Next Up: Change the Bible (interpretation)

[Buck Ewer]

Gay marriage isn't a marriage in God's eyes. At best, it's institutionalized sin.

What if you don't believe in any gods?

 

[Buck Ewer]

Ha! You guys oppose free speech by enacting so-called "Hate Speech" laws.

Canadian Supreme Court Rules Biblical Speech Opposing Homosexual Behavior is a ‘Hate Crime’

Sieg Heil!

There is no shortage of hate in the buybull.

 

[Logicman]

There is no shortage of hate in the buybull.

Speaking the truth to try to save people from a woeful eternity isn't hate, it's love. Love speaks the truth. The hate comes in when people won't accept the truth and instead want to eviscerate the messenger.

 

[Buck Ewer]

Speaking the truth to try to save people from a woeful eternity isn't hate, it's love. Love speaks the truth. The hate comes in when people won't accept the truth and instead want to eviscerate the messenger.

All the talk of the evisceration of those who choose to love, comes from the christian side of the argument.
It's time for you accept that not everyone buys your view of what "eternity" means.

 

[Paschendale]

"The argument is partially true; the men of Sodom certainly were proposing rape. But for such an event to include "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old," homosexuality must have been commonly practiced.

The second-century BC Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs labels the Sodomites 'sexually promiscuous' (Testimony of Benjamin 9:1) and refers to 'Sodom, which departed from the order of nature' (Testament of Nephtali 3:4). From the same time period, Jubilees specifies that the Sodomites were 'polluting themselves and fornicating in their flesh' (16:5, compare 20:5-6). Both Philo and Josephus plainly name same-sex relations as the characteristic view of Sodom." Responding to Pro-Gay Theology, Part III

And yet the actual bad thing they did was try to rape angels. They weren't wiped out for any consensual sex, hetero or homo. They were wiped out for being rapists. Which no one, least of all liberals or secular people, advocates.

Not that you religious ideas have anything to do with American law, of course.

I'm sure there's scores of constitutional lawyers in Texas and elsewhere who would disagree with you. And the only way you can make it work for you is to get a gaggle of spiritually-challenged liberals on SCOTUS to vote against Texas.

Okay. They're wrong. Texas is wrong. And if being correct (especially correct in accordance with American law) means being spiritually-challenged, then being spiritually-challenged is correct, too. Of course, since secular people don't form rape mobs and religious people do, it seems pretty obvious that "spiritually-challenged" is a pretty great thing to be. If there were a god, and that god was any kind of moral, that god would be on the side of secular ideas.

Speaking the truth to try to save people from a woeful eternity isn't hate, it's love. Love speaks the truth. The hate comes in when people won't accept the truth and instead want to eviscerate the messenger.

I actually can't fault you for this, if you think that's really what's going on. Of course, none of it is true, so you're off the hook.

 

[Carjosse]

Ha! You guys oppose free speech by enacting so-called "Hate Speech" laws.

Canadian Supreme Court Rules Biblical Speech Opposing Homosexual Behavior is a ‘Hate Crime’

Sieg Heil!

I would love it if you would fact check. Do you even look at sources?
Besides:
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
That is the first part of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and hate speech is harm.

 

[Logicman]

I would love it if you would fact check. Do you even look at sources?
Besides:
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
That is the first part of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and hate speech is harm.

Intolerant Police Shut Down Canadian Preacher for Sharing Gospel with Homosexuals | Christian News Network

 

[Logicman]

And yet the actual bad thing they did was try to rape angels. They weren't wiped out for any consensual sex, hetero or homo. They were wiped out for being rapists. Which no one, least of all liberals or secular people, advocates.

Not that you religious ideas have anything to do with American law, of course.

Okay. They're wrong. Texas is wrong. And if being correct (especially correct in accordance with American law) means being spiritually-challenged, then being spiritually-challenged is correct, too. Of course, since secular people don't form rape mobs and religious people do, it seems pretty obvious that "spiritually-challenged" is a pretty great thing to be. If there were a god, and that god was any kind of moral, that god would be on the side of secular ideas.

I actually can't fault you for this, if you think that's really what's going on. Of course, none of it is true, so you're off the hook.

I'll stick with what I presented in my prior post, and add this from Jude 7:

"In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."

