Churches changing bylaws after gay marriage ruling

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://news.yahoo.com/churches-changing-bylaws-gay-marriage-ruling-153638830.html TRAVIS LOLLER <abbr>5 hours ago</abbr> Society & Culture (http://news.yahoo.com/society-and-culture/)Religion & Beliefs (http://news.yahoo.com/religion-and-beliefs/)Same-sex marriage (http://www.yahoo.com/topic/same-sex-marriage/) NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Worried they could be sued by gay couples, some churches are changing their bylaws to reflect their view that the Bible allows only marriage between one man and one woman.Although there have been lawsuits against wedding industry businesses that refuse to serve gay couples, attorneys promoting the bylaw changes say they don't know of any lawsuits against churches.
Critics say the changes are unnecessary, but some churches fear that it's only a matter of time before one of them is sued.
"I thought marriage was always between one man and one woman, but the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision said no," said Gregory S. Erwin, an attorney for the Louisiana Baptist Convention, an association of Southern Baptist churches and one several groups advising churches to change their bylaws. "I think it's better to be prepared because the law is changing. America is changing."
In a June decision, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act that defined marriage as between a man and a woman for purposes of federal law. A second decision was more technical but essentially ushered in legal gay marriage in California.
Kevin Snider is an attorney with the Pacific Justice Institute, a nonprofit legal defense group that specializes in conservative Christian issues. His organization released a model marriage policy a few years ago in response to a statewide gay marriage fight in California. Snider said some religious leaders have been threatened with lawsuits for declining to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies.
Dean Inserra, head pastor of the 1,000-member City Church Tallahassee, based in Florida, said he does not want to be alarmist, but his church is looking into how best to address the issue. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------This is one of the goals they wanted to accomplish... A sad day for Freedom of Religion. And watch this exception be completely tolerated while no other is! That is the fact that the Islamists will continue their condemnation of gays exactly the same as always! Thus yet again showing they always have special citizenship and special rights not to have to abide by our laws.....-Tyr

[logroller]

I don't see how changing their bylaws prevents a lawsuit. It would seem to me that if they could be sued successfully (which I highly doubt, by the way), the bylaws wouldn't prevent that. :dunno:

[tailfins]

Treating gays with respect is one thing, violating sound doctrine is another. These churches are doing exactly the right thing. The bylaws specifically puts that in writing as that independent church's beliefs.

[fj1200]

This is one of the goals they wanted to accomplish... A sad day for Freedom of Religion. And watch this exception be completely tolerated while no other is! That is the fact that the Islamists will continue their condemnation of gays exactly the same as always! Thus yet again showing they always have special citizenship and special rights not to have to abide by our laws.....-Tyr

Yes, of course, the Islamists... :rolleyes:


I don't see how changing their bylaws prevents a lawsuit. It would seem to me that if they could be sued successfully (which I highly doubt, by the way), the bylaws wouldn't prevent that. :dunno:

Belt and suspenders.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Yes, of course, the Islamists... :rolleyes:



. Yes, of course , truth and reality. You apparently haven't a clue how much Influence the Islamists have in our government. I don't know if that ignorance is willful or not but either way it is sad. Here, let me offer up a prayer for you. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------God, please smite fj upside the head to open his eyes and remove that ignorance and false sense of superiority. Amen.....;)--Tyr

[fj1200]

Yes, of course , truth and reality. You apparently haven't a clue how much Influence the Islamists have in our government. I don't know if that ignorance is willful or not but either way it is sad. Here, let me offer up a prayer for you. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------God, please smite fj upside the head to open his eyes and remove that ignorance and false sense of superiority. Amen.....;)--Tyr

I guess when you bring up the Islamists in every thread you're bound to be right eventually I suppose. :rolleyes:

My wish for you is that could have lived in a time of actual persecution.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I guess when you bring up the Islamists in every thread you're bound to be right eventually I suppose. :rolleyes:

My wish for you is that could have lived in a time of actual persecution. Don't worry dude you'll get your wish If I can live another 10 to 15 years and likely even sooner than that if Obama and his muslim brothers have their way.

[fj1200]

Don't worry dude you'll get your wish If I can live another 10 to 15 years and likely even sooner than that if Obama and his muslim brothers have their way.

Yeah, I'm sure that's right. :rolleyes:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Yeah, I'm sure that's right. :rolleyes: 9/11 was over a decade ago. Did you miss that persecution or did you think it not a religious attack against Western civilization and Christian/Jews? You are aware of who did it and why aren't you? Just asking, ;)-Tyr

[fj1200]

9/11 was over a decade ago. Did you miss that persecution or did you think it not a religious attack against Western civilization and Christian/Jews? You are aware of who did it and why aren't you? Just asking, ;)-Tyr

9/11 was persecution? I don't seem to recall GWB's War on Persecution speeches. Just sayin'. :poke:

[logroller]

9/11 was over a decade ago. Did you miss that persecution or did you think it not a religious attack against Western civilization and Christian/Jews? You are aware of who did it and why aren't you? Just asking, ;)-Tyr
Islamic extremists.....to promote gay marriage. ;)

[revelarts]

nooo, Homosexual advocates would neeever sue on any kinda of Crazy basis right? the courts wouldn't even consider it right?
..right?

here's another case of a Preacher being Sued..

...Mihet (an LGTXYZ advocate )told WND earlier that he has argued all along the lawsuit was prevented by the First Amendment, which puts the U.S. Constitution higher than international law.

The case against Lively (..a Peacher that repeats what the Bible says about Homosexuality) claims that by speaking in opposition to homosexuality, he was conspiring to deprive the plaintiffs of their fundamental rights.

Mihet explained that SMUG (an LGTXYZ advocate group )would allow people to express an opinion against homosexuality, but they would not be allowed to take any action.

Under that precedent, he said, someone petitioning in opposition to special designations for homosexuals would become an international human rights criminal. Likewise, those who worked to support Proposition 8 in California, the state’s constitutional definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, would be subject to conviction, he said.

It also would target those who are working to defeat the ENDA plan in Congress, which imposes certain special protections for homosexuals in the workplace.
“All of those become criminals overnight under this theory of liability,” Mihat said.

Lively’s attorneys have explained that SMUG’s attack goes directly to the supremacy and portability of the U.S. Constitution.
“SMUG asks this United States court to punish one of its citizens, Mr. Lively, for ‘crimes against humanity’ under an international treaty that The United States has expressly rejected,” a court filing opposing SMUG’s case explained.
“Moreover, what SMUG cavalierly and conclusorily labels as ‘crimes against humanity’ – the most heinous of crimes – is actually nothing more than civil, non-violent political discourse in the public square on a subject of great public concern, which occupies the highest run of First Amendment protection,” the brief said.

The action was prompted by Lively “sharing his biblical views on homosexuality during a 2009 visit to Uganda.”...



http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/judge-foreigners-can-sue-u-s-pastor-over-sermons/




ool-to-consider-revoking-lease/#hi3lDKEEbCPklUyb.99 (http://godfatherpolitics.com/6412/pastors-sermon-defending-chick-fil-a-causes-school-to-consider-revoking-lease/#hi3lDKEEbCPklUyb.99)
Pastor’s Sermon Defending Chick-fil-A Causes School to Consider Revoking Lease Pastor Jack Hakimian is the pastor of Impact Miami Church, in Miami, Florida. Formed just over two years ago, they do not have a church building. In the interim, they have been leasing the use of the auditorium at North Miami High School. According to the church’s website, “Both Jack and Jhael Hakimian sensed God’s call in 2008 to move to Miami from Los Angeles in order to do church planting, develop leaders and do life empowering holistic ministry. They have a passion for urban culture, ethnic diversity and a collaborative organic approach for the transformation of Miami. They believe God wants to bring deep spiritual and social change, so He is raising up a great diversified army of soldiers to engage the lost Harvest of Miami.” Please note that Pastor Jack is all about cultural and ethnic diversity. He spends a great deal of time reaching out to the urban inner city population, praying he can make a difference in the lives of some of these people. But his heart belongs to God and he does his best to remain true to God’s Word in today’s secular world. After all of the negative publicity generated by Dan Cathy of Chick-fil-A and his stand for biblical marriage, Pastor Jack preached a sermon entitled Bible Says Gays and Sex Addicts Can Change and Should Change about how the Bible teaches against homosexuality.
...

Shortly after his sermon defending what God says about marriage and that homosexuality is a sin, Miami-Dade County school superintendent Alberto Carvalho announced that the school board was reviewing the church’s lease to use the high school building for their services. Carvalho stated that the sermon “appear to be contrary to school board policy, as well as the basic principles of humanity." The school board has yet to take any action against the church and their lease of school facilities, but Mat Staver of the Liberty Counsel has cautioned them about doing so. Staver said, "It's absolutely unthinkable that a government official believes that he has the opportunity and the authority to restrict someone's speech in a church service on Sunday. The school board is a landlord in this case -- and consequently, they can't go into the privacy of the home or the privacy of the church service on Sunday." "This is clearly a free-speech issue. I think it also illustrates what we've been saying for years -- that this homosexual agenda is intolerant, and they ultimately want to stop what you preach in church." This is another clear example that no one is permitted any more to defend the Bible and what it says about the sins our society is facing. They can bash the Bible, God and Jesus Christ all they want, but let one person like Dan Cathy or Pastor Jack Hakamian stand up to defend God’s Word and you would think they had committed a capital offense. Then again, the way our government is turning from God, it soon may be a capital offense to defend Scripture and faith in Jesus Christ. And if it comes to that during my lifetime, I will proudly and boldly stand up and profess Jesus as Lord and Savior and the Bible is the only source of absolute truth!
Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/6412/pastors-sermon-defending-chick-fil-a-causes-school-to-consider-revoking-lease/#hi3lDKEEbCPklUyb.99






so this is what happenend next



August 3, 2012 http://cdn.citizenlink.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-print/images/printer_famfamfam.gif Print (http://www.citizenlink.com/2012/08/03/miami-church-remains-on-public-school-campus/print/) Miami Church Remains on Public School Campus
by Bethany Monk

A Miami school superintendent rescinded his threat this week to end a church’s lease at a public school shortly after a legal group told him his actions would violate the Constitution.
In late July, Miami-Dade County School Superintendent Alberto M. Carvalho said he would review the Impact Miami Church’s lease after Pastor Jack Hakimian delivered a sermon discussing what the Bible says about homosexuality. Carvalho said the statements violated the district’s bullying and nondiscrimination policy.

