Forever ONE?

Automatic Divorce By Death; Imputed Adultery By Widows Remarrying?

The Senate recently rejected a bipartisan amendment that would have expanded background checks on gun purchases, an affirmation of the fact that criminally-minded people use not merely guns to murder, but also use gunpowder and nitro for bombs, rope for strangulation, water for drowning, gravity for crushing people thrown over cliffs, poison, hatchets, hammers for bludgeoning, radioactive isotopes for poisoning and causing cancer, plus various other means and mechanisms like cars.

The measure, the product of intense negotiations between Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Pat Toomey and West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, would have extended background check requirements on gun owners. It needed 60 votes to pass, but failed 54-46.

Democratic Sens. Mark Begich of Alaska, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Max Baucus of Montana voted against it. (Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada switched his vote to no at the end). In addition to Toomey, Republicans who supported the amendment were Sens. Mark Kirk of Illinois, Susan Collins of Maine and John McCain of Arizona.

The Senate needs to pass a law disallowing the criminally-intent from stealing firearms to commit crimes, and they need to pass a law disallowing criminals from secretly obtaining military weaponry on The Black Market. However, they should also pass The Christians Are Allowed To Purchase Kitchen Cutlery At Walmart and Buy Rope, Matches, and Sledgehammers at Home Depot Act.

After the Senate rejected that bipartisan amendment that would have expanded background checks on gun purchases, Barack Hussein Obama publicly and hypocritically (in view of his own questionable Kenyan-not-Hawaiian-birthplace backround!) uttered the word: "shameful" in the process of seditiously reviling and ridiculing the group decision of wise United States Senators who voted to not violate nor trample upon Constitutional Amendments regarding reasonable acquisition and deployment of weapons of whatever type.

Who actually is shameful is Barack Hussein Obama himself (along with his devilish-media mega-horns) for lying about his birthplace, presuming that his mother fraudulently registering him as born in Hawaii in Hawaii negated Obama's real birthplace of Mombasa Kenya as clearly proven in the documented photocopy of that certificate from Coast Province General Hospital available to view at http://breakingnews.topcities.com and other websites.

Obama had one single American parent (his mother) at the time of his birth (though she declared on post-BHO-birth passport application that she planned to indefinitely move to and stay in Indonesia). BHO's natural father was a citizen of Kenya, and a subject of Great Britain.

Obama's mother, Ann, who was visiting in Kenya got into labor pains while swimming in the ocean near Mombasa Kenya and was rushed to emergency childbirth facilities at Coast Province General Hospital in Mombasa Kenya where she birthed her son Barack Hussein Obama (now purportedly presumed to be the two-Social-Security-numbers? "president" of the United States). [ Explore documentation at http://bareflash.tripod.com ]

In fact, however, Barack Hussein Obama was - at birth - a citizen of Kenya, and a subject of Great Britain -- being that Obama Sr. (BHO's father) was a citizen of Kenya, never an American citizen, and had been studying in Hawaii on a visa.

Right after Obama's birth in Kenya, Ann Durham (Obama's mother) flew to Washington State then transported herself and Obama to Hawaii where she dishonestly (but "legally"?) registered her son Barack Hussein Obama as having been born in Hawaii.

Obama's (then American-citizen?) parent, Ann Dunham, had been required to have been a resident of the United States for 10 years, at least five of which were over the age of 14. Turned-Indonesian-citizen Dunham did not meet that requirement (of the Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952) until her 19th birthday in late November of 1961, almost four months after Obama was born.

Who actually is shameful is Barack Hussein Obama himself who got two feminist inferior-gender females (Sotomayor and Kagan) into the High court.

Who actually is shameful is Barack Hussein Obama himself for publicly supporting same-gender sodomy unions miscalled "marriages."

Who actually is shameful is Barack Hussein Obama himself who publicly supported Planned Parentlessness (a.k.a. Planned Promiscuity) who commit (not "perform") abortion homicides.

Who actually is shameful is Barack Hussein Obama himself for concocting and imposing non-affordable Obamascare on and against the Middle Class, disrupting stable-cost private-company health plans of common citizens.

Who actually is shameful is Barack Hussein Obama for appointing Hillary "Vince Foster" Clinton as Sec State who allowed the Benghazi genocide, agitated islamic radicals and insurgents in Egypt to overthrow Mubarak and replace him with the Israel-hating Muslim Brotherhood, and conspired with extremists using NATO forces to topple and murder Gaddafi in Libya where the Benghazi tragedy afterward occurred by Al Qaeda terrorists.

Who actually is shameful is Barack Hussein Obama himself for allowing environmentalist, Interior Dept, and EPA wackos to prevent oil drilling, thus keeping the current price of gas at the pump at over $3 a gallon.