 

[Carjosse]

Intolerant Police Shut Down Canadian Preacher for Sharing Gospel with Homosexuals | Christian News Network

I cannot a reputable for these accusations.

 

[joG]

The main reason people want to get married and why marriage is also a legal concept is the legal perks. Kids may be the greatest gifts and the future of society but they are also incredibly expensive.

Where society grants advantages to a group it is disadvantaging the others. A government ie the state should not be allowed to do the latter without a very good reason. Tradition has a certain weight in this respect as it means that the measure is established, practiced and works. The impact on society is in the system, though, it is not known how removing or changing the tradition will affect the systemm.

 

[joG]

Wrong. The CBO found that allowing SSM nationwide would have a positive effect on the federal governments bottom line.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/55xx/doc5559/06-21-samesexmarriage.pdf

First of all, thank you for the study. The link doesn't seem to work, but I will try it later or to find it elsewhere. Apriory I can imagine that the impact could be positive, but would like to see a few empirical studies from more than one source. Specifically the subsidy seems to me questionable.

 

[wolfsgirl]

First of all, thank you for the study. The link doesn't seem to work, but I will try it later or to find it elsewhere. Apriory I can imagine that the impact could be positive, but would like to see a few empirical studies from more than one source. Specifically the subsidy seems to me questionable.

The CBO is the source the government uses to figure out the financial impact of passing laws. What subsidy seems questionable to you?

Try this link, then click read complete document. http://www.cbo.gov/publication/15740

Here are a couple from Maine. MAINE | Williams Institute

This story gives a quick overview of both studies. What Is the Fiscal Impact of Gay Marriage? - Bloomberg

 

[joG]

The CBO is the source the government uses to figure out the financial impact of passing laws. What subsidy seems questionable to you?

Try this link, then click read complete document. CBO | The Potential Budgetary Impact of Recognizing Same-Sex Marriages

Here are a couple from Maine. MAINE | Williams Institute

This story gives a quick overview of both studies. What Is the Fiscal Impact of Gay Marriage? - Bloomberg

Thx for the links. The Barro thing does not do enough, I will read the full articles this evening.

 

[Logicman]

Changes to the Bible?

How about an addendum showing all the people who violated Biblical principles and wound up dead, in jail, divorced, hospitalized with AIDS, VD, or addicted to pornography, alcohol, drugs, or who went bankrupt in failed swindling schemes, and so on and so forth. And all the cities and nations that have been laid waste for chasing idols, sacrificing their children on pagan altars, etc.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

YOu have no right to force your morals upon others, if you believe same-sex marriage is a sin don't enter into a same-sex marriage, no one is forcing you to.

For generations, the pervert-rights lobby has cried “Don't force your morality on us!” Now that they've gained enough power to do so, they happily force their immorality on all of society. We were wrong to be cowed by that earlier demand.

 

[Carjosse]

For generations, the pervert-rights lobby has cried “Don't force your morality on us!” Now that they've gained enough power to do so, they happily force their immorality on all of society. We were wrong to be cowed by that earlier demand.

It stops when the action could harm otherwise it is an infringement on personal freedom. Since same-sex marriage benefits society not harms it, denying same-sec couples the ability to marry is an infringement on personal freedom.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Odd how these same courts often see the 2A freedom as optional or able to be greatly limited.

Guns have nothing to do with morals and affect others. Government has no place in deciding morals.

It's certainly odd how those on the far-wrong can go to such lengths to find “rights” in the Constitution that simply are not there, and that no reason exists to suppose that the great men who wrote the Constitution would recognized as rights; yet they will so easily denigrate a right that is explicitly affirmed in the Constitution, and support all manner of restrictions against that right in spite of a clear statement in the Constitution which explicitly forbids any infringement of that right.


And all laws are ultimately based on morals. What you really mean by “Government has no place in deciding morals” is that you want government uphold your sickness, your wickedness, and your immorality, and give it higher status than any decency or morality.

Certainly, government has more legitimate authority and duty to legislate morality than it has to legislate overt immorality.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I'm sure constitutional amendments cannot contradict ones before it.

If that is so, then the Twenty-First Amendment is invalid, and alcohol is still illegal nationwide per the Eighteenth Amendment.