In a July 24 letter to Carvalho, Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said Hakimian had not violated any law or policy.
“The District cannot discriminate against anyone on the basis of viewpoint,” Staver wrote. “We will be prepared to take whatever legal action is necessary to protect these rights.”
Six days later, Carvalho wrote a memo to the school board stating that after a full legal review, the school district was no longer seeking to terminate the church’s contract.
“The school district acknowledges the constitutional right of all persons to express themselves freely,” Carvalho said....

http://www.citizenlink.com/2012/08/03/miami-church-remains-on-public-school-campus/



Great OK victory right?
but what if the policy changes, could it exclude "hate speech" legally?
the Bible is full of "hate speech" according to some people.

Some people view doing or saying ANYTHING against the very idea of honosexual activity as a crime against HUMANITY itself.
how can this not eventually come to more litigation.

[revelarts]

Judge Rules Against Photographers

by Bethany Monk
The New Mexico Supreme Court said today a couple must compromise their religious beliefs and photograph same-sex ceremonies.
Elaine Huguenin runs Elane Photography in Albuquerque with her husband, Jonathan. In 2006, she declined Vanessa Willock’s request to photograph a “commitment ceremony.” New Mexico has not created same-sex marriages or same-sex civil unions.
“This decision is a blow to our client and every American’s right to live free,” said Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence. “Decisions like this undermine the constitutionally protected freedoms of expression and conscience that we have all taken for granted.”
Even though Willock found another photographer, she filed a complaint with the state Human Rights Commission. In 2008, the commission ordered Huguenin to pay $6,637.94 to Willock saying she violated the state’s “sexual orientation” discrimination law.

ADF appealed the commission’s decision. In 2012, the state Supreme Court agreed to review the case.
Justice Richard C. Bosson released a document accompanying the decision in which he at first appears to support the photographer’s freedom — but then it turns out, he does not.
“The Huguenins … now are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives,” he writes. “Though the rule of the law requires it, the result is sobering. It will no doubt leave a tangible mark on the Huguenins and others of similar views.

“On a larger scale,” he continues, “this case provokes reflection on what this nation is all about, its promise of fairness, liberty, equality of opportunity, and justice.”

Lorence disagrees.
“Government-coerced expression is a feature of dictatorships that has no place in a free country,” he explains. “America was founded on the fundamental freedom of every citizen to live and work according to their beliefs and not to be compelled by the government to express ideas and messages they decline to support.

“We are considering our next steps, including asking the U.S. Supreme Court to right this wrong.”
http://www.citizenlink.com/2013/08/22/judge-rules-against-photographers/



so Pastors and Churches will be exempt from this Anti-Christian, tolerant, "we only want to force you to promote and celebrate our sins or else" type of lawsuit?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

9/11 was persecution? I don't seem to recall GWB's War on Persecution speeches. Just sayin'. :poke: Well, I never said THAT Georgie wasn't a bit slow on the uptake did I? :laugh:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Islamic extremists.....to promote gay marriage. ;) And bikinis and more porn too. ;)

[fj1200]

And bikinis and more porn too. ;)

That greased scabbard is about to come in handy. :poke:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

That greased scabbard is about to come in handy. :poke: Ahhh, my blade is razor sharp, my scabbard well greased AND MY SPIRIT IS AS FIT AS A FIDDLE.. ;)--TYR

[indago]

From The Associated Press 14 January 2016:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anglican leaders on Thursday temporarily restricted the role of the U.S. Episcopal Church in their global fellowship as a sanction over the American church's acceptance of gay marriage. Episcopalians have been barred for three years from any policy-setting positions in the Anglican Communion while a task force is formed that will try to reconcile conflicting views over sexuality in the 85-million-member family of churches.


...Episcopal Presiding Bishop Michael Curry, who attended the meeting, told the other leaders their vote "will bring real pain" to gays and lesbians and to Episcopalians "committed to following Jesus in the way of love and being a church that lives that love."
----------------------------------------------------------------


article (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_REL_ANGLICANS_EPISCOPAL_CHURCH?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-01-14-18-52-16)

[Gunny]

From The Associated Press 14 January 2016:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anglican leaders on Thursday temporarily restricted the role of the U.S. Episcopal Church in their global fellowship as a sanction over the American church's acceptance of gay marriage. Episcopalians have been barred for three years from any policy-setting positions in the Anglican Communion while a task force is formed that will try to reconcile conflicting views over sexuality in the 85-million-member family of churches.


...Episcopal Presiding Bishop Michael Curry, who attended the meeting, told the other leaders their vote "will bring real pain" to gays and lesbians and to Episcopalians "committed to following Jesus in the way of love and being a church that lives that love."
----------------------------------------------------------------


article (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_REL_ANGLICANS_EPISCOPAL_CHURCH?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-01-14-18-52-16)

The Bible doesn't change just because Man changes his morals.

[fj1200]

The Bible doesn't change just because Man changes his morals.

It shouldn't. But our interpretation changes on occasion; slavery, discrimination, women in leadership...

[Gunny]

It shouldn't. But our interpretation changes on occasion; slavery, discrimination, women in leadership...

I son't think so. The basic Judeo-Christian morals remain the same. Societies' rules change as they slide downhill.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I son't think so. The basic Judeo-Christian morals remain the same. Societies' rules change as they slide downhill.

When Christian churches change by-laws that are truly already biblically based , void biblical principles to meet current trends,cultural demands they just became a "non-entity" in the Christian faith IMHO.
ANY CHURCH THAT ACCEPTS AND PROMOTES PRACTICING GAYS IS NOT A CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
THATS NO DIFFERENT THAN ACCEPTING CHILD MOLESTERS INTO THE FOLD .
ITS INVITING IN THE FORBIDDEN AND THUS DECLARING BIBLICAL PRINCIPLE AND COMMANDS SUBSERVIENT
TO MAN'S NEW MORALITY, DECREES AND CURRENT STUPIDITY. --Tyr

[Drummond]

When Christian churches change by-laws that are truly already biblically based , void biblical principles to meet current trends,cultural demands they just became a "non-entity" in the Christian faith IMHO.
ANY CHURCH THAT ACCEPTS AND PROMOTES PRACTICING GAYS IS NOT A CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
THATS NO DIFFERENT THAN ACCEPTING CHILD MOLESTERS INTO THE FOLD .
ITS INVITING IN THE FORBIDDEN AND THUS DECLARING BIBLICAL PRINCIPLE AND COMMANDS SUBSERVIENT
TO MAN'S NEW MORALITY, DECREES AND CURRENT STUPIDITY. --Tyr

Christian churches are far too willing to bend to social pressures .. some Leftie-led, some from other sources .. such as, of all things, Islam !

I'm reminded of the former Archbishop of Canterbury, here, who wanted us to accept a limited introduction of Sharia Law !!

Christian churches appear to have lost their spine.

[fj1200]

I son't think so. The basic Judeo-Christian morals remain the same. Societies' rules change as they slide downhill.

That depends on the basis of those Judeo-Christian morals and if they are truly biblically based. Has the bible ever been misinterpreted or reinterpreted?


ANY CHURCH THAT ACCEPTS AND PROMOTES PRACTICING GAYS IS NOT A CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

Tis an opinion. And a wrong one IMHO.

[Gunny]

That depends on the basis of those Judeo-Christian morals and if they are truly biblically based. Has the bible ever been misinterpreted or reinterpreted?



Tis an opinion. And a wrong one IMHO.

No, it depends on the 1st Amendment and the government encroaching on the churches' Right to believe as they wish. Whether or not the Bible has been misinterpreted is irrelevant. There's no misinterpreting Leviticus, anyway. It's pretty straight-forward.

[fj1200]

No, it depends on the 1st Amendment and the government encroaching on the churches' Right to believe as they wish. Whether or not the Bible has been misinterpreted is irrelevant. There's no misinterpreting Leviticus, anyway. It's pretty straight-forward.

Those are different issues. In this thread churches are making voluntary decisions. But I believe the answer is yes, the bible has been misinterpreted/reinterpreted in the past. If our translation in the past has been wrong then it's possible our translation in the current could be wrong.

Leviticus? I hope you don't eat pork. :poke:

[Gunny]

Those are different issues. In this thread churches are making voluntary decisions. But I believe the answer is yes, the bible has been misinterpreted/reinterpreted in the past. If our translation in the past has been wrong then it's possible our translation in the current could be wrong.

Leviticus? I hope you don't eat pork. :poke:

Rarely. Ribs are about all the pork I ever eat.

The churches changing by-laws for fear of being sued makes the issue one and the same. The churches should not fear repercussion from the law for refusing to change their values based on politically correct laws.

[fj1200]

Rarely. Ribs are about all the pork I ever eat.