Just a reminder to all that I am infrequently gay, but usually serious-looking (like Anderson Cooper of CNN), and sober, because:

Jeremiah 16:5 For thus says the LORD: "Do not enter the house of mourning, or go to lament, or bemoan them; for I have taken away my peace from this people," says the LORD, "my continual love and mercy."

I say again: infrequently gay, appearing more like somber Russians, being that:

Ecclesiastes 7:2 It is better to go to the house of mourning than to go to the house of feasting; for this is the end of all men, and the living will lay it to heart.
Ecclesiastes 7:4 The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning; but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth.
Ecclesiastes 7:6 For as the crackling of thorns under a pot, so is the laughter of the fools; this also is vanity.
First Thessalonians 5:6 So then let us not sleep, as others do, but let us keep awake and be sober.
First Thessalonians 5:8 But, since we belong to the day, let us be sober, and put on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation.
First Timothy 2:15 Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with sobriety.
First Peter 1:13 Therefore gird up your minds, be sober, set your hope fully upon the grace that is coming to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.
First Peter 5:8 Be sober, be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking some one to devour.

I occasionally am gay - but not homogay, effeminate, queer, etc.

First Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman.
First Peter 5:14 Greet one another with the kiss of love. Peace to all of you that are in Christ.

I am not as yippie-skippie-carefree gay as when I was a little boy; I simply do not have the energy now. My apologies.
I no longer hop along as I walk. Sorry.

I love rainbows - I like the variety of colors. They're pretty (though not "adorable" nor "awesome," which terms are generally only reserved for worshipping or describing Divinity). The various colors remind me that an angry Creator-God once destroyed Earth-polluting planetary homogay sodomites in a wrathful worldwide Flood.

I love equal signs (=), indicating balance. I also love inequal signs (equal signs with a slash through them) showing discriminating dissimilarity.

Isn't it interesting that robins do not flutter-mate with sparrows or blackbirds?

If I am not mistaken, they do not even TRY to do that.

Leviticus chapter 11 of the Bible states that there are separate kinds of ... birds which apparently do not reproduce and do not try to reproduce with each other:

the kite, the falcon according to its kind,
every raven according to its kind,
the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk
the stork, the heron according to its kind, the hoopoe, and the bat

There are even various "kinds" of grasshoppers or locust which have always remained and continue to remain separate "kinds."

I guess that it all comes naturally for them, which lifeforms are merely regulated by instinct operating in myriad manifestations related to myriad responses to myriad sensual perceptions within their myriad-phenomena environment.

Free-will morally-sentient humans are regulated by instinct also, but can come up and exhibit unnatural deviations, which do not result in reproduction of their kind (or "species?").

Perhaps some are too stupid to realize that copulation attempts will invariably end up in non-reproduction, and it has to be specifically spelled out for them:

Exodus 22:19 Whoever lies with a beast shall be put to death.

Leviticus 18:23 And you shall not lie with any beast and defile yourself with it, neither shall any woman give herself to a beast to lie with it: it is perversion. Job 11:12 (RSV) But a stupid man will get understanding, when a wild assís colt is born a man.

Is it natural for a Caucasian man to be attracted to a Negro woman? For an Asian man to be attracted to a Negro woman?

Yours truly would argue that such probably is rather unnatural, and those who rebelliously engage in mixed "race" sexual relationships are of a defiant demonically-racist mindset, out to try to push some warped and twisted antisocial agenda.

I will PERSONALLY pay $1M in Monopoly money (or equivalent) to any male homosexual who proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that he got impregnated by another male homosexual, and personally gave birth to a human child as a result of sodomy between them alone.

Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural Romans 1:27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

Many might want to ask Almighty God, on The Last Day, when they are resurrected back to life for Judgment:

"What right did you have to raise me from the dead, and cause me to stand before you in Judgment?"

To which the LORD might want to reply:

"What right did you have to breathe my planetary air, use my sunlight to view my beautiful environmental phenomena, be protected from lethal cosmic radiation by my planetary ionosphere, eat my planetary food, drink my planetary water, use my gravity for coordinated and always-predictable movement . . . without my expressed permission or at least politely asking me first if I would allow you to do all that?

Besides, I obviously OWN you - having created you without any objection from you at conception by the will of your parents who patiently, thoughtfully, and affectionately took care of and nourished you through infancy to toddlerhood and then adulthood. It was me who healed you many many times from diseases which would have done you in, even painfully to the point of you going insane in indescribable anguish and desperation. It was me who created and kept trillions of cells and neurons in your carcass in perfect operating condition 24/7 all throughout your miserable life - no thanks to irresponsible and immoral you and your deviant polluting friends who maligned your RNA and DNA genetic codes, hence your self-imposed accidents, crippling handicaps, and terminal illnesses.

