Religion
See other Religion Articles
Title: The Two Shall Become One Flesh
Source:
First Things
URL Source: https://www.firstthings.com/article ... ne-flesh-reclaiming-marriage-2
Published: Feb 26, 2015
Author: Evangelicals & Catholics Together
Post Date: 2015-02-26 22:04:36 by redleghunter
Ping List: *Religious History and Issues* Subscribe to *Religious History and Issues*
Keywords: None
Views: 37066
Comments: 194
In the Gospel of St. Mark, the Lord Jesus teaches that “from the beginning of creation ‘God made them male and female.’” He then declares a great and beautiful truth inscribed in creation: “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh” (Mark 10:6–8). For centuries, Christians have proclaimed these words at weddings, for they express the gift of marriage long recognized by all humanity and acknowledged by men and women of faith: Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. This truth is being obscured, even denied, today. Because of that, the institution of marriage, which is essential to the well-being of society, is being undermined. As Christians, it is our responsibility to bear witness to the truth about marriage as taught by both revelation and reason—by the Holy Scriptures and by the truths inscribed on the human heart. These age-old truths explain why Christians celebrate marriage—the coming-together of a man and woman in a binding union of mutual support—as one of the glories of the human race. Marriage is the primordial human institution, a reality that existed long before the establishment of what we now know as the state. As the most venerable and reliable basis for domestic happiness, marriage is the foundation of a just and stable society. Yet in our times this institution has been gravely weakened by the sexual revolution and the damage it has done to marriage and the family: widespread divorce; the dramatic increase in out-of-wedlock births; the casual acceptance of premarital sex and cohabitation; and a contraceptive mentality which insists that sex has an arbitrary relation to procreation. In this environment, families fragment, the poor suffer, and children are especially vulnerable and at risk. The decline of marriage culture is evident throughout the world, and where it is evident, the common good is imperiled. Poster Comment: God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply.” (Gen. 1:27–28)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone, liberator, out damned spot, CZ82, BobCeleste (#0)
Ping
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
We should soon hear much more about the first century fragments of Mark. Woh, ECT is still around and carrying water for Papa? Not that Papa seems to care any more. Involvement with ECT pretty much finished off the careers of some Religious Right leaders of the Nineties after the pope pulled the rug out from under them.
But won't Teh Gays say that all they want to do is become one flesh too if only the white hetro patriarchy would let them?
16 He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.” 17 “I have no husband,” she replied. 18 Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.” Interesting that he says what she has now isn't a marriage, but that she has had 5 marriages before. Do you think she was widowed 5 times? Or did 5 marriages fall apart? And why did he consider the marriages after the first one to be real marriages when they didn't follow the Devine plan the article lays out.
The Bible is unconstitutional... "Some people march to a different drummer — and some people polka."
17 “I have no husband,” she replied. 18 Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.” Interesting that he says what she has now isn't a marriage, but that she has had 5 marriages before. Do you think she was widowed 5 times? Or did 5 marriages fall apart? And why did he consider the marriages after the first one to be real marriages when they didn't follow the Devine plan the article lays out. You raise a very interesting point, Biff, one that is made all the sharper by the fact that tradition identifies this woman as St. Photini - yes, that's right, SAINT Photini, because she brought the faith to the Samaritans. The text doesn't tell us much about the reasons for her serial relationships with men, but it does tell us that this flawed human vessel was the vehicle for bringing the message of Christ to her people.
I wouldn't want children just because of people like you ... who aren't fit to raise dog - pigs --- could be their foster parents !
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
17 “I have no husband,” she replied. 18 Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.” Interesting that he says what she has now isn't a marriage, but that she has had 5 marriages before. Do you think she was widowed 5 times? Or did 5 marriages fall apart? And why did he consider the marriages after the first one to be real marriages when they didn't follow the Devine plan the article lays out. It is a call by Christ to convict her heart of sin. To address this properly, we should look at what Jesus Christ said about marriage: Matthew 19 New King James Version (NKJV) 3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” 4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” 7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” 8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
Then why is the SCOTUS forcing a federal solution to what has been a state power since the beginning of our nation?
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
Because the 1st Amendment only prohibits CONGRESS from meddling, and SCOTUS ain't Congress.
"Some people march to a different drummer — and some people polka."
Et tu, Willie? The electrical shock treatments aren't helping. Time to move on to more important issues instead of worrying about gays shacking up with each other. Like choo-choo trains?
Congress can recall the ussc ! Then what !
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
Maybe...one flesh per week. Big White Bearded Homophobe in the Sky: VETOED
Well yes, as a matter of fact, choo-choo trains ARE a lot more important than gay marriage.
"Some people march to a different drummer — and some people polka."
Next you will be telling me States cannot establish their own church if they want.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
Speculation
How so?
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
I don't see any way anyone could know for sure that it was a call to convict of sin. Therefore, to say that's what it was, is speculation.
And, anyway, what your verses and my verses show, is that despite His intentions of what He wants marriage to be He recognizes that it works out differently down here on earth. In Moses day he makes allowances for it. So, give it a rest with all this gay marriage nonsense. You care about it more than God does. Meanwhile, there's still hungry kids out there ...
But as Americans we must also recognize that we live under a secular government by choice and design. And as with every society since the beginning of mankind what may be legal may not always be moral and what may be moral may not always be legal. Would you prefer to live on a Judeo-Christian version of Sharia law?
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
How'bout just living on biological, natural, fact?
But it isn't alright to normal people. What you said is sicko Willie.
What did Jesus say before the husband comments?
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
So, give it a rest with all this gay marriage nonsense. You care about it more than God does. Meanwhile, there's still hungry kids out there ... Feed the hungry kids. My family gladly does so. But on marriage you have a point. Jesus Christ gave us His standard for marriage. So He is very interested. If you are claiming Christ had no interest in the woman's relationships with men, then why did He bring it up? Same reason He brought up other people's obstacles to the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus Christ never condoned sin. He came to blot out sin.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
Of course not. What this article points out Christians have a voice in the nation they founded.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
What this article points out Christians have a voice in the nation they founded. A voice not the voice.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
What is the biological, natural facts about love? I do not support the gay lifestyle, especially in those cases in which it is persued by choice. That said I cannot in any good conscience as an Amercian, as a Catholic see how gays can be, should be denied the rights enjoyed by straight people under the U.S. Constitution and State laws without a compelling state (read secular) reason for doing so. I have yet to be even slightly persuaded that gay civil unions represent an existential threat to the family or the fabric of society. Gays exist in nature, they are of nature. If you are a Christian you must believe that they are of God as well. We are not fanatical Islamists that believe that they must be killed. We must find a way to coexist in an fully integrated society that among other things believes that all men are created equal, that all men are equal under the law, and, in freedom of religion, all religion (even none). Leave it to God to sought us out.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Secular atheism is the official government church now. Just have to walk in a school today. Secular atheism as an established religion is unconstitutional.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
Secular atheism as an established religion is unconstitutional. Then why are many public schools requiring students to learn about Islam?
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
You care about it more than God does. "Gay marriage nonsense"? Caring "about it more than God does"?? Congratulations. In keeping with your posting history of monumental idiocy and foolishness, somehow, someway, you've managed to top yourself this time.
Cut the drama and hysterics. Homos are NOT "denied" ANY THING but the hijacking of the language AND the time-honored union of man and wife -- better known to the sane as "Marriage." YOU are a willing stooge to a massive brainwashing campaign. Weak. VERY weak. I have yet to be even slightly persuaded that gay civil unions represent an existential threat to the family or the fabric of society. Not even the slightest, eh? That's because you are painfully disconnected from reality and utterly manipulated. Baaaaah. Baaaah.
Amen. (Don't try and explain that obvious fact to the WEAK, cultural surrender monkeys.)
No, not much. Only gay marriage.
The intellectual contortionism it takes to submit such a bull*** premise should make you feel ashamed. But of course it doesn't, because your agenda betrays you.
Jesus Christ never condoned sin. He came to blot out sin. Those who deny Christ's clarity on the relationship on man and woman, man and wife speak to a conscious decision to be either the wheat, or the chaff that blows in the wind.
Yes, gay marriage is even less important than choo-trains. But let it be noted that choo-choo trains are priority #9,987,654,556 compared to the defending the obvious constitutionality of the Bible -- which you oddly claim is "unconstitutional." You know what should be "unconstitutional"? Monumental STUPIDITY and IGNORANCE. They're both rife on this thread.