The churches changing by-laws for fear of being sued makes the issue one and the same. The churches should not fear repercussion from the law for refusing to change their values based on politically correct laws.

Granted, though I think unnecessary. But I agree that they shouldn't.

[Drummond]

Tis an opinion. And a wrong one IMHO.:bs1::bs1::bs1:

Aren't you taking EVEN your Leftieism too far here, FJ ?

To remind you of what you were answering - Tyr posted ...


ANY CHURCH THAT ACCEPTS AND PROMOTES PRACTICING GAYS IS NOT A CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

You're saying that Tyr is WRONG to hold an 'opinion' that a church accepting and promoting gays isn't Christian ????

So, a Christian church should consider itself free, and it to be appropriate, to 'promote practicing gays' ??

Is THIS how you hope to evade the 'Leftie' charge, FJ, by trying to pretend you're insane ?? I cannot conceive of any Christian church, one that IS Christian, ever reconciling that with the Christian Bible's teachings !!

Good grief. Whatever next ??!?:eek: :cuckoo:

[fj1200]

You're saying that Tyr is WRONG to hold an 'opinion' that a church accepting and promoting gays isn't Christian ????

So, a Christian church should consider itself free, and it to be appropriate, to 'promote practicing gays' ??

... I cannot conceive of any Christian church, one that IS Christian, ever reconciling that with the Christian Bible's teachings !!

When you do stupid you take it to a whole new level. He gave an opinion, I gave an opinion yet I'm a leftie because I gave an opinion and he's not leftie because he gave an opinion. Do you realize what a hypocrite you are? I suspect yes because you two usually run from threads when I point out your hypocrisy. :)

Moving on... I believe he is wrong but that any Christian church should be free to hold a position on gays no matter what it is as long as the State is not engaging in coercion. I'm guessing that neither of you have looked closely at what the bible says about the matter, including original texts, especially as it regards to alternate opinions. FWIW I've met gay Christians who are more Christ-like than some others who claim the mantle of Christianity.

To the point though, we can both agree that the bible has been misinterpreted or reinterpreted in the past yes? If so then it's not out of the realm of possibility that people have misinterpreted this particular issue.

But feel free to ignore any of that and rant about lefties like the idiot you are. That's the only thing you're really capable of isn't it? Ignorant ranting.

[Gunny]

Granted, though I think unnecessary. But I agree that they shouldn't.

Because despite evidence to the contrary, the gay agenda is NOT going to stop. They've forced themselves on our society as "normal", and I said 10 years ago next stop would be the church. I stand corrected though. Apparently they want small business owners as well.

Those blinders aren't going to change the downhill charge on this slippery slope.

[fj1200]

Because despite evidence to the contrary, the gay agenda is NOT going to stop. They've forced themselves on our society as "normal", and I said 10 years ago next stop would be the church. I stand corrected though. Apparently they want small business owners as well.

Those blinders aren't going to change the downhill charge on this slippery slope.

I don't think they forced themselves on society; society changed where they don't care about, aren't scared of, and/or are accepting of gay people. Some churches will accommodate and some will not but I don't see the State forcing anything on churches. NDA laws are another story and need to be challenged which is happening in the OR case IIRC.

[Gunny]

I don't think they forced themselves on society; society changed where they don't care about, aren't scared of, and/or are accepting of gay people. Some churches will accommodate and some will not but I don't see the State forcing anything on churches. NDA laws are another story and need to be challenged which is happening in the OR case IIRC.

Disagree. These minority agendas get all the media coverage, and the majority gets a relentless barrage until they just get tired of making the same logical arguments to illogical people. What they get is tired of bothering to argue. It is NOT that they don't care.

[indago]

I don't think they forced themselves on society...

I think they did! Consider the cakemaker: he didn't want to make a couple of fags a cake. Look what happened to him!

[Russ]

so Pastors and Churches will be exempt from this Anti-Christian, tolerant, "we only want to force you to promote and celebrate our sins or else" type of lawsuit?

This is something that really bothers me. Gay people claiming to be "victims" while viciously and hypocritically victimizing Christian cake bakers, florists, and photographers through our misguided court system. In this case, Christian photographers declined to participate in a same-sex 'marriage' because it was against their faith - which should be their right. The same-sex wedding people suffered no damages, because they were able to find another photographer, so there are should have been no basis for a lawsuit. And in fact there are never any damages, because it is always possible to find another photographer, or baker, or florist. There are plenty of them out there that are willing to work at same-sex marriages.

People like this Vanessa Willock, who sue Christians just because they can, are a disgrace. They take hypocrisy to a new level, and they don't deserve that walking-on-eggshells treatment they seem to be getting in this country.

By the way, I notice that people like Vanessa Willock never seem to sue Islamic bakers or florists or photographers (however many of those are around). What a coincidence. I'm not sure if its because they sense the courts would go easier on Islamic vendors, or just because they realize they might win in court but still end up with some part of their body chopped off by someone.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I don't think they forced themselves on society; society changed where they don't care about, aren't scared of, and/or are accepting of gay people. Some churches will accommodate and some will not but I don't see the State forcing anything on churches. NDA laws are another story and need to be challenged which is happening in the OR case IIRC.

Key words my friend, very key words methinks...:laugh:-Tyr

[indago]

I think they did! Consider the cakemaker: he didn't want to make a couple of fags a cake. Look what happened to him!

And that ain't all...

A couple of lesbians wanted to get married. So far, so good: they have a right to get married. BUT: they want to get married — now don't start laughing — TO EACH OTHER! They went to the court system and forced their perversion upon society.

[fj1200]

Disagree. These minority agendas get all the media coverage, and the majority gets a relentless barrage until they just get tired of making the same logical arguments to illogical people. What they get is tired of bothering to argue. It is NOT that they don't care.

Well, when laws are passed that are contrary to the Constitution then the court provides redress. Gays didn't really force anything that society didn't decide to allow.


I think they did! Consider the cakemaker: he didn't want to make a couple of fags a cake. Look what happened to him!

That wasn't the argument I was making but reality is Oregon decided to pass NDA laws allowing such suits to take place. They should be appealed.


Key words my friend, very key words methinks...:laugh:-Tyr

Wow, you're really bringing the heat with arguments like that. Impressive.


BUT: they want to get married — now don't start laughing — TO EACH OTHER!

:eek: Shocking that they want to decide who to marry rather than the State.

[aboutime]

Our nation has fallen to the lowest of low levels of ignorance, perpetuated by the endless Propaganda machine we all know to be POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.

Remedy. Everyone should just MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS.

[fj1200]

http://static4.quoteswave.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/I-dont-support-gay-marriage.png

[fj1200]

http://static2.quoteswave.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/If-a-person-is-gay-and.png

[fj1200]

http://americablog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/loving-v-virginia-poll-1967.jpg

[fj1200]

http://www.people-press.org/files/2013/03/3-20-13-1.png

[fj1200]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ddLMs6--YYw/TGVib86493I/AAAAAAAADu4/tVG3Fm28VZw/s400/8-13+Ted+Olson.jpg

[fj1200]

http://stmedia.stimg.co/6faces0416.jpg?h=630&w=1200&fit=crop&bg=999&crop=top



What do Clint Eastwood (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-clint-eastwood-talks-gay-marriage-and-his-rnc-speech-on-ellen-20120919,0,4197039.story), Dick Cheney (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/video-of-the-day-dick-cheney-endorsing-gay-marriage-in-2009/256961/), Ted Olson (http://www.npr.org/2010/12/06/131792296/ted-olson-gay-marriage-s-unlikely-legal-warrior), and John Bolton have in common? All are strong, lifelong conservatives. Each has fought on behalf of smaller government. And all support the freedom of same-sex couples to marry.
http://www.startribune.com/the-conservative-case-for-same-sex-marriage/173960281/

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://americablog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/loving-v-virginia-poll-1967.jpg

Blacks marrying whites is a race issue which you now seek to use to help support your your stand on moral/sexual perversion issue of gays marrying.
Anything to win , right??? Just like a damn lib that you cry you are not.. Tyr

[fj1200]

Blacks marrying whites is a race issue which you now seek to use to help support your your stand on moral/sexual perversion issue of gays marrying.
Anything to win , right??? Just like a damn lib that you cry you are not.. Tyr

Why are you ignoring all the truth and fact I've just laid down? Those libs like Cheney, Olson, Eastwood, Bolton, Cameron just show you to be ignorant to any alternate viewpoint. Besides, the Loving case was about State restrictions on marriage just like the recent decision and both were decided on Equal Protection. :)

I wonder how many churches used religious reasoning to oppose interracial marriage???


Forde-Mazrui based his talk on a book review he wrote of Randall Kennedy’s "Interracial Intimacies," about the historic opposition to interracial relationships in America and racial identity issues that resulted.As he read the book, Forde-Mazrui said, he repeatedly saw that opponents’ arguments against interracial relationships mirrored those of gay rights opponents. Like the arguments against gay marriage, “Much of the opposition to interracial relationships was grounded in religious beliefs.”
In Loving, Virginia’s Supreme Court justified a ban on interracial marriages by citing religious beliefs. Others argued against it on the grounds that it violated natural order and would lead to unhealthy children — perhaps mentally retarded or a mongrel breed.
http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2004_fall/forde.htm

And FWIW, if that's all you've got... I've already won. ;)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Why are you ignoring all the truth and fact I've just laid down? Those libs like Cheney, Olson, Eastwood, Bolton, Cameron just show you to be ignorant to any alternate viewpoint. Besides, the Loving case was about State restrictions on marriage just like the recent decision and both were decided on Equal Protection. :)

I wonder how many churches used religious reasoning to oppose interracial marriage???


http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2004_fall/forde.htm

And FWIW, if that's all you've got... I've already won. ;)


Why are you ignoring all the truth and fact I've just laid down? Those libs like Cheney, Olson, Eastwood, Bolton, Cameron just show you to be ignorant to any alternate viewpoint. Besides, the Loving case was about State restrictions on marriage just like the recent decision and both were decided on Equal Protection.


