek out children for marriage, as if a license excuses child molestation. You need to stop putting words into other peoples mouths. If you can find somewhere where either of us ever made such statements then post them; otherwise you are simply making assumptions and bearing false witness.

oh please... Isn't it cute (not) when the libs try to pretend moral outrage...

ha ha ha... that's comical... they who have NO morals... except to proclaim they have no morals... they are too intelligent for all that morals stuff... but vis a vis a conservative like Phil R, all the sudden they... OMG!!!!!!!!!!

have morals... and outrage...

Please...



+++

I don't know where you ever got the idea that you have cornered the market on morals. You do realize that slander, wrath, malice and abusive speech are moral issues?

Colossians 3:8

8 But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth.

You need to realize that Christians don't hold a monopoly on morals. Many non-Christians, even atheists, have very strong moral convictions, often very close to Christian values.

Romans2:14-16

14 For when Gentiles who do not have [m]the Law do [n]instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having [o]the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

You also seem unable to understand that Christianity ≠ Conservative. There are at least as many liberals who are Christian as there are conservatives. A typical liberal Christian does not advocate abortion, even though there are some who would like to make you think that all liberals do. But political liberalism, fiscal liberalism and moral liberalism are three different animals. One can be liberal in one or two of them and be conservative in the rest. In fact if you go through the NT most of Jesus teachings are what would be considered today politically and fiscally liberal. He preached against the conservative idea of looking out for #1. So be careful tossing around random, stereotypical judgments. To expand on an earlier scriptural quote:

Romans 2:2-16

The Impartiality of God
2 Therefore you have no excuse, [a]everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. 2 And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. 3 But do you suppose this, O man, [c]when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? 5 But [d]because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who will render to each person according to his deeds: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. 9 There will be tribulation and distress [e]for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God.

12 For all who have sinned [f]without the Law will also perish [g]without the Law, and all who have sinned [h]under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13 for it is not the hearers [j]of the Law who are [k]just before God, but the doers [l]of the Law will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have [m]the Law do [n]instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having [o]the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

So the overall massage of this text is that we are not qualified to judge a person's salvation; Jesus is the judge, and no matter how much someone might like to think they know, none of us has the mind of Christ.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Phil Robertson, who is devout Christian, implied that there is nothing wrong with people marrying at younger ages (the 15 or 16 remark was taken out of context, as it's illegal to marry at that age and no one in Robertson's family has ever married that young). I showed what happens when a secular society doesn't take marriage serious and instead decides to have sexual relationships outside of marriage.

What really has homosexualists Art Brain, Rusha, WizardofOz and their fellow sexual anarchists (since you voted for the baby murderer B. Hussein Obama, that puts you in the same category) up in arms about Phil Robertson is what he said during a GQ magazine interview about homosexuality:

(Robertson doesn't mix words) :

How was it 'taken out of context' exactly? He's on film saying such and brazenly at that. As far as I'm aware there's some states in the US where it is legal to get married at such ages so do please correct any of this...

Your projection on one particular act of sexuality has been duly noted and discarded for irrelevance.

 

[Arthur Brain]

There were entire threads about Phil Robertson and his interview in GQ magazine Sandy.

Surely you must remember homosexualists Art Brain and annatebbenetti ranting and raving about what Phil Robertson said?

Well, feel free to point out just where either of us were "ranting" about his comments about homosexuality Connie cos I don't recall any such thing happening as you've implied. I was appalled by his comments about getting underage girls into marriage and so were many others. Gee, why would anyone have a problem with that?

 

[Arthur Brain]

oh please... Isn't it cute (not) when the libs try to pretend moral outrage...

ha ha ha... that's comical... they who have NO morals... except to proclaim they have no morals... they are too intelligent for all that morals stuff... but vis a vis a conservative like Phil R, all the sudden they... OMG!!!!!!!!!!

have morals... and outrage...

Please...



+++

So it's okay for a "conservative" to advocate 'getting girls' when they're 15/16 and any opposition is 'faux liberal outrage'?

Why do I get the impression that guys like Robertson could say anything and that you'd just gladly lap it up?

lain:

 

[annabenedetti]

So it's okay for a "conservative" to advocate 'getting girls' when they're 15/16 and any opposition is 'faux liberal outrage'?

Why do I get the impression that guys like Robertson could say anything and that you'd just gladly lap it up?

lain:

Those ones usually come back with "if it was okay for Mary..." Some of those same would still advocate for stoning people too. It's all about control.