Fine by you? Yeah, it's not as though sanctioning perversion will lead to a corrupt sense of righteousness, a perved-out society, moral relativism, and dead and dying souls. No big deal, eh?
No, not much. Only gay marriage. Why are you such an ass clown? It seems to come with the terrioty of being a mindless, knee jerk fundamenatlist "good" loving Christian. Well your membership card is punched for the day. Tell me, slef proclaimed Jesus lover, what is the legal basis in American for denying gays the right to a Civil union? Note, ass clown, that I did not say marriage but civil union. Get your holy head out of your holy ass. If you wish to have a rational, civil discussion about this I am more than happy to engage. If not, f*ck you and the faux cross you rode in on.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Would you prefer to live on a Judeo-Christian version of Sharia law? The intellectual contortionism it takes to submit such a bull*** premise should make you feel ashamed. But of course it doesn't, because your agenda betrays you. My agenda? Which is what, ass clown?
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
The atheists are scared of Muslims. They burn people and chop off heads. All American Christians do is complain or sue.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
Do you believe in absolutes?
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
Very likely in the same manner as you. Why do you ask?
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Very likely in the same manner as you. Why do you ask? Then why do you comment as if you don't?
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
I believe the diametrically opposing viewpoint. Man created God in his own image.
Allow me to correct the thought a bit. Man creates his own god each day in his own mind and then uses his own hands to mold the idol of his passions. It has been the pagan hedonist way since the fall of man.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
Do you believe in absolutes? Very likely in the same manner as you. Why do you ask? Then why do you comment as if you don't? Be specifc. What comment(s) exactly?
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
The equal footing you put with gay "marriage" compared to historical marriage. Either the one or the other is right but not both. And why does even secular government support both while knowing it is either one or the other. Both can't be right.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
All traditional religions (and followers therof) are victim of the same caricature; you can not escape the conundrum, no matter how much effort you place in escaping the enigmatic experience of consciousness; you are creating god within your own mind.
A presupposition on your part. The Scriptures are God's revelation to mankind. Unless you have examined such your comments will continue to be suppositions and assertions. Assertions are not arguments.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
The equal footing you put with gay "marriage" compared to historical marriage. Either the one or the other is right but not both. I have done no such thing. If you bothered to read my comments I never used the term gay marriage but rather civil union. You know full well that I make a clear distinction between civil union and marriage. The former being a state sanctioned/recognized form of contract or formal relationship, the latter being the same thing but with a voluntarily religious or spiritiual formality to it. You also know full well that every religious marriage is first and foremost a civil union. I never equated civil union to marriage as traditionally defined by religious institutions or even to historical marraige. As for for historical marriage, was it not common in most of the known world in more ancient times for a man to have more than one wife? Times changed, no? I find your pursuit of this line of attack at bit disingenuous on your part.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Just as your Bible is nothing more than an "assertion." You regard the assertion as "truth." But there is no proof other than a myth that you genuinely follow; it is a problem but you hide from within your own antics.
Was not an attack but a discussion point.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
You knowingly put words in my mouth that you know were not true. That's more than a discussion point.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Proof is subjective. Evidence is objective. That just may be a stumbling block for you.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
I said this: You said that: So lets parse what I said to understand the context... Just as your Bible is nothing more than an "assertion." You regard the assertion as "truth." But there is no proof other than a myth that you genuinely follow; Did you not know what a "myth" is? Lets get a merriam-webster definition of "myth" ... Full Definition of MYTH b : parable, allegory 2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society b : an unfounded or false notion 3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence 4 : the whole body of myths So, your later reply was silly, at best, as it did not add to the discussion. In fact, your later reply actually subdues any merits of your discussion while supporting my contention. You blew your own argument, I guess you can say.
No your premise is based on your subjective opinion. Show me how the scriptures are myth.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
Genesis 1:1New International Version (NIV) The Beginning 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. New International Version (NIV) Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.
What evidence are you providing in rebuttal to God?
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
As your "Bible" absolutely suggests, "NONE." It is a myth that is suggested in the Bible; afterwards, the myth is expanded beyond bound.
Still not presenting evidence to refute. Come on there are hundreds of Muslim and atheist sites with specious assertions you could mimic here. Give it a try.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
You think that's him? No way.
Multigenerational reproductive success is what determines socibiological fitness. What's love got to do with that?
I believe water freezes at 32 degrees F just as two eggs or two sperm cannot create a viable human offspring.
What's love got to do with that? So infertile people are unsocibiologically fit, worthless junk?
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Well in the U.K. it now can take three to tango, two biological Moms and one Dad. Who knows what science and/or God has in store for us?
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
2 Thessalonians 2 King James Version (KJV) 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: 14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
And your point is what?
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I thought it would be self apparent.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
It is not. What does the quote have to do with the state granting civil union status to gays?
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Strong delusion.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
Is it delusional to think that gays are entitled to the same civil rights as straights? Do you really believe that God commands us to deny gays their due civil rights? If so we do not pray to the same God.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I haven't attempted to refute anything. Why should I bother with your recommendations? I am not attempting to suggest anything other than you have delusions in a religious or traditional GOD. I do not share your belief is all and you can't convince anyone that you have a rightous faith about GOD other than little, self-created devils running within you.
Science will render Abomination, and God His justice in response -- Naturally.
That would depend upon their behavior, and whether they worship themselves more than they obey the laws of Nature.
Should men be afforded the same civil rights to become pregnant? How about those women cornering that market?
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
The answer seems evident as God created woman to give birth not man. You probably need to brush up on your Genesis story. But if a man could become pregnant please cite the law(s) that would deny him the same civil rights as the state grants to a pregnant woman. But you didn't answer my question. Do you believe that God commands us to deny gays the same civil rights as the state deems/grants to straights? If not, then what delusion(s) is involved in the state granting gays the same civil right to a state recognized civil union as it does for straights?
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
So infertile people are unsocibiologically fit, worthless junk? That would depend upon their behavior, and whether they worship themselves more than they obey the laws of Nature. Then please define what you mean by socibiologically fit.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
No my line of questioning is correct. Two people of the same gender demanding equal protections for something that is not for people of the same gender is akin to man demanding the government recognize he should be and can be able to become pregnant. It is absurd to apply marriage to a civil right for those who don't qualify to be married. If the state wants to provide a legal standing in order for non-married same gender persons or even opposite gender aquaintances to enter into a financial, legal or estate contract, then that is up to the state. But that ain't marriage.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
Who says they don't qualify for the civil right of a civil union? We do not live in a theocracy. We live in a secular republic in which all men are equal under the law - the only reason the State can deny a right grant to all to a specific class of people is if the State can put forth a compelling reason on a issue by issue basis and have the courts approve it (as the State has done for bigamy). "If the state wants to provide a legal standing in order for non-married same gender persons or even opposite gender aquaintances to enter into a financial, legal or estate contract, then that is up to the state. But that ain't marriage." Currently, as it always has been in the U.S., what the State sanctions and recognizes as, and calls marriage, is in fact not what the various religions call marriage. The State does not deal in Sacraments, it deals in civil sanctions, civil rights irrespective of what the Pope or Sharia Law has to say about the matter. Obey your God and render unto Caeser what is Caesar's. Let God be the judge of who violates His laws. Now if you can convince the State to present a compelling reason for it to deny gays the exact recognition and legal status of the civil union (otherwise called marriage) that it grants to straights have at it. If the courts agree then you are home free. But it is clear that the State cannot present such a compelling argument which would be acceptable under the U.S. Constitution and have the courts so rule. POTUS is not God. SCOTUS is not God. The U.S. Constitution is not Holy Scripture. You are entitled to your opinions on the matter. You are entitled to campaign, lobby, organize, protest, picket, disrupt, and, otherwise stir up the pot to the fullest extent of the law and even beyond. But in the end, you live in a country that is ruled by the laws of men not the Laws of God. And you are certainly free to disobey the laws of man in preference to what you believe is the Laws of God. Just be prepared to pay the secular consequences when you do. In this country the issue of what you call marriage, which is a secular thing sanctioned by the State, is nothing more than a codified secular recognition of a civil union of no religious meaning. The Church(s) adopt what the State sanctions and for its own religious reasons endows this secular State sanctioned union with a religious component that is only relevant to that Church. In the eyes of the State there is absolutely no difference between the civil union it grants to a couple and the civil union which the State allows a Church to grant to a couple and to embellish with its own religious meaning - they are exactly the same under the law. It is amazing that you cannot grasp this concept in a country where the State has so liberally sanctioned abortion. Have you, I, the Church, or even the opinion of 50%+ of the U.S. people stopped the legalization of abortion? So I say to you again, obey your God and render unto Caeser what is Caesar's and let God be the judge. He knows what to do. If you are compelled to do something I suggest getting the Church to refer to the Sacrament of Marriage as Holy Matrimony which is the sacramental joining together of a man and woman as husband and wife (or whatever term best conveys the meaning). Let the State keep the term marriage for its secular civil union. If memory serves there are just a handful (if any) usage of the word marriage itself in the NT, whatever references there are consist of the usage of the word marry.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
You're doing mental gymnastics in order to try and say that it is ok for the government to impose Sodomite immorality on the nation because it isn't really sodomite immorality. It's really Apple Pie and Justice for all.