Those libs like Cheney, Olson, Eastwood, Bolton, Cameron just show you to be ignorant to any alternate viewpoint.
^^^^ Assholes bowing to political correctness proves exactly what in your little world?
I'd spit on everyone you just named.
Next time try to name respectable people when trying to impress by naming names...
instead of people famous just for being famous. :laugh:
Which one of those fools/cowards do you laud as somebody to respect in moral matters??

A habit you have, like most libs--claiming a victory you have not and will not ever earn. -Tyr

[Perianne]

Forde-Mazrui based his talk on a book review he wrote of Randall Kennedy’s "Interracial Intimacies," about the historic opposition to interracial relationships in America and racial identity issues that resulted.As he read the book, Forde-Mazrui said, he repeatedly saw that opponents’ arguments against interracial relationships mirrored those of gay rights opponents. Like the arguments against gay marriage, “Much of the opposition to interracial relationships was grounded in religious beliefs.”
In Loving, Virginia’s Supreme Court justified a ban on interracial marriages by citing religious beliefs. Others argued against it on the grounds that it violated natural order and would lead to
unhealthy children — perhaps mentally retarded or a mongrel breed.



I think we've seen that come to pass. :)

[indago]

http://www.people-press.org/files/2013/03/3-20-13-1.png

If "society" is so "accepting", why did they go to court?

[fj1200]

^^^^ Assholes bowing to political correctness proves exactly what in your little world?
I'd spit on everyone you just named.
Next time try to name respectable people when trying to impress by naming names...
instead of people famous just for being famous. :laugh:
Which one of those fools/cowards do you laud as somebody to respect in moral matters??

A habit you have, like most libs--claiming a victory you have not and will not ever earn. -Tyr

:laugh: Cheney and Bolton among the others are "bowing to political correctness" and not "respectable," "fools/cowards." :laugh: You are delusional. Besides, I can only surmise that I've won because you've given up the debate. :)


I think we've seen that come to pass. :)

Your racism is showing again.


If "society" is so "accepting", why did they go to court?

Laws were less than accepting.

[revelarts]

http://static2.quoteswave.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/If-a-person-is-gay-and.png

FJ let try an experiment.
I'll use an approach to this quote similar to what you and others have used when quoting the Bible on this issue (and others).
and lets see how it sounds to you.

---Well, you see FJ scholars know that "gay" in modern english has many meanings. Here it simply means happy, so DOESN'T REALLY apply to homosexual here OR ANYWHERE ELSE EVER when the Pope uses that term. "Judge" also doesn't mean "judge" in the sense you and tradition seem to mean. Also noticed he used the word "him" for the Happy person. So all this obviously gives us the proper context we want to see. That is, what he's really saying is that a male that is already happy with his life, but may want to seek God... in good will is free to do so and that Pope Francis doesn't care if he's Catholic or not.

this is the real meaning that you and traditional reviews of that quote have missed all this time FJ.
I'm not sure why you keep pushing that old prejudiced bigoted sincere but fatally faulty "interpretation" of the Pope's loving and wise words.---

hmmm?

[fj1200]

FJ let try an experiment.

But there's no real dispute over the definition of the words in his quote that there legitimately is in texts that are two millennia, and more, old. Not to mention what we know, and don't know, about some of those languages and the difficulty in translation. Take the Sodom and Gomorrah story, many use it as an argument against gays but even many conservative scholars reject that and agree that the sin was instead one of a lack of hospitality. We of course have had this discussion before and will again I'm sure but we can both agree that the bible has been interpreted incorrectly and/or maliciously in the past.

I'll be happy to have a conversation about our long dead language in 2000 years though. :laugh: I suspect we'll know the truth long before that. :)

[Russ]

http://americablog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/loving-v-virginia-poll-1967.jpg


Your whole comparison of gay marriage with inter-racial marriage is the definition of straw man argument, where you define someone else's argument incorrectly, and then argue against your own incorrect interpretation. To put a finer point to this statement: your argument is full of crap.

Liberals love to bring up old issues where people used to disapprove of something that we now know is okay, [such as people being against interracial marriage or women getting to vote] and then conclude that "that's the same as my pet issue - you disapprove now, but everyone will approve later." This is either foolish or just self-serving. Not every issue that people used to disapprove of in the past will be approved of in the future. For example, my parent's generation disapproved of Nazi-ism - and my generation does too. Imagine that. I could also say something like "people used to disapprove of sending Russ cash in the mail, but they should all approve of it in the future - it's just like interracial marriage!"

By the way, notice that I underlined liberals in the last paragraph. That was to emphasize that your method of arguing is a method favored by liberals, and so your argument has convinced me that you are actually liberal, despite what your avatar says. Just sayin'.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

:laugh: Cheney and Bolton among the others are "bowing to political correctness" and not "respectable," "fools/cowards." :laugh: You are delusional. Besides, I can only surmise that I've won because you've given up the debate. :)



{ Cheney and Bolton among the others are "bowing to political correctness" and not "respectable," "fools/cowards." }
^^^^^^^^^^^^^ FINALLY YOU STATED A TRUTH. -TYR

{ Besides, I can only surmise that I've won because you've given up the debate.}

^^^ Thats a bad habit you and your lib friends all have, declaring obvious false victories!-Tyr

[indago]

Laws were less than accepting.

Then you agree that "they forced themselves on society"

[Russ]

http://static2.quoteswave.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/If-a-person-is-gay-and.png


FJ - while Pope Francis did say this, I think it is pretty clear that it is not an endorsement by him of gay marriage. He's simply saying that he will not judge, if this is a person that seeks the Lord and is of good will. In the same way, any person who sins (as we all do) but seeks the Lord, can be forgiven.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Then you agree that "they forced themselves on society"
No he will not agree, he never does , not even when caught like that by his "own words"..-Tyr

[Russ]

No he will not agree, he never does , not even when caught like that by his "own words"..-Tyr

I'm surmising we've won, because he's given up the debate. :cool:

[fj1200]

Your whole comparison of gay marriage with inter-racial marriage is the definition of straw man argument, where you define someone else's argument incorrectly, and then argue against your own incorrect interpretation. To put a finer point to this statement: your argument is full of crap.

Liberals love to bring up old issues where people used to disapprove of something that we now know is okay, [such as people being against interracial marriage or women getting to vote] and then conclude that "that's the same as my pet issue - you disapprove now, but everyone will approve later." This is either foolish or just self-serving. Not every issue that people used to disapprove of in the past will be approved of in the future. For example, my parent's generation disapproved of Nazi-ism - and my generation does too. Imagine that. I could also say something like "people used to disapprove of sending Russ cash in the mail, but they should all approve of it in the future - it's just like interracial marriage!"

By the way, notice that I underlined liberals in the last paragraph. That was to emphasize that your method of arguing is a method favored by liberals, and so your argument has convinced me that you are actually liberal, despite what your avatar says. Just sayin'.

I didn't define anyone's argument, I posted information. Someone tried to make a counter argument after I posted the graph and then I subsequently showed their argument to be a false one as there were some who made religious arguments against interracial marriage; we can both agree that those arguments were incorrect no?

I think the summary of that particular graph and its relation to the discussion is that gay marriage and interracial marriage was previously banned by legal statute, had religious arguments made against them, which were subsequently struck down by SCOTUS because it violated equal protection, and have similar graphs as it relates to public approval/disapproval. That is by definition not a strawman argument. :) BTW, how many here or in society at large almost 60 years ago do you think would have opposed interracial marriage?

Your whole proclamation of liberal arguments is kind of full of crap on its own. We can either argue the points pro and con in our respective viewpoints but to continually whine about liberal arguments is pointless and shows the weakness of your position IMO. Just sayin'.


{ Cheney and Bolton among the others are "bowing to political correctness" and not "respectable," "fools/cowards." }
^^^^^^^^^^^^^ FINALLY YOU STATED A TRUTH. -TYR

{ Besides, I can only surmise that I've won because you've given up the debate.}

^^^ Thats a bad habit you and your lib friends all have, declaring obvious false victories!-Tyr

The TRUTH was in its mockery. ;) You made a ridiculous statement and are now throwing anybody under the bus who doesn't line up with your intellectual purity. Fundamentalism came up yesterday in Sunday School (Romans 14 BTW) and someone said that the heart of fundamentalism is the slippery slope argument where eventually the fundamentalist ends up completely alone because they've condemned everyone else.


Then you agree that "they forced themselves on society"

No, they used the courts to ensure the laws are applied equally.


FJ - while Pope Francis did say this, I think it is pretty clear that it is not an endorsement by him of gay marriage. He's simply saying that he will not judge, if this is a person that seeks the Lord and is of good will. In the same way, any person who sins (as we all do) but seeks the Lord, can be forgiven.

I didn't say he was endorsing gay marriage. I only posted his quote. What were you saying about strawmen? :poke:


No he will not agree, he never does , not even when caught like that by his "own words"..-Tyr

I never agree with false arguments. :)


I'm surmising we've won, because he's given up the debate. :cool:

He's always premature in his proclamations and generally wrong. ;)

Just curious; do you put Cheney and Bolton in the "fool/coward" camp as well?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm surmising we've won, because he's given up the debate. :cool:


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Russ again. :clap:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

:clap:

You know you have won when he presents such long posts in reply as he just did.
As thats a marathon level post he just made.
Usually his is one or two liners and an some kind of smilie attached. :laugh:-Tyr

[Gunny]

Well, when laws are passed that are contrary to the Constitution then the court provides redress. Gays didn't really force anything that society didn't decide to allow..