And what was I supposed to do about that? Violate the given playing-field rules which I had established, which violations would have had a fatal effect on untold thousands and even millions of others in my interdependent society? I was supposed to get out of your way, instead of you getting out of my way? WHO did you think was Boss, deserved to be Boss, and was capable of being Boss? Were you, with or without your goofy reprehensible friends, able to run the extremely-complex universe and its entire contents yourself? Did you really presume that I would change for your capricious whims?

You were and still are worse than a moron, potty-puke scum, a first-class fool.

WHY?

For WHAT purpose?

What did you hope to accomplish by screwing up so? You sure did not hurt nor injure me, and I protected those I would not allow you to touch nor harm. Am I now supposed to pout and be made sorrowful by your past disobediences and rejection of me? Am I supposed to now unconditionally love and be patient with your relentless and despicable non-cooperative and non-compliant damnable impudence, arrogance, and defiance?"

"At least you could have given me more sex during my life, while preventing female humans from imposing in my eyesight the non-solicited sexual harassment of their lustfully-enticing and immodest non-ponytailed loose long hair.

Lamentably and deplorably, they clearly did not mind, pay attention to, nor considerately contemplate the complete contents of http://smotevart.tripod.com plus http://nogymsox.tripod.com and similar-subject websites."

"More SEX? You have got to be kidding. I did give you your consistently-ponytailed dear wife. And you should have personally conveyed to those demonically-enslaved female mopheaded goofs - however and whenever - your understandable annoyance and irritation concerning their accursed erotically-enticing noxious and idiotic loose long hair hanging below mouth level and not tied back in a single back-of-head ponytail or put up in a bun - which satanic mopheadedness was subtly or overtly flaunted against you and other hapless visually-assaulted-and-abused male victims in their self-deceived, inferior-gender thoughtless, indifferent, irresponsible, rebellious, faithless, and diabolical disregard against the obvious implications of RSV's and NASV's Numbers chapter 5 verse 18 and Song of Solomon chapter 7 verse 5.

You got all the sex you wanted.

A few minutes here and there in the nude with a few nude masseuse prostitutes and escorts before marriage? Wonder what they're doing now, and how they ended up?

You couldn't afford more than that, due to your pitiful and pathetic ignorance in not knowing how to make enough money to pay for more wallet-depleting haphazard hit-and-miss interruptible and apprehensive illegal sex.

But you got what you could, getting all those free porn pix and porn videoclips downloaded off the internet and onto your flashdrives and hard drives. And those were some of the shapeliest and most facially-attractive non-tattooed young-adult gals pimps could present - none of which video delights gave you AIDS, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, none of whom burdened you with lavish store purchase debts, nor sexist insubordination nor moodiness, nor unchastity (at least of what you saw them doing in the pics and vids), nor worried you with the threat of reputational blackmail or sexual-assault abuse. Engaging in that form of indirect prostitution with you (whether they knew of you or not, or you knew of them), they (in essence) appeared in changeless image form to have promptly, kindly, obediently, and submissively bared all to you for their and your immediate and quickly-confineable erotic pleasure without hesitation or objection.

So why the complaining? If you wanted more, you should have done what it took to get more, but you wisely understood that "If you play, you pay" - in many ways.

Having caressed and fondled (and maybe even fucked, or come close to fucking) so few real naked girls or women was a blessing in disguise. Had you persisted and participated more, there would have been insurmountable problems, some of which you never even thought of, with actual life-sized human-being bodies who had a mind of their own with legs and feet to roam around, hitchhike, acquire social diseases, commit abortion homicide, cuss and bitch, and transport themselves to who knows where doing what."

"I see your point. I don't have much more to say, except that I think that it was unfair for you to allow the Holy Spirit to inspire your Biblical authors to make the suggestion of allowing widows to remarry. How would you have liked some other guy fucking your wife after your death if you had first been married to her?"

"Can you cite some examples?"

"No problem. Consider the following adulterous-like(?) crap(?):

Genesis 38:8 Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother."

What a terrible(?) precedent Judah set for Moses to later on base the written Torah on!

Deuteronomy 25:5 If brothers reside together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead shall not be married outside the family to a stranger; her husband's brother shall go in to her, and take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her.

I suppose there really is no etched-in-stone demand in that verse for the widow to have to remarry.

But isn't it incredible that that was and is included in what is deemed "Holy Scripture?" MUST that be read to innocent small children?

Ezekiel 44:22 [The high priest] shall not marry a widow, or a divorced woman, but only a virgin of the stock of the house of Israel, or a widow who is the widow of a priest.