Nope. Pebbles, you are wrong. The US government has migrated to policies that literally explore additional taxbases by ensuring all people into the citizenry by granting limited rights or priviledges. It is similar to US government policies for accepting illegal immigration. FACT: The nation is broke. THE POLITICAL SOLUTION: Let's get everyone on the bandwagon while we can! US Government is not about morality issues other than revenue streams that may further control the populice.
Are you kidding? Are you saying that the government is forcing people to be gay or to engage in homosexual activities or even accept it? Come on, you are more intelligent than that. Are you familiar with the terms "pursuit of happiness"? Where in the U.S. Constitution grants you or I or anyone to power to legislate to someone what their happiness MUST be? However, there is one very, very simple solution to your rejection of the U.S. Constitution as applied to gays. Just get homosexuality declared illegal in the U.S. Bingo! That's all you need to do. BTW, what is your mental gymnastics that allows you to tolerate legalized abortion in the U.S.?
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
You certainly are a one trick pony with a hammer that sees every issue as a nail.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
So I say to you again, obey your God and render unto Caeser what is Caesar's and let God be the judge. He knows what to do. Do you really think Jesus Christ meant 'rendering to Caesar' means murdered babies? Jesus called for a coin, not a baby. NO. Unless you think child sacrifice is what the founders had in mind. Any nation devoid of absolute moral standards have failed and will continue to fail. Our Western world has embraced humanism (man is at the center of all things), materialism (what we make or do we worship) and relativism (there are no absolutes only individual particulars). It is the destructive recipe which destroyed previous civilizations.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
I don't believe Jesus said to give one cent to Rome. He said to give to Caesar what is Ceesars. The fruit of your labor is not Caesars.
I've never made an argument to just accept abortion like you did about accepting homos.
Multiple generations of viable offspring. Infertile individuals can still increase the fitness of their culture. Homosexual activists have never increased the fitness of the various cultures they've infested.
Well, the USA seems to have certainly sealed its fate then. So in spite of what you claim you do in fact want to negate the Constitution and have the USA become a theocracy, just like Islam. This is the only way that you MIGHT have a country that in reality lives by the Christian moral standards that is imposed under punishment of law on its citizens. You can't have it both ways. "Do you really think Jesus Christ meant 'rendering to Caesar' means murdered babies?" He certainly meant to included slavery which I am certain that neither He or his Father condone. I believe that it is quite clear that He meant give the earthly state whatever the earthly state is due. The state will seal its own fate and those individuals in that state that do not live by God's laws will surely answer to Him.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Never suggested a theocracy. Just sanity. If a state votes or passes legislation protecting traditional marriage that is how they should live. Two of the same sex getting hitched is not a religious matter. Historical precedent.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
Never suggested a theocracy. But that is what you really want as you clearly do not like what the U.S. Constitution allows. N.B. - it does allow insanity. "If a state votes or passes legislation protecting traditional marriage that is how they should live." What about if a state passes legislation allowing slavery? Or bigamy? Or beastiality? Or free use of any drug known to man?
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Tell that to the U.S. Figure Skating Association:)
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
You see homosexual "marriage" in the same categories as the above?
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
I've never made an argument to just accept abortion like you did about accepting homos. You need to be a bit more discerning about what you read and say as words do make a difference. I never - ever - said that I or anyone else must accept homosexuality in any of its sexual practices. Nor did I ever say that the State can force, or is forcing, anyone to accept homosexuality in society. I said, as basically does the U.S. Constitution, that homosexuality, not being an illegal state of being or of personal sexual practice, must be tolerated in our society. Note the word I actually used- tolerated - not accepted. Please correct your post to me if you wish to further dialogue.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
When Caesar collects taxes on it that part of the your fruit most certainly is his.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I see the intolerance of homosexuality as being of the same cloth as those other activities. Now please answer my question if you will. Does a state have the right to pass and enforce laws permitting things such as slavery, bigamy, bestiality, drug useage, etc. which contravene what is required under the U.S. Constitution?
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Should the Winter Olympics committee be forced to accept same sex figure skating pairs? Based on your line of reasoning to prohibit such is discrimination. I mean if two talented gay men want to skate against hetero couples pairs who are the Olympics committee to deny such./sarc
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
It's a bizarre question as gays are not bound in slavery, are not denied public places. And yes there are states that do prohibit bigamy, bestiality and drug use. Just because your state has embraced hedonism does not mean Texas has to.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
Look at the pictures and tell me what do you think I think? Then tell me what you think.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
So to you bigamy and bestiality prohibitions are discriminatory and have no place in our body of law? Remind me to put a double lock on the student barn.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
Like bestiality not the same sport. Those are same gender teams.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
Now you are putting words in my mouth in a most dishonest way. This really is beneath you. Your Jesuit training is showing. How far up your ass are you willing to go to divert honest discussion about this issue? It is you who stated that a sate should have absolute power to legislate what ever activities it allows and restricts irrespective of the U.S. Constitution. By your assertion if a state votes to legalize slavery, or bigamy or bestiality then YOU must not only tolerate it but accept it as well.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Ram, you meds are off tonight and not serving you well. When you can't see that same gender sport is the same thing as same sex sport we best stop this dialogue.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Not according to Jesus.
Would you vote for someone who supported same sex marriage.
So if I get a gun. Put ammunition in it. And pull the trigger splattering your brains all over the place. Then that shouldn't be illegal. Because in the 10 commandments it says thou shall not kill. That would be killing. So according to you that would be a theocracy. We live in a theocracy because murder is illegal.
It was your bucket list of issues not mine. You threw together slavery, bigamy, bestiality and drug use. I found it odd you used those examples trying to prove your point that preventing gay "marriage" is violating civil rights.
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
Figure skating pairs have always been one man with one woman. Should the Olympic committee be impelled to allow same sex figure skating? It has been one man and one woman for skating pairs since the beginning. Is that not a good reason to sustain traditional pair skating? And no. I don't take meds but given the hour it may be time for your warm milk and beddie bye. :)
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
Would you vote for someone who supported same sex marriage. No. But I might vote for someone that supported gay civil union. I am not a one issue voter. Would you vote for someone who supported abortion? What about legalized pot?
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Probably so. But that is no reason that men or women pair skating cannot become an Olympic event. Olympic events come and go. Remember Olympic baseball? And Olympic wrestling may be on the block. Do I need to remind you that marriage was not always one man with just one woman and that it wasn't that way from the beginning? By you logic only those events that were in the Olympics from the beginning should be allowed and no others. Sleep tight.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Seems more honest since they're all gay anyway. Stop forcing those poor women to be their beards-on-ice.
Well, Drudge reminded us yesterday. Dump it already. Why should the primary original Olympic sport from ancient times be a part of these phony modern Olympics? Maybe they'll revive it by going back to full nudity. Or finding a gay wrestling champion to beat the straight wrestlers, like they found the black kid to win the big American golf trophies. And Bruce Jenner, Wheaties champion extraordinaire, is going full she-male now, decades later.
In the immortal words of John McEnroe: "YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS!!" ....no reason that men or women pair skating cannot become an Olympic event. Chyeah. Let's just make an absolute and total mockery of civilization just because you (presumably) have family members who are homosexuals. Have you been hard at work on your next 4th Grade Primer, 'Heather Has three Daddies'??
No. But I might vote for someone that supported gay civil union. I am not a one issue voter. Would you vote for someone who supported abortion? What about legalized pot? I would never vote for someone who supports baby genocide. They are evil by definition. I would possibly vote for someone who supported legal weed. You say you would support somone who supported gay civil unions. Seems you are playing word games. As above you said gay marriage isn't gay marriage but gay civil unions. So again would you ever vote for someone who supported what is called here in the United States. "Gay marriage". You know what the Supreme court is deciding. What Obama supports. What fag lover Rob Portman supports in Ohio. I am a one issue voter. If they are evil I don't vote for them.