Goes back to a statement I made elsewhere on many occasions. It isn't that it was allowed. As a matter of fact, more states had laws banning it than there were states that allowed it.

What IS contrary to the Constitution is the US Supreme Court legislating from the bench. What IS Constitutional is the 10th Amendment, and I must have missed the part where marriage is a Constitutional Right.

So, yes, the gay agenda DID force this through the courts because they couldn't get their way democratically. And no, the people didn't allow it.

[indago]

No, they used the courts to ensure the laws are applied equally.

The law in Michigan was "applied equally", but the perverts demanded the law be changed, therefore, forcing their perversity upon society.

[fj1200]

You know you have won when he presents such long posts in reply as he just did.
As thats a marathon level post he just made.
Usually his is one or two liners and an some kind of smilie attached. :laugh:-Tyr

So I've lost when I haven't posted in 12 hours and I've lost when I make a long post. :dunno:


Goes back to a statement I made elsewhere on many occasions. It isn't that it was allowed. As a matter of fact, more states had laws banning it than there were states that allowed it.

What IS contrary to the Constitution is the US Supreme Court legislating from the bench. What IS Constitutional is the 10th Amendment, and I must have missed the part where marriage is a Constitutional Right.

So, yes, the gay agenda DID force this through the courts because they couldn't get their way democratically. And no, the people didn't allow it.

1st, IIRC more states allowed it by various methods than didn't at the time of the decision though some of those were because of the courts.
2nd, marriage is not a Constitutional right. But it is also not a straight privilege as was the law of the land.
3rd, it was allowed democratically in a few states and by the representative process in some states.


The law in Michigan was "applied equally", but the perverts demanded the law be changed, therefore, forcing their perversity upon society.

SCOTUS says otherwise.

[Gunny]

So I've lost when I haven't posted in 12 hours and I've lost when I make a long post. :dunno:



1st, IIRC more states allowed it by various methods than didn't at the time of the decision though some of those were because of the courts.
2nd, marriage is not a Constitutional right. But it is also not a straight privilege as was the law of the land.
3rd, it was allowed democratically in a few states and by the representative process in some states.



SCOTUS says otherwise.

1. Incorrect.
2. Marriage is a covenant between a Man, a Woman and God.
3. Thanks for making my point. If the people of state think it's okay and vote to support it, fine. It's a 10th Amendment issue. The states should then set a process by which gay can get married without forcing themselves and their lifestyle on everyone else. Everyone's so worried about how THEY feel at the expense of how normal people feel.

[indago]

SCOTUS says otherwise.

Then you are denying that the law was changed to conform to the perverts wishes!

[fj1200]

1. Incorrect.
2. Marriage is a covenant between a Man, a Woman and God.
3. Thanks for making my point. If the people of state think it's okay and vote to support it, fine. It's a 10th Amendment issue. The states should then set a process by which gay can get married without forcing themselves and their lifestyle on everyone else. Everyone's so worried about how THEY feel at the expense of how normal people feel.

1. is true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Before_Obergefel l

2. Marriage was a covenant as you describe. Marriage in this country is now a state-driven union.
3. I would agree with your point if the 10th wasn't dead and the Federal government hadn't injected itself into the relationship decades ago.

:)

[fj1200]

Then you are denying that the law was changed to conform to the perverts wishes!

:rolleyes: It made many laws unenforceable.

[Gunny]

1. is true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Before_Obergefel l

2. Marriage was a covenant as you describe. Marriage in this country is now a state-driven union.
3. I would agree with your point if the 10th wasn't dead and the Federal government hadn't injected itself into the relationship decades ago.

:)

You're playing the same game with the Constitution that gays are trying to play with the Bible. The laws doesn't change because society does. If Marriage is a state-driven union, fine. Keep it the Hell out my God-driven church.

The church does the state a favor by performing marriages, not the other way around. The government gets the licensing fees and does none of the work.

[fj1200]

You're playing the same game with the Constitution that gays are trying to play with the Bible. The laws doesn't change because society does. If Marriage is a state-driven union, fine. Keep it the Hell out my God-driven church.

The church does the state a favor by performing marriages, not the other way around. The government gets the licensing fees and does none of the work.

There is no game with the Constitution; Laws change, the Constitution does/should not. I don't disagree with the rest.

[Abbey Marie]

Goes back to a statement I made elsewhere on many occasions. It isn't that it was allowed. As a matter of fact, more states had laws banning it than there were states that allowed it.

What IS contrary to the Constitution is the US Supreme Court legislating from the bench. What IS Constitutional is the 10th Amendment, and I must have missed the part where marriage is a Constitutional Right.

So, yes, the gay agenda DID force this through the courts because they couldn't get their way democratically. And no, the people didn't allow it.

Yes, yes, and yes. You said it perfectly.

[Gunny]

There is no game with the Constitution; Laws change, the Constitution does/should not. I don't disagree with the rest.

Point is, the law did NOT change. And saying the Constitution which is the Law, should not change is contradictory.

What IS the Law of the Land does not address marriage. It very clearly addresses the separation of church and state. The Supreme Court made a decision that was not theirs to make IAW the Law.

[Abbey Marie]

...

The TRUTH was in its mockery. ;) You made a ridiculous statement and are now throwing anybody under the bus who doesn't line up with your intellectual purity. Fundamentalism came up yesterday in Sunday School (Romans 14 BTW) and someone said that the heart of fundamentalism is the slippery slope argument where eventually the fundamentalist ends up completely alone because they've condemned everyone else

...?


Fj, it sounds like you attend a main line denomination church. Episcopal? Methodist? Many of them have become quite liberal.

[Gunny]

Fj, it sounds like you attend a main line denomination church. Episcopal? Methodist? Many of them have become quite liberal.

I think it should be up to the congregation of each individual church. I DON'T think it should be up to unconstitutional law. You go to church because you have faith and you believe. The 1st Amendment guarantees us the Right to worship as we wish. The state has NO right encroaching upon it.

[fj1200]

Point is, the law did NOT change. And saying the Constitution which is the Law, should not change is contradictory.

What IS the Law of the Land does not address marriage. It very clearly addresses the separation of church and state. The Supreme Court made a decision that was not theirs to make IAW the Law.

I'm saying there are two things; 1. laws the governed marriage and 2. the Constitution from which they hang. Laws regarding marriage had changed in many of the states some to legalize gay marriage and some that outlawed it. When a law does not apply equally to all citizens then those laws become unconstitutional. That was the heart of the decision IMO.


Fj, it sounds like you attend a main line denomination church. Episcopal? Methodist? Many of them have become quite liberal.

Nope. Baptist. Do you think the bible has never been reinterpreted or misinterpreted?

[Gunny]

I'm saying there are two things; 1. laws the governed marriage and 2. the Constitution from which they hang. Laws regarding marriage had changed in many of the states some to legalize gay marriage and some that outlawed it. When a law does not apply equally to all citizens then those laws become unconstitutional. That was the heart of the decision IMO.



Nope. Baptist. Do you think the bible has never been reinterpreted or misinterpreted?

Not many of the states, and the "heart" of the decision is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court had no right to rule on the matter, by law. Don't like the law? Change it. As it stands, seems plenty of states are just ignoring the Federal government on quite a few issues where its over-stepped its bounds. This is one.

[fj1200]

Not many of the states, and the "heart" of the decision is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court had no right to rule on the matter, by law. Don't like the law? Change it. As it stands, seems plenty of states are just ignoring the Federal government on quite a few issues where its over-stepped its bounds. This is one.

Of course they did. Just like the had the right on Loving.

[Gunny]

Of course they did. Just like the had the right on Loving.

What? Sorry, no sale. They have no right to rule on "loving" --whatever you're talking about-- anymore than they do marriage. The Supreme Court interprets Constitutional Law. Or is supposed to, anyway. The 10 clearly states ANY law not specifically stated in the Constitution is covered by the 10th Amendment which delegates the authority to the states.

[revelarts]

But there's no real dispute over the definition of the words in his quote that there legitimately is in texts that are two millennia, and more, old. Not to mention what we know, and don't know, about some of those languages and the difficulty in translation.

theres no REAL dispute over the definition of the words in the Bible's MULTIPLE quotes on what marriage is, Godly sexual relations or that homosexuality is considered sin.

you say the text are millennia old, well yes they are.
So is "God is love" in dispute then too? How about "honor your father and mother", or "you shall not steal"?

It's odd that the ONLY time otherwise clear teachings or commands are "difficult" to translate is when people want to break them and make some new standard FJ. That seems the real reason why some issues are "debated", not because the language is hard or old.






Take the Sodom and Gomorrah story, many use it as an argument against gays but even many conservative scholars reject that and agree that the sin was instead one of a lack of hospitality. ....
I'll be happy to have a conversation about our long dead language in 2000 years though. :laugh: I suspect we'll know the truth long before that. :)

this is why we are blessed today to have the original languages, english translations and study helps that allow us to do some laymen's work and check it for ourselves.

Look, it's clear in Genesis that God had plans for Sodom before the angels went in. He told Abraham so.
"The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous". But if there were 10 righteous in the city God would have spared it.
So I don't think any scholar of ANY stripe has assumed that the ONLY sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was homosexuality. But here's the thing, when the messengers of God went into the town many men of the town wanted to have homosexual sex with and/or homosexually rape them. Even Lot, as corrupt as he was, knew that both were wrong.

