- Joined
- Mar 30, 2013
- Messages
- 31,009
- Reaction score
- 9,029
- Location
- The Lone Star State.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I don't understand why religious people are not on board with civil unions for everyone and call it what one wants according to whatever authority one respects.
What's the problem with that?
Turkey.
What did I win?
Constitutional monarchy...also secularMorocco.
Evil and sin, unopposed, manifests itself in every crevice of society...like it or not. It negatively affects everything.
That would your opinion, man.Homosexuality and SSM are neither evil nor sinful.
That would your opinion, man.
For more believe they are exactly that.
Actually less and less people are believing as you do.
regardless belief is not a reason to deny people rights. THAT is evil and sinful.
Here's a stone you'd better watch out for.
I know of no Christians who have stoned anyone to death........Now your radical Muslim friends is another matter.
I'm under no obligation to allow rights to sinful actions. That's exactly what I'm referring to.
Evil and sin, unopposed, manifests itself in every crevice of society...like it or not. It negatively affects everything.
I've done that several times. Your assertion that it isn't constitutionally-sound is just that, an assertion. I don't think you've even read their decisions, because I've never seen you post a single quote from any decision and provide any rebuttal whatsoever.I keep hearing this assertion that there is some constitutional right to same-sex marriage. But that's all it is, an assertion. The people who keep making it can never make a coherent, constitutionally-based argument. They aren't alone, though--the federal judges who have signed onto the homosexual agenda can't make that argument either.
The American people are on the side of same-sex marriage. Public opinion on that subject has shifted rapidly and continues to do so. As for your "judicial fiat" nonsense, that's just what people say when they disagree with a judge's decision but can't actually articulate any legal reason that the judge's decision is wrong.The decisions of these courts are nothing but judicial fiat. They unconstitutionally trample on the rights of large majorities to make their own laws and do not deserve respect. The recent one out of Virginia that declares same-sex marriage a fundamental right is an especially outrageous new departure. The Supreme Court has been very careful to avoid suggesting anything so ludicrous. But a Court that can concoct a "fundamental right" to abortion out of thin air is capable of anything--if it thinks the American people will sit still for it.
The Supreme Court is not the sole arbiter of what the Constitution means, even though it arrogated that authority to itself in Cooper v. Aaron in 1958. It is the people who have the final say, and they have several means available to frustrate or nullify unreasonable interpretations of the Constitution by the Supreme Court. Here are some of them:
A President may simply decline to enforce a decision, as Lincoln did with Dred Scott. Or, Congress may pass laws that frustrate the decision, and dare the Court to strike them down. Congress also has power to remove the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts over cases involving a certain issue, making it practically impossible to bring a claim that a state law violates the Supreme Court's holding on that issue. Impeaching a justice may be the most extreme remedy. It's only been done once, long ago--but it may be time to look into it again.
I'm good with this. In the end, it doesn't matter what it is called, as long as legally all couples obtaining this legal status have the exact same rights and responsibilities. It'll most likely still be called marriage by society as a whole and even by government workers. But the legal aspect is far more important than the label.
I didn't state that. The legality has nothing to do with your perception of sin. Whether God or Jesus approves isn't relevant to what our legislation should be is what I stated. If your perception of sin is what we use to make laws then we are violating the 1st amendment. Your point is also flawed in that it assumes the sinful act doesn't happen be cause it's illegal for same sex people to "marry" from a government standpoint.It addresses the argument that while Paul condemned gay sex relations (Romans 1:26-27) that Jesus did not. So my point was that Jesus (God) did address it.
The problem is there are divine consequences: God's judgment on men and nations. So we can't just say that because it's legal, then we don't have to worry about anything else.
Diversion from the facts of history.
Diversion from the facts of history and an attempt to minimize the intolerance solidarity you share with Muslims.
All people do when they rally against SSM is deny people the same benefits that others receive in the same situation. Usually because they don't want SSM to be considered legit.
Exactly. And we don't want the wrath of God coming down on our country because of SSM and other debauchery.
Exactly. And we don't want the wrath of God coming down on our country because of SSM and other debauchery.
To Hell with your government..It's not the end all you would love for it to be.No you have no power to grant or deny rights, that power rests with the govt.
However your feelings on the matter are NOT a reason to deny rights to others. That is EVil.
Wrong.... sin affects us all negatively.[as I've said 100 times]The evil which is the stupidity off religion manifests it's self in all aspects of society. Repression of different people who do no harm to anybody else is just one of it's evil ways.
Constitutional monarchy...also secular
But as I mentioned in the previous post, you aren't preventing it. You are only denying others benefits that opposite sex couples receive. So how does your argument stand?
Is God going to punish you because two dudes sign a legal contract that happens to use the word marriage? Is He going to punish me?
To Hell with your government..It's not the end all you would love for it to be.
It's wrong more often than it's right.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?