I reckon to appease the enlightened secular humanists, moral relativist intellectuals, and spineless wet-noodle "pillars of society." Maybe they'll revive it by going back to full nudity. Or finding a gay wrestling champion to beat the straight wrestlers, like they found the black kid to win the big American golf trophies. Nice, yet subtle example of an agenda exposed. And Bruce Jenner, Wheaties champion extraordinaire, is going full she-male now, decades later. I think she/it looks lovely. Can't wait for the new Wheaties box and Bruth waving the little rainbow flag while crossing the "Pride" Parade Finish Line in his high heel sandals, sundress, and tastefully applied garish make-up.
Amen! You say you would support somone who supported gay civil unions. Seems you are playing word games. As above you said gay marriage isn't gay marriage but gay civil unions. Ka-CHING! I am a one issue voter. If they are evil I don't vote for them. Way to hold the line, Stone. The bad news: Evil has been dumbed-down. Only the feckless, the cowardly, and the deluded support this "gay marriage" charade along with the rest of the now institutional perversion of our culture.
By all means, please do enlighten us on "The Way of The Beginning."
In the immortal words of John McEnroe: "YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS!!" Check your OT.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Remind us which of the various historical cultures that normalized homosexual behavior survived doing so?
I guess you simply cannot understand what I said. I clearly separate the secular aspects of a State sanction civil union from the religious aspects of a church sanctioned marriage. A church sanctioned marriage is first and foremost a State sanctioned civil union to which the church confers an additional element(s) or meaning SOLELY for the purpose of the members of that church. Whatever additional element or meaning a church may add for the benefit of its members has absolutely no impact of the secular civil union nature of the marriage. Further the State has no standing in dictating or requiring anything of what the church may wish to add to the religious aspect of the ceremony (as long as it does not include illegal acts, e.g. - sacrificial virgins). Let's take this one step further. If a church performs a marriage ceremony that is not recognized/sanctioned by the State that marriage has no legal standing in the State. However it may have tremendous standing for the members of that church. On the other hand, a legally performed State civil union type of marriage remains so even if the church refuses to recognize it. Depending on the specific there may be some legal ramifications for the church in certain acts of its denial or refusal to recognize the legalities of the secular State sanctioned union. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God. I hope this clarifies my position for you. I have been very consistent on it. If not then let's just move on.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
That remains to be seen. Religion has obviously failed in response to activist's gender redefinition. The Olympic domain thus far, not so much.
Remind us which of the various historical cultures that normalized homosexual behavior survived doing so? No. I have posted on this before. Do some research. The truth is out there if you can handle it. But FTR, yours is a totally BS request that has nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps you too wish to trash that document and have the U.S. become a theocracy? Or perhaps you believe that the U.S. should ban interracial marriages or ban marriages other than between white Christians?
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
No. Can't provide a single example, can you. I have - and Nature always has the last laugh over those who abominate it in the context of their Utopian state-establishing quest.
Read the OT, you'll find what you are looking for. You do understand the word polygamy, do you not?
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I provided many on this forum. I am tired of carrying dolts that have nothing to meaningful add to the conversation. Do some research on my posts. You will be made to look very foolish. But if you don't want to believe me, just do a Google search. You will readily find historical examples of cultures that have accommodated homosexual behavior that have survived. There has always been an ebb and flow to human cultures. But here's a brain buster for you. Name one historical culture that has banned gay sexuality that has survived. Ancient Greece? Or perhaps ancient Rome? Ancient Egypt?
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Better than you evidently understand the word zygote. Human evolutionary/reproductive biology obviously isn't your forte.
Bullshyte. Homosexuality was proliferate in all those cultures. Evidently that's why they're ancient, and not (until recently at least) contemporary.
That isn't an actual argument. Homosexuality received various treatment in all those cultures over time. The Romans were actually far worse than the Greeks for libertine behavior. The Greeks do not actually deserve their widespread reputation for buggery or even for pederasty which the "queer theorists" have attempted to impose. It is not a true historical view of ancient Greece which was very complex and not uniform between the various
Sir SOSO, you do err. What you say above, it was not like that in the beginning: Matthew 19: 3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” 4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
What about when homosexuals conspire to appropriate the reproductive resource$ of heterosexuals in order to finance their procreative abomination of nature? Creating sperm from female stem cells will no doubt be expensive. "That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions, which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical;" h ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Statute_for_Religious_Freedom Why should I have to pay for it?
Tell that to the U.S. Figure Skating Association:) How many generations of natural, reproductively viable, offspring have the homosexuals infesting the U.S. Figure Skating Association managed to produce?
In the beginning there was no Olympics either. Choose your reference point. I stand by my statement that historically marriage has not always been between on man and one woman, and certainly not too far removed from Adam and Eve.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I don't know. has anyone been counting. Homosexuals can breed as many in recent memory have publically demonstrated. I hope you are informed enough to know that the act of procreation no longer requires a sexual act between a man and a woman. Perhaps the U.S. should ban artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization?
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
You guys keep this up and you're going to receive a strongly worded email from the U.S. Figure Skating Assocation. : ) My advice: blame Red for starting it.
My advice: blame Red for starting it. My advice: buy a pair of ice skates.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
You're off to a surly Saturday.
That Red?
Not homosexually. They have to appropriate resources from others in order to abominate nature and manufacture a zygote. Why should I have to pay for that?
The act of procreation doesn't guarantee the sociobiological fitness of the culture in which the act takes place. That's especially true in the context of a demoralized culture that has taken to worshiping its abominations and creations in defiant disregard of Natural history.
Uh, no. When I said Red, I meant redleghunter who apparently got this whole figure skating thing started by posting this pic from some crappy SNL comedy named Blades Of Something with Will Farrell: Since you seem unaware of the movie, you must be punished.
The fagotry of Will Farrell highlights SNL's continuing influence upon perverting and demoralizing American culture. SNL and Farrell illustrate the degree to which the process of "demoralization", described by KGB defector Bezmenov, has been a strategic success. How's Senator Blutarsky the heroin addict doing these days?
Who says that you have to pay for that? "They have to appropriate resources from others in order to abominate nature and manufacture a zygote." Are you claiming that babies conceived via artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization are not human beings in God's eye? That they have no soul?
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I find it odd that you claim that a State should be able to disregard the Constitution and legalize slavery, bigamy, bestiality and drug use. I particularly find it odd that you say that a State should be able to ban gay civil unions while at the same time allow abortion on demand, including late term abortion.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Yeah, I can get that way when people are willfully blind to the conflicts of logic and lack of intellectual honesty of their positions. You know the drill. If one advocates a position based on logic and law the ad hominem accusations flow like water from those that do not want to accept the validity of your argument. I keep asking the question, under the U.S. Consitution what is the State's legal basis for denying gays the rights and privileges of a state sanctioned civil union that it affords straights? I have yet to get a rational answer other than потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
"because God wants it that way"? The normal explanation is that the state has an interest in promoting the stabilility and security of children in two-parent families. Given the high divorce rates and rise of solo motherhood, it has become more irrelevant and this did open the door to arguments for marriage equality.
Given the high divorce rates and rise of solo motherhood, it has become more irrelevant and this did open the door to arguments for marriage equality. Not for most of those that take exception to my position on the issue. BTW, if, as the argument goes, two parents are good wouldn't 3, 4 or 5 in a committed, loving polygamist relationship be better. So even that old tired argument was more than logically suspect. Besides what state has ever used that argument in court as its compelling interest to ban gay unions?
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Wow took you too long to research the source:)
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
The state should ban murder.
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
The state should ban murder. I particularly find it odd that you say that a State should be able to ban gay civil unions while at the same time allow abortion on demand, including late term abortion. The state should ban murder. With notable exceptions it does. But according to your thesis the state has the right to pick and choose (1) whether or not the victim is a person to which the term murder applies, and, (2) what exceptions it will allow. There are many things that you and I believe the state should and shouldn't do. However we are not the definitive word on this, the State's court is.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Not my thesis at all. It is your misconcieved notion that same sex 'marriage' is a civil right. It is not.
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
Is Obamacare optional? Isn't that what the Transhumanist/Postgenderists have in mind?