The Bible later in mosaic law clearly states that the only God sanctioned sexual activity is between 1man and 1women in marriage.
ALL others are condemned as sin.
It's not ambiguous in the slightest. Unless you want to argue that sex with animals, and sex with the dead are A-OK as well as homosexuality or also mistranslated from millinea old difficult language as well?

the new testament repeats the same high standard for sexual activity, one man one woman in marriage ONLY. everything else is sin. But animals and the dead aren't mentioned specifically in the new testament but incest and homosexuality are. in each case as sin.

Sorry FJ but it really takes a LOT of wishful thinking and denial to end up "translating" anything else.

[indago]

:rolleyes: It made many laws unenforceable.

And in the end, "they forced themselves on society"!




.

[aboutime]

While some Americans, and Phony politicians ignore what they don't like, or disagree with:

As in:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states,
are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

PRETTY SIMPLE, and VERY EASY TO INTERPRET. Unless you call yourself a Constitutional Law Professor like ODUMBO.

[Abbey Marie]

I'm saying there are two things; 1. laws the governed marriage and 2. the Constitution from which they hang. Laws regarding marriage had changed in many of the states some to legalize gay marriage and some that outlawed it. When a law does not apply equally to all citizens then those laws become unconstitutional. That was the heart of the decision IMO.



Nope. Baptist. Do you think the bible has never been reinterpreted or misinterpreted?

I think when someone's church speaks of fundamentalism as you have described, it is probably a liberal church.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I think when someone's church speaks of fundamentalism as you have described, it is probably a liberal church.

I know it is or else the person speaking is a lib in hiding.. hmmmmmmmmmmmm...;)-Tyr

[aboutime]

I think when someone's church speaks of fundamentalism as you have described, it is probably a liberal church.


Agree very much Abbey. From personal experience over many years. I learned first hand, where the actual hypocrites are. And sad to say. Most of them I've known have proven to be Sunday Only believers in what they preach. Namely. For the other six days of the week. The so-called fundamentalists Intentionally DENY any belief in the Bible, or the Ten Commandments; which...in reality, allows them to violate (if they can) every one of the commandments by telling themselves.."Nobody will know", or "I'll just pretend I don't believe in God, and that will allow me to violate those 10 RULES!"

Of course. Truth is. It's not limited to Christians, or any specific religious belief since...ALL HUMANS SIN!

[Gunny]

Agree very much Abbey. From personal experience over many years. I learned first hand, where the actual hypocrites are. And sad to say. Most of them I've known have proven to be Sunday Only believers in what they preach. Namely. For the other six days of the week. The so-called fundamentalists Intentionally DENY any belief in the Bible, or the Ten Commandments; which...in reality, allows them to violate (if they can) every one of the commandments by telling themselves.."Nobody will know", or "I'll just pretend I don't believe in God, and that will allow me to violate those 10 RULES!"

Of course. Truth is. It's not limited to Christians, or any specific religious belief since...ALL HUMANS SIN!

My favorite church was always the protestant services on base. They don't teach doctrine. They teach the Bible.

[Russ]

I didn't define anyone's argument, I posted information. Someone tried to make a counter argument after I posted the graph and then I subsequently showed their argument to be a false one as there were some who made religious arguments against interracial marriage; we can both agree that those arguments were incorrect no?

I think the summary of that particular graph and its relation to the discussion is that gay marriage and interracial marriage was previously banned by legal statute, had religious arguments made against them, which were subsequently struck down by SCOTUS because it violated equal protection, and have similar graphs as it relates to public approval/disapproval. That is by definition not a strawman argument. :) BTW, how many here or in society at large almost 60 years ago do you think would have opposed interracial marriage?

Your whole proclamation of liberal arguments is kind of full of crap on its own. We can either argue the points pro and con in our respective viewpoints but to continually whine about liberal arguments is pointless and shows the weakness of your position IMO. Just sayin'.


You most definitely did try to define other people's arguments. You posted a graph of the approval and disapproval of interracial marriage over the decades - curiously with no comment by yourself, but with some kind of nebulous implication that it was an analogy to gay marriage. Before and after that you posted pictures and/or comments from well known people we generally would expect to be against gay marriage, always with some kind of nebulous implication that they are now in favor of gay marriage. All posts were curiously without any comment by yourself.

Clearly, you were trying to make a statement in favor of gay marriage while, because you made no actually comment yourself, hoping to keep deniability that you had ever actually made a statement. I'm not buying it. I'm saying right now that you did make a statement. And in the future, stand up straight and actually put your statements in written text - don't make everything an implication.


I didn't say he was endorsing gay marriage. I only posted his quote. What were you saying about strawmen?

Again, you were clearly implying that the Pope endorses gay marriage by posting that quote without saying anything about the context, and by including it in a stream of pro gay marriage posts.


Just curious; do you put Cheney and Bolton in the "fool/coward" camp as well?

In regard to Cheyney, I notice you didn't mention that one of his daughters came out as gay. He's obviously going to support his daughter. In regard to Bolton - who the heck is he? Wait - never mind - I don't really care. Anyway, I don't look to the opinions of famous people before I form my opinions.

[Russ]

Fundamentalism came up yesterday in Sunday School (Romans 14 BTW) and someone said that the heart of fundamentalism is the slippery slope argument where eventually the fundamentalist ends up completely alone because they've condemned everyone else.


By the way, do you teach Sunday School?

[Black Diamond]

You most definitely did try to define other people's arguments. You posted a graph of the approval and disapproval of interracial marriage over the decades - curiously with no comment by yourself, but with some kind of nebulous implication that it was an analogy to gay marriage. Before and after that you posted pictures and/or comments from well known people we generally would expect to be against gay marriage, always with some kind of nebulous implication that they are now in favor of gay marriage. All posts were curiously without any comment by yourself.

Clearly, you were trying to make a statement in favor of gay marriage while, because you made no actually comment yourself, hoping to keep deniability that you had ever actually made a statement. I'm not buying it. I'm saying right now that you did make a statement. And in the future, stand up straight and actually put your statements in written text - don't make everything an implication.



Again, you were clearly implying that the Pope endorses gay marriage by posting that quote without saying anything about the context, and by including it in a stream of pro gay marriage posts.


In regard to Cheyney, I notice you didn't mention that one of his daughters came out as gay. He's obviously going to support his daughter. In regard to Bolton - who the heck is he? Wait - never mind - I don't really care. Anyway, I don't look to the opinions of famous people before I form my opinions.
Saying something is wrong until my kid does it doesn't fly for me. I don't know about Cheney, but sen Portman changed his tune when his son came out. I dint care for that.

[Russ]

theres no REAL dispute over the definition of the words in the Bible's MULTIPLE quotes on what marriage is, Godly sexual relations or that homosexuality is considered sin.

you say the text are millennia old, well yes they are.
So is "God is love" in dispute then too? How about "honor your father and mother", or "you shall not steal"?

It's odd that the ONLY time otherwise clear teachings or commands are "difficult" to translate is when people want to break them and make some new standard FJ. That seems the real reason why some issues are "debated", not because the language is hard or old.






this is why we are blessed today to have the original languages, english translations and study helps that allow us to do some laymen's work and check it for ourselves.

Look, it's clear in Genesis that God had plans for Sodom before the angels went in. He told Abraham so.
"The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous". But if there were 10 righteous in the city God would have spared it.
So I don't think any scholar of ANY stripe has assumed that the ONLY sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was homosexuality. But here's the thing, when the messengers of God went into the town many men of the town wanted to have homosexual sex with and/or homosexually rape them. Even Lot, as corrupt as he was, knew that both were wrong.

The Bible later in mosaic law clearly states that the only God sanctioned sexual activity is between 1man and 1women in marriage.
ALL others are condemned as sin.
It's not ambiguous in the slightest. Unless you want to argue that sex with animals, and sex with the dead are A-OK as well as homosexuality or also mistranslated from millinea old difficult language as well?

the new testament repeats the same high standard for sexual activity, one man one woman in marriage ONLY. everything else is sin. But animals and the dead aren't mentioned specifically in the new testament but incest and homosexuality are. in each case as sin.

Sorry FJ but it really takes a LOT of wishful thinking and denial to end up "translating" anything else.

Excellent post, Rev.

[darin]

Stop codifying sin, Church. Doing so is sinful.

[fj1200]

What? Sorry, no sale. They have no right to rule on "loving" --whatever you're talking about-- anymore than they do marriage. The Supreme Court interprets Constitutional Law. Or is supposed to, anyway. The 10 clearly states ANY law not specifically stated in the Constitution is covered by the 10th Amendment which delegates the authority to the states.

Yes, SCOTUS ruled on Constitutional law. Loving was the decision that struck down bans on interracial marriage; do you think they had no authority there either. Especially considering the tenth is all but dead unfortunately. And as you know the tenth references powers not laws. Even authorities that still rest at the state level are not allowed to violate the Constitution.


And in the end, "they forced themselves on society"!

As I've pointed out; no. But you'll just keep going in circles.


I think when someone's church speaks of fundamentalism as you have described, it is probably a liberal church.

Someone at church made the comment, my church did not make the comment; If I'm not mistaken they have their MDiv. I think this thread is rather good evidence that it has some credence.


I know it is or else the person speaking is a lib in hiding.. hmmmmmmmmmmmm...;)-Tyr

When you have no argument left you just hide behind someone else don't you.


By the way, do you teach Sunday School?

I do not.

[fj1200]

You most definitely did try to define other people's arguments. You posted a graph of the approval and disapproval of interracial marriage over the decades - curiously with no comment by yourself, but with some kind of nebulous implication that it was an analogy to gay marriage. Before and after that you posted pictures and/or comments from well known people we generally would expect to be against gay marriage, always with some kind of nebulous implication that they are now in favor of gay marriage. All posts were curiously without any comment by yourself.