 

[republicanchick]

So you are incapable ... OR unwilling to respond to whether or not you believe it is appropriate to encourage men to marry teenage girls?

I wouldn't be here if my great grandfather hadn't married a female 24 years younger than himself (yeh, yeh, I know... you rest your case... But the female in question WAS of marrying age, so don't bother...)

 

[Rusha]

I wouldn't be here if my great grandfather hadn't married a female 24 years younger than himself (yeh, yeh, I know... you rest your case... But the female in question WAS of marrying age, so don't bother...)

So ... she was LEGAL, and not a little kid. What again does that have to do with older guys bedding and wedding little teeny boppers?

Perhaps that question is too difficult for you. Let's try an easier one. What exactly does a man in his twenties have in common with an 11/12/13/14/15 year old, etc.?

Perhaps they can discuss the latest Power Ranger movie or discuss what they did at recess.

 

[republicanchick]

So ... What exactly does a man in his twenties have in common with an 11/12/13/14/15 year old, etc.?

.

I don't see a heck of a lot of difference between a 16 yr old and a 20 yr old... guess that shows my age bracket

if a person, say 16 yr old has sex w/ a 14 yr old, it is not necessarily statutory rape (legally) since they are somewhat close in age. I believe (wouldn't swear to this) that every state has a different standard on what qualifies for this charge..

and again, I am sick of liberals acting like they have morals. It is liberals like NAMBLA who advocate for the age of consent to be lowered... so that it would be legal for 12 yr olds to have sex.

Frankly, I think it should be stat rape at the age 18 but that's me..





.

 

[alwight]

and again, I am sick of liberals acting like they have morals. It is liberals like NAMBLA who advocate for the age of consent to be lowered... so that it would be legal for 12 yr olds to have sex.

Frankly, I think it should be stat rape at the age 18 but that's me..

Perhaps we could leave aside the aims of those of the likes of NAMBLA for a moment, given you are apparently extremely keen to associate all liberals with them?
If two 17 year olds had sexual intercourse together and the law was as you would like it to be, would you consider that as statutory rape, or if not what exactly?

 

[Arthur Brain]

I don't see a heck of a lot of difference between a 16 yr old and a 20 yr old... guess that shows my age bracket

if a person, say 16 yr old has sex w/ a 14 yr old, it is not necessarily statutory rape (legally) since they are somewhat close in age. I believe (wouldn't swear to this) that every state has a different standard on what qualifies for this charge..

and again, I am sick of liberals acting like they have morals. It is liberals like NAMBLA who advocate for the age of consent to be lowered... so that it would be legal for 12 yr olds to have sex.

Frankly, I think it should be stat rape at the age 18 but that's me..

Your 'hero' sees a difference and went to the trouble of explaining why. Granted, his reasoning was asinine but it's telling that you'd disagree with him considering how much you venerate the guy...

 

[Rusha]

I don't see a heck of a lot of difference between a 16 yr old and a 20 yr old... guess that shows my age bracket

if a person, say 16 yr old has sex w/ a 14 yr old, it is not necessarily statutory rape (legally) since they are somewhat close in age. I believe (wouldn't swear to this) that every state has a different standard on what qualifies for this charge..

It's not because they are *somewhat close in age* but rather because they are both MINORS.

There are legal limits for people to drink/drive/get a tattoo, etc. Why do you suppose the law recognizes one age as being old enough and not the other?

IF a teenager is too young to have sex, they are also too young to marry.

 

[republicanchick]

It's not because they are *somewhat close in age* but rather because they are both MINORS.

There are legal limits for people to drink/drive/get a tattoo, etc. Why do you suppose the law recognizes one age as being old enough and not the other?

IF a teenager is too young to have sex, they are also too young to marry.

who said otherwise?

in fact you deliberately disregard what i said aobut the age of consent, that it hsould be changed to about 20



typical lib


++

 

[Rusha]

It's not because they are *somewhat close in age* but rather because they are both MINORS.

There are legal limits for people to drink/drive/get a tattoo, etc. Why do you suppose the law recognizes one age as being old enough and not the other?

IF a teenager is too young to have sex, they are also too young to marry.

who said otherwise?

in fact you deliberately disregard what i said aobut the age of consent, that it hsould be changed to about 20

You did ...

I don't see a heck of a lot of difference between a 16 yr old and a 20 yr old... guess that shows my age bracket

 

[patrick jane]

who said otherwise?

in fact you deliberately disregard what i said aobut the age of consent, that it hsould be changed to about 20



typical lib


++

15