So what is denying a class of people the same, right, privilege, benefit, sanction, protection, etc. as the state readily provides others if not a civil rights issue? What the state sanctions for straights is first and foremost a civil union. It is a secular thing that has no allegiance to any religion.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Once again you demonstrate your ignorance of primate reproductive biology. In the natural world, paternity and blood relationship have more impact upon preventing infanticide than the abstract social concoction you're attempting to pull out of your polygyarse. Tell us - what are the evolved mechanisms for altruism in your polygamous Utopia? What keeps you from eating the baby when the SHTF?
...a result of prior state-establishment's experience with bastard children and the mischief their existence perpetrated upon the cultures they were inflicted upon.
Is Obamacare optional? Don't blame ObamaCare if you live in a state that required commercial carriers to cover infertility treatments before 2012. Blame the state legislature. If you don't like it get the state law repealed or move to a different state.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
To paraphrase Hitlery: "It takes a village to have a sexual relationship. And to raise a child."
In the natural world, paternity and blood relationship have more impact upon preventing infanticide than the abstract social concoction you're attempting to pull out of your polygyarse. Yo, Sparky, didn't you get the memo that it takes a village? "In the natural world, paternity and blood relationship have more impact upon preventing infanticide than the abstract social concoction you're attempting to pull out of your polygyarse." Your ignorance is just too vast to over come. Ever heard of China where infanticide in the for of forced abortion was the law of the land? Next review Nazi Germany's history on the subject. There was/is no force that prevented the former and only massive military force that stopped the latter. Paternity simply did not matter and was of no weight at all in preventing these mass infanticides. And how to you explain all of the abortions performed in Russia and the U.S> over the past few decades. These were Mom and Pop decisions to commit infanticide. Of course, if you do not believe that a fetus is a human being then no harm not foul there.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
So the answer is: No, it's not optional. Tsk tsk. How discriminatory. What's the Transhumanist/Postgenderist Action plan timeline for litigating that inequity into nonexistence? Gonna wait till all 50 state have homosexual "marriage" legalized?
Not quite. The first sentence is from Bill. The second from Hillary.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
So I could pretend to be totally unfamiliar with it. And blame it all on you if necessary. : ) I have to laugh though, 'cause one day I was looking at my elderly mom's Tivo and noticed that she had that on her list, which seemed pretty odd. I asked her about it and she said that she'd hit the Record button, thinking it was some nice ice skating romance. I think she thought the blond man was a chick. When I started to tell her what it was, she deleted it before I could finish my plot summary. LOL.
My, my. How flimsy flexible you are when confronted with facts. What to change the subject again?
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Cannibalism was the "law" of the land there too. "Interview: China's Great Famine Years 'Were an Era of Cannibalism'" Now answer the question, Comrade Polygamist: What's the evolved mechanism in your "village" for determining altruism, and who eats whose children?
It's the same subject: The Abomination of Nature. What's the Transhumanist/Postgenderist Action-plan timeline for litigating infertility treatment "rights"?
Let's get one thing very clear, Sparky. I haven't advocated any of the things that you are trying to pin on me. I merely present the arguments of the illogic and inconsistency of opinions expressed on the subject. So stop being an annoying prick so that we can have a rational discussion on the issue. All you can seem to do is deflect points that sink your argument by creating strawmen diversions or by putting words in my mouth that were never there. China does did what China does/did. I made no statements whatsoever indicating that I approve of or condone those actions. The PTB in China will eventually have to answer to God for what they did. Just as those in the U.S. that condone, support and legalized abortion on demand will do. I continue to choose to live in the U.S.. Until I choose otherwise I will live by the rules of law until I can no longer in good conscience do so. I abhor the fact the 50+ million children that have been aborted in the U.S. in the past few decades. I abhor the fact that 50% of children born in the U.S. are born out of wedlock. I am disheartened over the fact that less than 50% of "straight" marriages end in divorce. I am more than dubious about the direction of reproductive science and medicine appears to be taking us. So tell me again how gay marriage is going to ruin the family in the U.S. some time in the future. Straights seem not to have needed much help in already doing that by themself.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
LOL. Explain the role of Eugenics in der Fatherland's decision matrix for determining who was Uber and who wasn't? The Germans weren't eating their own children you idiot - they were removing reproductive competition for the glory of the Übermensch state- establishment. Folks of your Transhumanist/Postgenderist ilk out to recognize your own nature in the German's genocidal Übermensch craftsmanship.
DK. Does it come with eggrolls?
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
You mean all the Jews in Germany were in fact not German? Well then, that's a horse of a different historical color. You must be Iranian.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
You must know the only way to win is not to play.
Touche. Words of wisdom to be heeded. But the ignorance and illogic is sooooooo vast. I remind you though that not only do they vote, they breed.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
The proliferation of homosexual "marriage" is simply additional symptomic evidence that the process of demoralization described by Yuri Bezmenov is a strategic success.
Did the Nazi state-establishment not cull the Jews out of the German herd on the basis of their tainted, not-Aryan, blood? "Did I not tell you earlier that a Jew is such a noble, precious jewel that God and all the angels dance when he farts?" --Martin Luther
Answer the Question: What's the evolved mechanism in your "village" for determining altruism, and which polygamist eats whose children? When TSHTF, paternity/maternity and blood matters. That's an evolutionary, socio-biological, FACT.
ping #168
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Stick your ping in your arse. What's the evolved mechanism in your "village" for determining altruism, and which polygamist eats whose children?
ping #168
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
"Altruistic behavior, behavior that increases the reproductive fitness of others at the apparent expense of the altruist,[8] in some animals has been correlated to the degree of genome shared between altruistic individuals. A quantitative description of infanticide by male harem-mating animals when the alpha male is displaced as well as rodent female infanticide and fetal resorption are active areas of study. In general, females with more bearing opportunities may value offspring less, and may also arrange bearing opportunities to maximize the food and protection from mates." There is no god but the Tzar, eh comrade? (And no code of morality except that imposed by the tyrany of the majority) Bon appetit.
When I started to tell her what it was, she deleted it before I could finish my plot summary. LOL. LOL. Too funny. I'm glad you were gentle with Mama TC. I'm sure she was shocked.
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
Wonder if JWpegler is going to come back here. His populist site is still down.
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
Maybe his project is on hold, maybe he's losing interest or seeing that paying the cost of getting it running may be higher than he's willing to pay. What was it called, PopulistVoice.com?
I understand that you try to make that distinction. That distinction has merit. But. Do you support what the government is calling gay marriage. You know the stuff the supreme court is going to rule on.
Marriage is Gods.
Further the State has no standing in dictating or requiring anything of what the church may wish to add to the religious aspect of the ceremony (as long as it does not include illegal acts, e.g. - sacrificial virgins). Does that really matter? Did God not Judge Sodom and Gomorrah because it wasn't real marriage? It was really just civil unions right. And that is ok. God - Lot you must not look back. Lot - I'll look back because it is really only civil unions and that is ok.
Under the US Constitution, power not delegated to the Congress is reserved to the States. So, the general police power reposes in the states. And with that general police power, constitutionally, the states can do anything, anything at all, that isn't PROHIBITED by the US Constitution to the states. Does the US Constitution prohibit discrimination against gays or cigarette smokers? No. Therefore, the states can discriminate against gays and cigarette smokers as much as the voters please, except they can't deny them the vote or deny them life or property without due process of law, and they can't enslave anybody other than as punishment after conviction for a crime. Now, of course, 5 Supreme Court judges can make up something new and add it to the list: abortion, for instance. And often when they do that they make a feeble attempt to tie it to some other written provision, but they only do that as window dressing. To date, the Supreme Court has not ruled that gay marriage is one of those things that the Constitution protects. And therefore, until it does so rule, marriage is something that falls within the general police power of the state. And the Constitution says that that power is quasi absolute. That is the constitutional basis for discriminating against gays and cigarette smokers: where the constitution is silent, the states have plenary power, and the Constitution does not require states to use their power rationally.
Of course it does. The Constitution requires two things of relevance (1) equal protection under the law, and (2) due process in denying life, liberty, and, the pursuit of happiness. Do you actually believe that a state can constitutionally institute slavery or can ban interracial marriage?