Clearly, you were trying to make a statement in favor of gay marriage while, because you made no actually comment yourself, hoping to keep deniability that you had ever actually made a statement. I'm not buying it. I'm saying right now that you did make a statement. And in the future, stand up straight and actually put your statements in written text - don't make everything an implication.

:laugh: And how am I going to deny being in favor of gay marriage when I've been arguing for it for quite some time now. I think a lot of what you're proclaiming is internal to you.

I posted a graph of changing attitudes; if someone wants to disprove the correlation they can have at it. I also posted pictures of known conservatives that are not opposed to gay marriage. If someone wants to disprove that they are conservative then they can have at it. Do you have any specific concerns with the analogizing as laid out?


Again, you were clearly implying that the Pope endorses gay marriage by posting that quote without saying anything about the context, and by including it in a stream of pro gay marriage posts.

I wasn't implying anything of the sort with the Pope as he made no mention of gay marriage, only posting what the Pope said.


In regard to Cheyney, I notice you didn't mention that one of his daughters came out as gay. He's obviously going to support his daughter. In regard to Bolton - who the heck is he? Wait - never mind - I don't really care. Anyway, I don't look to the opinions of famous people before I form my opinions.

Perchance you noticed that Cheney's daughter is gay when I posted about her in another thread. Nevertheless you also apparently disregard anyone who doesn't line up with your particular view and proclaim them as "liberal" even though many conservatives clearly support gay marriage. It seems you might be in the Cheney as "fool," "coward," and now hypocrite camp.

I suggest you do a little research on John Bolton, an impressive individual... and not a leftie. Besides I don't particularly care your position on it but I'm usually willing to discuss the issues.

[fj1200]

theres no REAL dispute over the definition of the words in the Bible's MULTIPLE quotes on what marriage is, Godly sexual relations or that homosexuality is considered sin.

you say the text are millennia old, well yes they are.
So is "God is love" in dispute then too? How about "honor your father and mother", or "you shall not steal"?

It's odd that the ONLY time otherwise clear teachings or commands are "difficult" to translate is when people want to break them and make some new standard FJ. That seems the real reason why some issues are "debated", not because the language is hard or old.

There certainly is dispute, the current debate over it is proof. There are countless theologians that are doing new work into studying what does the bible truly say. As I've been asking through this thread; has the bible ever been misinterpreted and/or reinterpreted over the course of history. You and I have both agreed that is a true statement. The bible shouldn't have been tough to translate when it was used to uphold slavery and discrimination. It shouldn't have been tough to translate over women in ministry. This is not the first time.


this is why we are blessed today to have the original languages, english translations and study helps that allow us to do some laymen's work and check it for ourselves.

Look, it's clear in Genesis that God had plans for Sodom before the angels went in. He told Abraham so.
"The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous". But if there were 10 righteous in the city God would have spared it.
So I don't think any scholar of ANY stripe has assumed that the ONLY sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was homosexuality. But here's the thing, when the messengers of God went into the town many men of the town wanted to have homosexual sex with and/or homosexually rape them. Even Lot, as corrupt as he was, knew that both were wrong.

The Bible later in mosaic law clearly states that the only God sanctioned sexual activity is between 1man and 1women in marriage.
ALL others are condemned as sin.
It's not ambiguous in the slightest. Unless you want to argue that sex with animals, and sex with the dead are A-OK as well as homosexuality or also mistranslated from millinea old difficult language as well?

the new testament repeats the same high standard for sexual activity, one man one woman in marriage ONLY. everything else is sin. But animals and the dead aren't mentioned specifically in the new testament but incest and homosexuality are. in each case as sin.

Sorry FJ but it really takes a LOT of wishful thinking and denial to end up "translating" anything else.

I agree, we are blessed to have the original languages from which to properly translate. What is legitimately open to interpretation should be analyzed with source documents; whole passages can swing on the tense of a particular word.

Regarding S&G, context is also important. We're the men of the town wanting to have sex or were they wanting to exert power over strangers signifying conqest? S&G was not about two gays living together it was about rape and power, to merely suggest it was because of homosexuals is simplifying a complex story. And as I said before even the most conservative commentators will acknowledge the lack of hospitality as the sin of S&G.

But I disagree with your last. Have you looked in depth at the counter arguments to your position?

[fj1200]

My favorite church was always the protestant services on base. They don't teach doctrine. They teach the Bible.

Tru dat.

[indago]

As I've pointed out; no. But you'll just keep going in circles.

It's not "going in circles": it's just the ultimacy...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

:laugh:


And how am I going to deny being in favor of gay marriage when I've been arguing for it for quite some time now. I think a lot of what you're proclaiming is internal to you.

^^^ Another ploy you use often. Deny when caught or proven wrong then label your opponent as
having mental issues etc...-Tyr



I posted a graph of changing attitudes; if someone wants to disprove the correlation they can have at it. I also posted pictures of known conservatives that are not opposed to gay marriage. If someone wants to disprove that they are conservative then they can have at it. Do you have any specific concerns with the analogizing as laid out?

^^^ Yes, you are too often vague, spinning or deny what you posted as you just did with Russ.
If its such confusion for others to understand try commenting in plain English dude.
YOU DON'T BECAUSE YOU HEDGE WITH PLAUSIBLE DENI-ABILITY LIKE NOBODY I'VE EVER SEEN BEFORE!
And you then call the so-called confusion, to be ignorance on the part of whomever is opposing you- these are all damn lib tactics taught by the bastards. -TYR



I wasn't implying anything of the sort with the Pope as he made no mention of gay marriage, only posting what the Pope said.

^^^ Yes you were implying that and you know it. You deliberately post often words of others or even a picture , then cry how you didn't imply such and such with it! Then why post it??-Tyr



Perchance you noticed that Cheney's daughter is gay when I posted about her in another thread. Nevertheless you also apparently disregard anyone who doesn't line up with your particular view and proclaim them as "liberal" even though many conservatives clearly support gay marriage. It seems you might be in the Cheney as "fool," "coward," and now hypocrite camp.

^^^ Cheney is either a fool, a liar or a dishonorable man--he suddenly changed his opinion on gays when his sorry ass kid came out as one! -Tyr


I suggest you do a little research on John Bolton, an impressive individual... and not a leftie. Besides I don't particularly care your position on it but I'm usually willing to discuss the issues.
^^^ Yes, impressive since the bastard upheld obamacare! He flipped 180 degrees overnight on it but you pretend you don't know that! He flipped like a hot burger overnight and it was a suddenly enlightening message sent from God--it was something sent from the obama and crew. Thats now common knowledge.-Tyr



Now that more are seeing your lib tactics, denials and cover for what it is you have to play the insult them card too.
I find that to truly be funny as hell myself. :laugh::laugh::laugh:--Tyr

[revelarts]

There certainly is dispute, the current debate over it is proof. There are countless theologians that are doing new work into studying what does the bible truly say. As I've been asking through this thread; has the bible ever been misinterpreted and/or reinterpreted over the course of history. You and I have both agreed that is a true statement. The bible shouldn't have been tough to translate when it was used to uphold slavery and discrimination. It shouldn't have been tough to translate over women in ministry. This is not the first time.



I agree, we are blessed to have the original languages from which to properly translate. What is legitimately open to interpretation should be analyzed with source documents; whole passages can swing on the tense of a particular word.

Regarding S&G, context is also important. We're the men of the town wanting to have sex or were they wanting to exert power over strangers signifying conqest? S&G was not about two gays living together it was about rape and power, to merely suggest it was because of homosexuals is simplifying a complex story. And as I said before even the most conservative commentators will acknowledge the lack of hospitality as the sin of S&G.

But I disagree with your last. Have you looked in depth at the counter arguments to your position?


uh FJ..
...Who's on 1st... third base.
but ok i'll just touch on slavery and woman in the ministry "interpretations".


Look, slavery was clearly allowed. clearly. but it was also shown as a negative state. One to get out of.
Something to be borne at best and a horror to escape at worse.
But generally and consistently spoken of as negative. And with no racial connotations BTW.
But finally and always FREEDOM from slavery is spoken of as one of the highest of blessings.
How christians decided to acknowledge and interpret those clear biblical facts and accounts into law, culture and race over the centuries is a different story.

Concerning woman in the ministry.
there's little grey area in the "interpretation" of the Bible.
Paul says "i suffer not a women to preach.."
When telling Timothy about the qualifications of a church leader he says "he should be the the husband of one wife"
(btw i'm not sure where the roman chatholics got the celibacy idea from, not from Peter or Paul's writings or lives that's for sure, just saying.)
There are no examples in the new testament of woman bishops, or church leaders. There were no woman priest in the temple in the old testament, (as there were no MALE priest NOT from the tribe of Arron Or who were not Jewish. exclusion from a role doesn't mean inferiority.)

But you have to add to that also that the bible does show a few women prophets in the old and new testaments and some woman in important personal evangelism roles. And even mentions women as "deacons" of new testament churches.

With ALL the scriptures acknowledged I'm not sure how one can LEAP OVER "husband of one wife" by modern "interpretations" FJ.
Again this seems to me an area where people WISH the Bible said something different than it does and begin to twist it to accommodate their personal desires or cultural pressures. Rather than letting the Bible say what it is clearly seems to say.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

uh FJ..
...Who's on 1st... third base.
but ok i'll just touch on slavery and woman in the ministry "interpretations".