You are, of course, as always, complete, and totally wrong. The only legitimate way to change anything in the Constitution, including any extant Amendments, is to ratify a new amendment that explicitly does so. Any provision in the Constitution can be overridden by a later Amendment.

It is, of course, for a very good and wise reason that the Amendment process is intentionally nontrivial, and requires a great deal of public support to succeed.

 

[Carjosse]

It's certainly odd how those on the far-wrong can go to such lengths to find “rights” in the Constitution that simply are not there, and that no reason exists to suppose that the great men who wrote the Constitution would recognized as rights; yet they will so easily denigrate a right that is explicitly affirmed in the Constitution, and support all manner of restrictions against that right in spite of a clear statement in the Constitution which explicitly forbids any infringement of that right.


And all laws are ultimately based on morals. What you really mean by “Government has no place in deciding morals” is that you want government uphold your sickness, your wickedness, and your immorality, and give it higher status than any decency or morality.

Certainly, government has more legitimate authority and duty to legislate morality than it has to legislate overt immorality.

Let me give this concept of freedom context. Back in 1968 Justice Minister Pierre Trudeau proposed an omnibus bill that would most controversially make sodomy and abortion legal. During an interview when asked about the legalization of sodomy Trudeau said "there is no room for the state in the bedrooms of the nation." This set the precedent that government has no place in deciding morality. The state should not be legislating morality as it only affects you and only you, it does not affect anyone else therefore not the concern of the government.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I guess we should have a referendum on murder on then. Personal freedom cannot be voted on.

Of course it can. Every law reduces someone's freedom. We enact laws because we believe that some “freedoms”, when exercised, cause more harm than the “freedom” is worth. The “freedom” to commit a murder, for example. We generally value the right not to have one's life unjustly taken above the “right” to unjustly take a life.

 

[Carjosse]

Of course it can. Every law reduces someone's freedom. We enact laws because we believe that some “freedoms”, when exercised, cause more harm than the “freedom” is worth. The “freedom” to commit a murder, for example. We generally value the right not to have one's life unjustly taken above the “right” to unjustly take a life.

No it cannot, murder harms society while same-sex marriage aswell as other moral issues do not. If it does not harm society the government has no reason to be involved and limit that freedom.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Let me give this concept of freedom context. Back in 1968 Justice Minister Pierre Trudeau proposed an omnibus bill that would most controversially make sodomy and abortion legal. During an interview when asked about the legalization of sodomy Trudeau said "there is no room for the state in the bedrooms of the nation." This set the precedent that government has no place in deciding morality. The state should not be legislating morality as it only affects you and only you, it does not affect anyone else therefore not the concern of the government.

To piggyback your argument on the murder of innocent children only helps to highlight the depravity of your position.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

No it cannot murder harms society while same-sex marriage as well as other moral issues do not.

It takes a rather extreme form of ignorance to be blind to the tragic harm that all forms of sexual immorality cause to individuals and to society.

 

[Carjosse]

It takes a rather extreme form of ignorance to be blind to the tragic harm that all forms of sexual immorality cause to individuals and to society.

No seriously what harm does some-sex marriage cause society? Same-sex marriage is legal here and has been for almost a decade and we are yet to see nay negative consequences.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It's certainly odd how those on the far-wrong can go to such lengths to find “rights” in the Constitution that simply are not there, and that no reason exists to suppose that the great men who wrote the Constitution would recognized as rights; yet they will so easily denigrate a right that is explicitly affirmed in the Constitution, and support all manner of restrictions against that right in spite of a clear statement in the Constitution which explicitly forbids any infringement of that right.


And all laws are ultimately based on morals. What you really mean by “Government has no place in deciding morals” is that you want government uphold your sickness, your wickedness, and your immorality, and give it higher status than any decency or morality.

Certainly, government has more legitimate authority and duty to legislate morality than it has to legislate overt immorality.

I beg to differ with that bold assertion What right does the government have to:

1) prohibit beer sales on Sunday or after 2AM?

2) dictate the correct serving size of soda pop?

3) define payment for consensual sex between two adults as a crime?

4) say that one may have four 15-round magazines, yet not one 30-round magazine?

5) force income redistribution?

6) allow topless males but not topless females?