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
A church sanctioned marriage is first and foremost a State sanctioned civil union to which the church confers an additional element(s) or meaning SOLELY for the purpose of the members of that church. Whatever additional element or meaning a church may add for the benefit of its members has absolutely no impact of the secular civil union nature of the marriage. Further the State has no standing in dictating or requiring anything of what the church may wish to add to the religious aspect of the ceremony (as long as it does not include illegal acts, e.g. - sacrificial virgins). Does that really matter? Of course it does? Do you support what the government is calling gay marriage. You know the stuff the supreme court is going to rule on." If SCOTUS sanctions state recognized gay marriage/civil unions then what choice do you or I have. IDM if we "support" it or not of by support you mean accept or even approve. If it becomes the law of the land we must tolerate gay marriage/civil union. Now there have already been some court cases in which a vendor, such as a baker, refused to provide its service to a gay couple claiming religious beliefs. As far as I know all such cases have been decided in favor of the gay couples, though there situtaion is not definitively resolved pending appeals. It will be interesting to see who ultimately prevails, i.e. - if religious exemption prevails. IMO this is really were the notion of "support" lies.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Yes they may use color of law to opress us. Now that we have established that and agree on it I believe. The question is would you ever vote for anyone who was supportive of that idea. I would never under any circumstances. Would you?
If it holds. Then black bakers would have to bake a KKK cake. Fag bakers will have to make cakes about Leviticus chapter 20. At least if the morons who run government were consistent. Heck what if someone wants me to paint their house I guess I would have to do that too. Just a thought. Why can't they just sell their gay cakes for $50,000 each.
Fag bakers will have to make cakes about Leviticus chapter 20. No. They, just like the religious objectors, would be free to disobey the law and face the consequences thereof - whatever that might be, which likely for those two groups will be nothing. IMO there will be selective prosecution and certainly selective enforcement.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I would never under any circumstances. Would you? Why would I vote for someone I believe would oppress me? But as usual the devil is in the details. In my case if SCOTUS says gay marriage/civil union is the law of the land, I still would not approve of gay marraige. But there is nothing in my life circumstances that would give occasion for me to break this law if enacted. I don't provide wedding services, I don't perform marriage ceremonies, I am not engaged in any reatil business in which I could deny services to gays (or blacks or the KKK). The only thing that I could do is to peacefully protest the law and vote for someone that supports my position.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Your answer in your last sentence is what I've been trying to understand about your views. I agree with you.
Then my all the grief:)
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
The 13th Amendment explicitly bans slavery (except as punishment for crime after due process: prison labor and chain gangs are slavery, and legal, but generic slavery is not). So that would be a case of something that the Constitution says that the states can't do. Interracial marriage was within the state police powers until the Supreme Court ruled that it was not via the 14th Amendment. So it isn't. Gay marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore the states can ban it, unless the Supreme Court says that it, like interracial marriage, is protected under the 14th, which they have not, yet. That's the state of the law. There is one further wrinkle: some of the Circuit Courts have gone ahead and ruled that, as far as they are concerned, denial of gay marriage is a violation of equal protection. That is currently the state of the law in those Circuits, but it will not be a Constitutional requirement until the Supreme Court says it is, if they ever do. If the Supreme Court says it isn't, it isn't. Constitutional law does not hover out there in the ether like Divine Law, a real, absolute, unchanging force that has a mind of its own and that exists independently of human opinions. It is, rather, simply the written opinions of men, and in more recent decades, specifically the written opinions of at least 5 men (and women) that determines what the Constitution is. "Playing lawyer" with Constitutional law or civil or criminal law does not offend me, because these laws are not REAL, any of them. They were from the beginning nothing more than the opinions of legislators, judges, administrators, executives and kings. They still are nothing more than that, and they can never BE anything more than that, because they are nothing but the creations of men, human playthings. I outwardly defer to men with guns and warrants because they have the authority and will to mess around with my life, but internally I concede them nothing: the human law is nothing but other men's opinions, it has no majesty, and I grant it no supernal authority other than that of superior force. I don't like it when my opinions are overruled and opinions I think are bad, or stupid, or evil, are put in their place, but I am not morally offended for the LAW'S sake, because "The Law" does not exist at all. It's an imaginary plaything - an idol - the mere opinions of men backed by guns, and it is not, never was, and never can be anything more than that. The LAW, the CONSTITUTION, does not exist other than as an agreed upon dance form. But the Divine Law, now that is a different thing entirely.
Bingo. You don't need to go any further. SCOTUS has the last word as to what state laws are constitutional and what are not. ANd the issue is in fact before SCOTUS for ruling this term. Want to bet how SCOTUS will rule? My bet is that state bans on gay marriage will not survive.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
For the past many years my assumption has been that the Supreme Court will always side with Satan. I am very rarely surprised.
#2. To: redleghunter (#0)
In the Gospel of St. Mark
Author: Evangelicals & Catholics Together
#3. To: redleghunter (#1)
#4. To: redleghunter (#0)
(Edited)
#5. To: redleghunter (#0)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
If the gays want to get "married," that's fine by me... It's not as if their fornication will actually lead to procreation and produce a bunch of gay children who outnumber the straights.
Time to move on to more important issues instead of worrying about gays shacking up with each other.
#6. To: Biff Tannen (#4)
16 He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.”
#7. To: Willie Green (#5)
(Edited)
#8. To: Biff Tannen (#4)
16 He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.”
#9. To: Willie Green (#5)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
#10. To: redleghunter, tpaine (#9)
#11. To: Willie Green (#5)
The Bible is unconstitutional...
#12. To: Willie Green (#10)
(Edited)
#13. To: TooConservative (#3)
But won't Teh Gays say that all they want to do is become one flesh too if only the white hetro patriarchy would let them?
#14. To: Liberator (#11)
#15. To: Willie Green (#10)
Because the 1st Amendment only prohibits CONGRESS from meddling, and SCOTUS ain't Congress.
#16. To: redleghunter (#8)
It is a call by Christ to convict her heart of sin.
#17. To: Biff Tannen (#16)
#18. To: redleghunter (#17)
#19. To: redleghunter (#17)
#20. To: redleghunter, All (#0)
As Christians, it is our responsibility to bear witness to the truth about marriage as taught by both revelation and reason—by the Holy Scriptures and by the truths inscribed on the human heart.
#21. To: SOSO (#20)
Would you prefer to live on a Judeo-Christian version of Sharia law?
#22. To: Willie Green (#5)
If the gays want to get "married," that's fine by me...
#23. To: Biff Tannen (#18)
#24. To: Biff Tannen (#19)
And, anyway, what your verses and my verses show, is that despite His intentions of what He wants marriage to be He recognizes that it works out differently down here on earth. In Moses day he makes allowances for it.
#25. To: SOSO (#20)
Would you prefer to live on a Judeo-Christian version of Sharia law?
#26. To: redleghunter (#25)
Of course not.
#27. To: VxH (#21)
How'bout just living on biological, natural, fact?
#28. To: SOSO (#26)
A voice not the voice.
#29. To: redleghunter (#28)
Secular atheism is the official government church now. Just have to walk in a school today.
#30. To: Biff Tannen, redleghunter (#19)
Give it a rest with all this gay marriage nonsense.
#31. To: SOSO (#27)
(Edited)
I cannot in any good conscience as an Amercian, as a Catholic see how gays can be, should be denied the rights enjoyed by straight people under the U.S. Constitution and State laws without a compelling state (read secular) reason for doing so.
#32. To: redleghunter (#28)
Secular atheism as an established religion is unconstitutional.
#33. To: SOSO (#27)
I do not support the gay lifestyle...
#34. To: SOSO, redleghunter, VxH, All (#20)
Would you prefer to live on a Judeo-Christian version of Sharia law?
#35. To: redleghunter, Biff Tannen, SOSO (#24)
If you are claiming Christ had no interest in the woman's relationships with men, then why did He bring it up? Same reason He brought up other people's obstacles to the Kingdom of Heaven.
#36. To: Willie Green, redleghunter (#14)
(Edited)
Yes, as a matter of fact, choo-choo trains ARE a lot more important than gay marriage.
#37. To: Willie Green (#5)
If the gays want to get "married," that's fine by me... It's not as if their fornication will actually lead to procreation and produce a bunch of gay children who outnumber the straights.
#38. To: Liberator (#33)
I do not support the gay lifestyle...
#39. To: Liberator, redleghunter, VxH, All (#34)
#40. To: SOSO (#29)
Then why are many public schools requiring students to learn about Islam?
#41. To: SOSO (#39)
#42. To: redleghunter (#41)
Do you believe in absolutes?
#43. To: SOSO (#42)
Do you believe in absolutes?
#44. To: redleghunter (#0)
God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him;
#45. To: Pridie.Nones (#44)
I believe the diametrically opposing viewpoint. Man created God in his own image.