Apparently, Ezekiel adjusted and revised the original intention, for whatever questionable intents and purposes:

Leviticus 21:14 A widow, or one divorced, or a woman who has been defiled, or a harlot, these [the high priest] shall not marry; but he shall take to wife a virgin of his own people.

Matthew 22:24 saying, "Teacher, Moses said, 'If a man dies, having no children, his brother must marry the widow, and raise up children for his brother.'

Hope the possible hag he was forced to fuck was not butt ugly.

Notice the trickiness of the accursed and hypocritical pharisees who said that. The Law never stated that a brother must marry the widow, but only that IF the widow remarries, she must be married to a brother in the family.

There's more:

Ruth 3:9 He said, "Who are you?" And she answered, "I am Ruth, your maidservant; spread your skirt over your maidservant, for you are next of kin."
4:5 Then Boaz said, "The day you buy the field from the hand of Naomi, you are also buying Ruth the Moabitess, the widow of the dead, in order to restore the name of the dead to his inheritance."
4:10 Also Ruth the Moabitess, the widow of Mahlon, I have bought to be my wife, to perpetuate the name of the dead in his inheritance, that the name of the dead may not be cut off from among his brethren and from the gate of his native place; you are witnesses this day."
4:12 and may your house be like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah, because of the children that the LORD will give you by this young woman."
4:13 So Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife; and he went in to her, and the LORD gave her conception, and she bore a son.

The royal Hebrew bloodline of Christ's Jewish geneology was tainted with the inclusion of Moabitess-woman Ruth?

Notice how verse 4:12 above seems to glorify the Genesis-chapter-38-recorded incest of the next instance:

Judah fucked Tamar (who deceitfully became a disguised temporary whore) who was twice a widow, and got her pregnant, so that she bore him the two sons Perez and Zerah?

Besides that, recollect that David fucked Nabal's wife Abigail after Nabal died, so that David got Abigail pregnant who bore him a son?

How about David adulterously fucking nude-exhibitionist Bathsheba after her first husband Uriah was set up and murdered, thus getting Bathsheba pregnant and baring him son Solomon (in the bloodline of Jesus Christ)?

Shall I mention the cases of multiple men by some women you seem to have glorified in your Scriptures?

Rahab the Harlot of Jericho. Reuben who fucked Jacob's concubine on the couch. Hosea who was told by God to fuck and have kids with and by Gomer the Slut?

Is it any wonder that God the Father had the Holy Spirit cause conception in a bonafide virgin [i.e. Mary] without using a husband for any legitimate or illegitimate fucking to produce the Christ child?

And Jesus understandably exhibited no recorded sexual dalliances nor sordid affairs during His short earthly sojourn and pilgrimage.

Probably the worse offender of all was Saint Paul, who even built Christian conversion (and born-anew reliance on Jesus instead of Satan) on the divorce-by-death/adultery-by-remarriage premise when he (through the Holy Spirit?) wrote:

Romans 7:2 Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning the husband.
Romans 7:3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she belongs to another man she is not an adulteress.
Romans 7:4 Likewise, my brethren, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God.

Thanks a lot, Paul.

A widow does NOT need to re-marry to take care of her ongoing needs, and certainly does not need a new male sex partner to do that.

If she is a nymphomaniac, sublimation into neighborhood social services of whatever types is the acceptable recourse.

To his partial credit, Paul did express hesitation on the remarriage-of-widows allowance bit with:

First Corinthians 7:39 A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.
First Corinthians 7:40 But in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I have the Spirit of God.

How about knowing for sure, Paul, instead of you merely expressing a doubtful "I think I have" in your exhortation of canonical Holy Writ?

Perhaps, as time went on, Paul thought it through a little more, and the Spirit thankfully had him eventually write:

First Timothy 5:11 But refuse to enroll younger-women widows; for when they grow wanton against Christ they desire to marry,
First Timothy 5:12 and so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge.

SO Paul finally came around with the much-anticipated-and-longed-for "violating their first pledge by desiring to remarry" conclusion.

It's was about time he did that.

Marriage is meant to be eternal - something that not even death terminates.

A person's intent, when they marry either one person - or in the case of a husband of one wife already married acquiring not a different woman as sex partner, nor even another woman as sex partner, but instead an additional extra wife or concubine - is that that woman or those women he has married (though not necessarily expensively or inconveniently wedded) belong to HIM and him only -- permanently and forever.

"What God has joined together, let no one pull asunder, nor pull apart, nor separate."

Only then can a husband and wife completely relax and fuck each other in full confidence, assured that there will be no future intrusion by someone else and no disruptive intervention in the future by some different, other, strange and foreign sex partner."

"Sodomy" and Snippets