Yet another example of why history should be learned from history books and not
in church. He has no idea what he's talking about.
"If an inherently childless or non-complementary relationship can be called
marriage, anything can be called marriage."SO he thinks couples
where the man or woman is infertile shouldn't be allowed to get married? How
I guess Paul didn't talk much about Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemming, or Ben
Franklin, and his frisky private social life. I don't know what the fascination
is with the "founding fathers". The were just regular humans, with some good
ideas, who were born at the right time. They shouldn't be deified.
Mero... Every time I hear his name I think; Here we go again...How
does he explain the infidelity of our founding fathers? They were in it for the
money not some altruistic reasons.
The Founding Fathers needed as many people as possible to work on the old
plantations. It's easy to see where the "traditional family" came from.
Wow. I had no idea that years of reproductive illness and a subsequent
hysterectomy have rendered my marriage meaningless and substandard. Apparently
this also makes me less of an American. Never mind that my husband and I deeply
love one another, are incredibly happy, and completely committed to one another.
I guess we'll just have to figure out where to go from here. Thanks, Paul
Mero. Thanks for letting us know that the part of our marriage vows where we
swore to love, cherish, and support one another, through both joy and sorrow,
didn't mean a thing. LOL.
Just another example of what happens when you give a guy a microphone. He not
only thinks that everything he says is true, but he even believes that people
want to hear it. When will the "intentions" of the Founding Fathers and the
"teachings" of Jesus stop being used to propagate hatred? Crusades,
inquisitions, witch burnings, slavery, women's oppression, and discrimination
are the offspring of man's belief that he knows what was "intended."
Many of our Founding Fathers also owned slaves. So, what's your point Mero?
apparently Mero thinks my marriage is meaningless too... how hateful coming from
a so-called "religious" person.
guarantees individual rights. I don't believe I've ever read the word family in
I was at the protest. I can't believe Mero would assume what the founding
fathers meant when they wrote the Constitution. Marriage is not bound by the
'hope of posterity' but rather the vows to love and cherish each other. Not
EVERY couple getting married can or even has the intent to have children. What
a narrow and selfish minded delusion Mero has.... 'non-complementary
relationship' is a joke! ketchup & mustard don't ALWAYS have to go together on
a hotdog! Mero and everyone else at that meeting that didn't walk out of there
with disdain for what they just heard are true gaycists!
What about the preamble where the Constitution states: "We the people of the
United States, in order to ... secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves AND
OUR POSTERITY, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States
of America." [emphasis added]
Let's face it, Paul Mero is secretly married to Gayle Ruzicka.
You are just another example of when a FAR left wing nut hijacks a computer,and thinks they can post any sort of nonsense and hate they want.In fact most posts today so far seem nothing but leftest hate.liberals teach nothing but hate lies about religion' and hate andlies
about the founding fathers.all so they ca reject anything the
founding fathers said about constitution they created,and so the
exttere left can reject the intentions of ht founding fathers and impose their
own interpretations.Shame on the far left.
Hey 4:18 pm, Explain where exactly the Constitution or founding fathers
mandated that I give birth? Or follow a particular religion, creed, or
philosophy? I think they were probably more concerned with making sure that
each of us has the right to believe in and follow whatever of those things we
choose, while respectfully allowing others to do the same. How is that leftist
hate?Although I don't agree with your position, I would absolutely defend
your right to believe in and express that position.
Here we find an enormous issue with this debate. Why is there so much focus on
the founding fathers? They were split and divided on every issue and could in no
way predict the future. This is why the constitution was written as a living
document, to progress and evolve as man's understanding of right and wrong and
human nature evolved. Would they have supported equal rights? Probably not. But
nor would they have supported the civil rights act. We need to stop clinging to
the judgments of 200+ year dead MEN. Open your eyes and see the world as we
understand it today.
The founding fathers permitted slavery, denied women the right to vote, etc. So
what is the author's point exactly? And how does the author "know" what the
founders were thinking? I really dislike when people try to speak
for those that have past away. Stick to the facts.
I wonder if Mero was including native Americans in this talk?