#46. To: redleghunter (#43)
#47. To: SOSO (#46)
#48. To: redleghunter (#45)
It has been the pagan hedonist way since the fall of man.
#49. To: Pridie.Nones (#48)
All traditional religions (and followers therof) are victim of the same caricature; you can not escape the conundrum, no matter how much effort you place in escaping the enigmatic experience of consciousness; you are creating god within your own mind.
#50. To: redleghunter (#47)
#51. To: redleghunter (#49)
#52. To: SOSO (#50)
#53. To: redleghunter (#52)
Was not an attack but a discussion point.
#54. To: Pridie.Nones (#51)
#55. To: redleghunter (#54)
Just as your Bible is nothing more than an "assertion." You regard the assertion as "truth." But there is no proof other than a myth that you genuinely follow; it is a problem but you hide from within your own antics.
Proof is subjective.
Evidence is objective.
That just may be a stumbling block for you.
1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon
#56. To: Pridie.Nones (#55)
#57. To: redleghunter (#56)
#58. To: Pridie.Nones (#57)
#59. To: redleghunter (#58)
#60. To: Pridie.Nones (#59)
#61. To: Pridie.Nones (#55)
3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
#62. To: A K A Stone (#61)
#63. To: SOSO (#27)
What is the biological, natural facts about love?
#64. To: SOSO, redleghunter (#46)
Do you believe in absolutes?
#65. To: VxH (#63)
Multigenerational reproductive success is what determines socibiological fitness.
#66. To: VxH, redleghunter (#64)
........just as two eggs or two sperm cannot create a viable human offspring.
#67. To: SOSO (#66)
#68. To: redleghunter (#67)
#69. To: SOSO (#68)
#70. To: redleghunter (#69)
I thought it would be self apparent.
#71. To: SOSO (#70)
#72. To: redleghunter (#71)
Strong delusion.
#73. To: redleghunter (#60)
Still not presenting evidence to refute.
Come on there are hundreds of Muslim and atheist sites with specious assertions you could mimic here. Give it a try.
#74. To: SOSO (#66)
Who knows what science and/or God has in store for us?
#75. To: SOSO (#65)
So infertile people are unsocibiologically fit, worthless junk?
#76. To: SOSO (#72)
Is it delusional to think that gays are entitled to the same civil rights as straights? Do you really believe that God commands us to deny gays their due civil rights? If so we do not pray to the same God.
#77. To: redleghunter (#76)
Should men be afforded the same civil rights to become pregnant?
#78. To: VxH (#75)
#79. To: SOSO (#77)
But you didn't answer my question. Do you believe that God commands us to deny gays the same civil rights as the state deems/grants to straights? If not, then what delusion(s) is involved in the state granting gays the same civil right to a state recognized civil union as it does for straights?
#80. To: redleghunter (#79)
It is absurd to apply marriage to a civil right for those who don't qualify to be married.
#81. To: SOSO (#80)
#82. To: A K A Stone, SOSO (#81)
You're [SOSO] doing mental gymnastics in order to try and say that it is ok for the government to impose Sodomite immorality on the nation because it isn't really sodomite immorality. It's really Apple Pie and Justice for all.
#83. To: A K A Stone (#81)
You're doing mental gymnastics in order to try and say that it is ok for the government to impose Sodomite immorality on the nation because it isn't really sodomite immorality.
#84. To: Pridie.Nones, A K A Stone (#82)
The US government has migrated to policies that literally explore additional taxbases............
#85. To: SOSO, GarySpFc, BobCeleste, A K A Stone, liberator (#80)
It is amazing that you cannot grasp this concept in a country where the State has so liberally sanctioned abortion. Have you, I, the Church, or even the opinion of 50%+ of the U.S. people stopped the legalization of abortion?
#86. To: redleghunter (#85)
Do you really think Jesus Christ meant 'rendering to Caesar' means murdered babies? Jesus called for a coin, not a baby.
#87. To: SOSO (#83)
BTW, what is your mental gymnastics that allows you to tolerate legalized abortion in the U.S.?
#88. To: SOSO (#78)
Then please define what you mean by socibiologically fit.
#89. To: redleghunter, GarySpFc, BobCeleste, A K A Stone, liberator (#85)
Any nation devoid of absolute moral standards have failed and will continue to fail. Our Western world has embraced humanism (man is at the center of all things), materialism (what we make or do we worship) and relativism (there are no absolutes only individual particulars). It is the destructive recipe which destroyed previous civilizations.
#90. To: SOSO (#89)
#91. To: redleghunter (#90)
#92. To: VxH (#88)
Homosexual activists have never increased the fitness of the various cultures they've infested.
#93. To: SOSO (#91)
What about if a state passes legislation allowing slavery? Or bigamy? Or beastiality? Or free use of any drug known to man?
#94. To: A K A Stone (#87)
BTW, what is your mental gymnastics that allows you to tolerate legalized abortion in the U.S.?
#95. To: A K A Stone (#86)
The fruit of your labor is not Caesars.
#96. To: redleghunter (#93)
You see homosexual "marriage" in the same categories as the above?
#97. To: SOSO, VxH, Vicomte13, TooConservative, rlk (#92)
Tell that to the U.S. Figure Skating Association:)
#98. To: SOSO (#96)
#99. To: redleghunter (#97)
Should the Winter Olympics committee be forced to accept same sex figure skating pairs?
#100. To: SOSO (#96)
I see the intolerance of homosexuality as being of the same cloth as those other activities.
#101. To: SOSO (#99)
#102. To: redleghunter (#100)
So to you bigamy and bestiality prohibitions are discriminatory and have no place in our body of law?
#103. To: redleghunter (#101)
Like bestiality not the same sport. Those are same gender teams.
#104. To: SOSO (#95)
When Caesar collects taxes on it that part of the your fruit most certainly is his.
#105. To: SOSO (#94)
Note the word I actually used- tolerated - not accepted. Please correct your post to me if you wish to further dialogue.
#106. To: Pridie.Nones (#82)
US Government is not about morality issues
#107. To: SOSO (#102)
Now you are putting words in my mouth in a most dishonest way. This really is beneath you. Your Jesuit training is showing. How far up your ass are you willing to go to divert honest discussion about this issue?
#108. To: SOSO (#103)
#109. To: A K A Stone (#105)
Note the word I actually used- tolerated - not accepted. Please correct your post to me if you wish to further dialogue.
#110. To: redleghunter (#108)
It has been one man and one woman for skating pairs since the beginning. Is that not a good reason to sustain traditional pair skating?
#111. To: redleghunter (#97)
Should the Winter Olympics committee be forced to accept same sex figure skating pairs?
#112. To: SOSO (#110)
(Edited)
Do I need to remind you that marriage was not always one man with just one woman and that it wasn't that way from the beginning?
UPDATE: WORLD'S FIRST THREE-GAY MARRIAGE... And Olympic wrestling may be on the block.
#113. To: SOSO (#110)
Do I need to remind you that marriage was not always one man with just one woman and that it wasn't that way from the beginning?
#114. To: SOSO (#109)
Would you vote for someone who supported same sex marriage.
#115. To: TooConservative (#112)
Why should the primary original Olympic sport from ancient times be a part of these phony modern Olympics?
#116. To: A K A Stone, SOSO (#114)
I would never vote for someone who supports baby genocide. They are evil by definition.
#117. To: SOSO, redleghunter, TooConservative (#110)
Do I need to remind you that marriage was not always one man with just one woman and that it wasn't that way from the beginning?
#118. To: Liberator (#113)
Do I need to remind you that marriage was not always one man with just one woman and that it wasn't that way from the beginning?
#119. To: SOSO (#110)
Do I need to remind you that marriage was not always...
#120. To: A K A Stone (#114)
You say you would support someone who supported gay civil unions. Seems you are playing word games. As above you said gay marriage isn't gay marriage but gay civil unions.
#121. To: redleghunter (#97)
(Edited)
who are the Olympics committee to deny such.
#122. To: VxH (#119)
Do I need to remind you that marriage was not always...
#123. To: SOSO (#122)
(Edited)
>>>Remind us which of the various historical cultures that normalized homosexual behavior survived doing so?
Do some research.
#124. To: Liberator, redleghunter, TooConservative (#117)
By all means, please do enlighten us on "The Way of The Beginning."
#125. To: VxH (#123)
Can't provide a single example. Can you.
#126. To: SOSO (#124)
(Edited)
You do understand the word polygamy, do you not?
#127. To: SOSO (#125)
I provided many on this forum.
Ancient Greece? Or perhaps ancient Rome? Ancient Egypt?
#128. To: SOSO (#125)
But here's a brain buster for you. Name one historical culture that has banned gay sexuality that has survived. Ancient Greece? Or perhaps ancient Rome? Ancient Egypt?
Greek Grecian city-states.
#129. To: SOSO, liberator, TooConservative (#124)
So it is a Wiki handle apparently connected with the ancient Persian empire and its capitol and the Fars province, the homeland of the ancient Persians and of the ancient Persian culture and whose dialect is Farsi, the language spoken in modern Iran.
#130. To: SOSO (#94)
homosexuality, not being an illegal state of being or of personal sexual practice, must be tolerated in our society.
#131. To: SOSO (#92)
>>Homosexual activists have never increased the fitness of the various cultures they've infested.
#132. To: redleghunter, liberator, TooConservative (#129)
#133. To: VxH (#131)
How many generations of natural, reproductively viable, offspring have the homosexuals infesting the U.S. Figure Skating Association managed to produce?
#134. To: VxH, SOSO, redleghunter (#131)
How many generations of natural, reproductively viable, offspring have the homosexuals infesting the U.S. Figure Skating Association managed to produce?
#135. To: TooConservative, VxH, redleghunter (#134)
You guys keep this up and you're going to receive a strongly worded email from the U.S. Figure Skating Assocation. : )
#136. To: SOSO (#135)
#137. To: TooConservative (#134)
(Edited)
My advice: blame Red for starting it.
#138. To: SOSO (#133)
(Edited)
Homosexuals can breed
#139. To: SOSO (#133)
(Edited)
the act of procreation
#140. To: VxH, redleghunter (#137)
(Edited)
My advice: blame Red for starting it.
That Red? 
#141. To: TooConservative (#140)
some crappy SNL comedy named Blades Of Something with Will Farrell:
#142. To: VxH (#138)
Why should I have to pay for that?
#143. To: redleghunter (#107)
I found it odd you used those examples trying to prove your point that preventing gay "marriage" is violating civil rights.
#144. To: TooConservative (#136)
You're off to a surly Saturday.
#145. To: SOSO (#144)
#146. To: TooConservative (#145)
The normal explanation is that the state has an interest in promoting the stabilility and security of children in two-parent families.
#147. To: TooConservative (#140)
#148. To: SOSO (#143)
I particularly find it odd that you say that a State should be able to ban gay civil unions while at the same time allow abortion on demand, including late term abortion.
#149. To: redleghunter (#148)
I particularly find it odd that you say that a State should be able to ban gay civil unions while at the same time allow abortion on demand, including late term abortion.
#150. To: SOSO (#149)
With notable exceptions it does. But according to your thesis the state has the right to pick and choose (1) whether or not the victim is a person to which the term murder applies, and, (2) what exceptions it will allow. There are many things that you and I believe the state should and shouldn't do. However we are not the definitive word on this, the State's court is.
#151. To: SOSO (#142)
Who says that you have to pay for that?
Are you claiming that babies conceived via artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization are not human beings in God's eye? That they have no soul?
#152. To: redleghunter (#150)
It is your misconcieved notion that same sex 'marriage' is a civil right. It is not.
#153. To: SOSO (#146)
(Edited)
BTW, if, as the argument goes, two parents are good wouldn't 3, 4 or 5 in a committed, loving polygamist relationship be better.
#154. To: SOSO (#152)
What the state sanctions for straights is first and foremost...
#155. To: VxH (#151)
Who says that you have to pay for that?
#156. To: SOSO (#146)
BTW, if, as the argument goes, two parents are good wouldn't 3, 4 or 5 in a committed, loving polygamist relationship be better.
#157. To: VxH (#153)
Once again you demonstrate your ignorance of primate reproductive biology.
#158. To: SOSO (#155)
Does ObamaCare mandate insurance coverage for infertility treatments for states that di not already have that in place? No, it doesn't.
#159. To: TooConservative (#156)
To paraphrase Hitlery: "It takes a village to have a sexual relationship. And to raise a child."
#160. To: redleghunter, Liberator (#147)
Wow took you too long to research the source:)
#161. To: VxH (#158)
Tsk tsk. How discriminatory
#162. To: SOSO (#157)
Ever heard of China where infanticide in the for of forced abortion was the law of the land?
www.rfa.org/english/news/...alism- 11222013104349.html
#163. To: SOSO (#161)
(Edited)
What to change the subject again?
#164. To: VxH (#162)
What's the evolved mechanism in your "village" for determining altruism, and who eats whose children?
#165. To: SOSO (#157)
Nazi Germany's history on the subject.
#166. To: VxH (#163)
What's the Transhumanist/Postgenderist Action-plan timeline for litigating infertility treatment "rights"?
#167. To: VxH (#165)
The Germans weren't eating their own children you idiot -
#168. To: SOSO (#167)
#169. To: TooConservative (#168)
You must know the only way to win is not to play.
#170. To: SOSO (#164)
So tell me again how gay marriage is going to ruin the family in the U.S. some time in the future. Straights seem not to have needed much help in already doing that by themself.
It takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years required to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy exposed to the ideology of [their] enemy. In other words, Marxism-Leninism ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least 3 generation of American students without being challenged or counterbalanced by the basic values of Americanism; American patriotism."
25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator — who is forever praised. Amen.
NIV
#171. To: SOSO (#167)
(Edited)
You mean all the Jews in Germany were in fact not German?
#172. To: SOSO (#164)
(Edited)
#173. To: VxH (#172)
#174. To: SOSO (#173)
(Edited)
#175. To: VxH (#174)
#176. To: SOSO (#175)
(Edited)
#177. To: TooConservative (#160)
I have to laugh though, 'cause one day I was looking at my elderly mom's Tivo and noticed that she had that on her list, which seemed pretty odd. I asked her about it and she said that she'd hit the Record button, thinking it was some nice ice skating romance. I think she thought the blond man was a chick.
#178. To: TooConservative, liberator (#160)
#179. To: redleghunter (#178)
Wonder if JWpegler is going to come back here. His populist site is still down.
#180. To: SOSO (#120)
I guess you simply cannot understand what I said. I clearly separate the secular aspects of a State sanction civil union from the religious aspects of a church sanctioned marriage.
#181. To: SOSO (#120)
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God. I hope this clarifies my position for you. I have been very consistent on it. If not then let's just move on.
#182. To: SOSO (#120)
A church sanctioned marriage is first and foremost a State sanctioned civil union to which the church confers an additional element(s) or meaning SOLELY for the purpose of the members of that church. Whatever additional element or meaning a church may add for the benefit of its members has absolutely no impact of the secular civil union nature of the marriage.
#183. To: SOSO (#144)
I keep asking the question, under the U.S. Consitution what is the State's legal basis for denying gays the rights and privileges of a state sanctioned civil union that it affords straights?
#184. To: Vicomte13 (#183)
Does the US Constitution prohibit discrimination against gays or cigarette smokers? No.
#185. To: A K A Stone (#182)
#186. To: SOSO (#185)
If SCOTUS sanctions state recognized gay marriage/civil unions then what choice do you or I have. IDM if we "support" it or not of by support you mean accept or even approve. If it becomes the law of the land we must tolerate gay marriage/civil union.
#187. To: SOSO (#185)
Now there have already been some court cases in which a vendor, such as a baker, refused to provide its service to a gay couple claiming religious beliefs. As far as I know all such cases have been decided in favor of the gay couples, though there situtaion is not definitively resolved pending appeals. It will be interesting to see who ultimately prevails, i.e. - if religious exemption prevails. IMO this is really were the notion of "support" lies.
#188. To: A K A Stone (#187)
If it holds. Then black bakers would have to bake a KKK cake.
#189. To: A K A Stone (#186)
The question is would you ever vote for anyone who was supportive of that idea.
#190. To: SOSO (#189)
#191. To: A K A Stone (#190)
I agree with you.
#192. To: SOSO (#184)
Of course it does. The Constitution requires two things of relevance (1) equal protection under the law, and (2) due process in denying life, liberty, and, the pursuit of happiness. Do you actually believe that a state can constitutionally institute slavery or can ban interracial marriage?
#193. To: Vicomte13 (#192)
Interracial marriage was within the state police powers until the Supreme Court ruled that it was not via the 14th Amendment. So it isn't.
#194. To: SOSO (#193)
Want to bet how SCOTUS will rule? My bet is that state bans on gay marriage will not survive.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]