Look, slavery was clearly allowed. clearly. but it was also shown as a negative state. One to get out of.
Something to be borne at best and a horror to escape at worse.
But generally and consistently spoken of as negative. And with no racial connotations BTW.
But finally and always FREEDOM from slavery is spoken of as one of the highest of blessings.
How christians decided to acknowledge and interpret those clear biblical facts and accounts into law, culture and race over the centuries is a different story.

Concerning woman in the ministry.
there's little grey area in the "interpretation" of the Bible.
Paul says "i suffer not a women to preach.."
When telling Timothy about the qualifications of a church leader he says "he should be the the husband of one wife"
(btw i'm not sure where the roman chatholics got the celibacy idea from, not from Peter or Paul's writings or lives that's for sure, just saying.)
There are no examples in the new testament of woman bishops, or church leaders. There were no woman priest in the temple in the old testament, (as there were no MALE priest NOT from the tribe of Arron Or who were not Jewish. exclusion from a role doesn't mean inferiority.)

But you have to add to that also that the bible does show a few women prophets in the old and new testaments and some woman in important personal evangelism roles. And even mentions women as "deacons" of new testament churches.

With ALL the scriptures acknowledged I'm not sure how one can LEAP OVER "husband of one wife" by modern "interpretations" FJ.
Again this seems to me an area where people WISH the Bible said something different than it does and begin to twist it to accommodate their personal desires or cultural pressures. Rather than letting the Bible say what it is clearly seems to say.

Great post my friend... Do not expect our little fj to agree with any of it as he would argue with
a fence post about who can stand there longer, him or the post. :laugh:
And likely even win....:laugh::laugh::laugh:-Tyr

[Russ]

:laugh: And how am I going to deny being in favor of gay marriage when I've been arguing for it for quite some time now. I think a lot of what you're proclaiming is internal to you.

I posted a graph of changing attitudes; if someone wants to disprove the correlation they can have at it. I also posted pictures of known conservatives that are not opposed to gay marriage. If someone wants to disprove that they are conservative then they can have at it. Do you have any specific concerns with the analogizing as laid out?

Why would I bother wasting my time trying to prove or disprove correlations in the graphs you posted? My only point is that your graphs are mere straw-man distractions, and are irrelevant to the discussion, and who cares?



I wasn't implying anything of the sort with the Pope as he made no mention of gay marriage, only posting what the Pope said.


I also stated that your post quoting Pope Francis is misleading and bordering on incorrect. The Pope did not say that he's not against gay marriage - he only said he will not judge gay people if they are truly seeking the Lord. I'm guessing that you won't see a difference, but I do.



Perchance you noticed that Cheney's daughter is gay when I posted about her in another thread. Nevertheless you also apparently disregard anyone who doesn't line up with your particular view and proclaim them as "liberal" even though many conservatives clearly support gay marriage. It seems you might be in the Cheney as "fool," "coward," and now hypocrite camp.

I noticed that Cheyney's daughter is gay when he made a statement about it, probably 10 years ago. I think he was still in office at the time. I didn't see your post about it.

I don't disregard people who don't line up with my views, but at times their views may make me think they are conservative or liberal. You are the one person on this board that I would put in a 3rd category: "contrarian". But your stream of posts in this thread kind of pointed the needle toward "liberal". Not intended as an insult, although I suppose you might not like it since your avatar says "Conservative" for some reason.

Actually, I've only stated two particular views in this thread:
1) Gay people who sue Christian bakers/florists/photographers are hypocrites for victimizing Christians the same way they've complained about being victimized in the past, and are disgraceful for ruining other peoples lives for money.
2) FJ does a lot of straw-man arguments. (Illustrated by interracial marriage graph and Pope Francis quote)



I suggest you do a little research on John Bolton, an impressive individual... and not a leftie. Besides I don't particularly care your position on it but I'm usually willing to discuss the issues.


You only posted quotes by: Cameron, Francis, Olsen, and Cheyney. Not Bolton, although I see he was mentioned once, and yes, he's definitely conservative. Of course, like I said previously, don't care that much about his quotes or opinion on this.

[fj1200]

It's not "going in circles": it's just the ultimacy...

Just like the blacks "forced themselves on society" right?

[fj1200]

^^^ Another ploy you use often. Deny when caught or proven wrong then label your opponent as
having mental issues etc...-Tyr

I didn't deny anything. That wasn't an implication he has mental issues. You however keep seeing liberals everywhere someone dares have an alternative viewpoint from you.


^^^ Yes, you are too often vague, spinning or deny what you posted as you just did with Russ.
If its such confusion for others to understand try commenting in plain English dude.
YOU DON'T BECAUSE YOU HEDGE WITH PLAUSIBLE DENI-ABILITY LIKE NOBODY I'VE EVER SEEN BEFORE!
And you then call the so-called confusion, to be ignorance on the part of whomever is opposing you- these are all damn lib tactics taught by the bastards. -TYR

:blah: Do you have an actual argument or do you simply wish to whine incessantly. I'm starting to think you're British.



^^^ Yes you were implying that and you know it. You deliberately post often words of others or even a picture , then cry how you didn't imply such and such with it! Then why post it??-Tyr

You keep reading what isn't there.



^^^ Cheney is either a fool, a liar or a dishonorable man--he suddenly changed his opinion on gays when his sorry ass kid came out as one! -Tyr

You might have a point if you can point out where Cheney "suddenly changed his opinion." I can wait for you to find a link. But then you'll also have to point out where every other conservative also had a change of opinion based on their kids orientation.



^^^ Yes, impressive since the bastard upheld obamacare! He flipped 180 degrees overnight on it but you pretend you don't know that! He flipped like a hot burger overnight and it was a suddenly enlightening message sent from God--it was something sent from the obama and crew. Thats now common knowledge.-Tyr

I'm pretty sure you are clueless as to who John Bolton is.


Now that more are seeing your lib tactics, denials and cover for what it is you have to play the insult them card too.
I find that to truly be funny as hell myself. :laugh::laugh::laugh:--Tyr

I insulted who the what now? Nevertheless all of that and you didn't even attempt to make a rational argument.

[fj1200]

Why would I bother wasting my time trying to prove or disprove correlations in the graphs you posted? My only point is that your graphs are mere straw-man distractions, and are irrelevant to the discussion, and who cares?

I already laid out the analogy. And you seem to care about it quite a bit. :dunno:

I'm not sure how you see government restrictions on marriage and changing attitudes about government restrictions on marriage as irrelevant.


I also stated that your post quoting Pope Francis is misleading and bordering on incorrect. The Pope did not say that he's not against gay marriage - he only said he will not judge gay people if they are truly seeking the Lord. I'm guessing that you won't see a difference, but I do.

I'm pretty sure I said that a couple of times now. :confused:


I noticed that Cheyney's daughter is gay when he made a statement about it, probably 10 years ago. I think he was still in office at the time. I didn't see your post about it.

I don't disregard people who don't line up with my views, but at times their views may make me think they are conservative or liberal. You are the one person on this board that I would put in a 3rd category: "contrarian". But your stream of posts in this thread kind of pointed the needle toward "liberal". Not intended as an insult, although I suppose you might not like it since your avatar says "Conservative" for some reason.

Actually, I've only stated two particular views in this thread:
1) Gay people who sue Christian bakers/florists/photographers are hypocrites for victimizing Christians the same way they've complained about being victimized in the past, and are disgraceful for ruining other peoples lives for money.
2) FJ does a lot of straw-man arguments. (Illustrated by interracial marriage graph and Pope Francis quote)

You didn't see my post about it 10 years ago? Did you see the one I posted 10 days ago? From what I've read he had that opinion during the 2000 campaign but didn't talk about it so it wouldn't be a distraction and GWB could be elected. I've noticed that a lot of people like to pigeonhole conservative/liberal sometimes with little understanding of the particular issues. But as I've asked many others here if you can point out any of my positions that are not small government, pro-Constitution then I suppose you might have a point.

On your two views.
1. I don't disagree, NDA laws violate freedom of religion in this case and are generally counterproductive.
2. The definition of strawman is not something you can't dispute. :poke:


You only posted quotes by: Cameron, Francis, Olsen, and Cheyney. Not Bolton, although I see he was mentioned once, and yes, he's definitely conservative. Of course, like I said previously, don't care that much about his quotes or opinion on this.

Bolton, and the same thing with Eastwood; Olson was only a picture IIRC. So it seems that I've proven by your admission that conservatives can support gay marriage. I'm pretty sure you just validated one of my "strawman posts." :)

[fj1200]

uh FJ..
...Who's on 1st... third base.
but ok i'll just touch on slavery and woman in the ministry "interpretations".

Look, slavery was clearly allowed. clearly. but it was also shown as a negative state. One to get out of.
Something to be borne at best and a horror to escape at worse.
But generally and consistently spoken of as negative. And with no racial connotations BTW.
But finally and always FREEDOM from slavery is spoken of as one of the highest of blessings.
How christians decided to acknowledge and interpret those clear biblical facts and accounts into law, culture and race over the centuries is a different story.

Concerning woman in the ministry.
there's little grey area in the "interpretation" of the Bible.
Paul says "i suffer not a women to preach.."
When telling Timothy about the qualifications of a church leader he says "he should be the the husband of one wife"
(btw i'm not sure where the roman chatholics got the celibacy idea from, not from Peter or Paul's writings or lives that's for sure, just saying.)
There are no examples in the new testament of woman bishops, or church leaders. There were no woman priest in the temple in the old testament, (as there were no MALE priest NOT from the tribe of Arron Or who were not Jewish. exclusion from a role doesn't mean inferiority.)

But you have to add to that also that the bible does show a few women prophets in the old and new testaments and some woman in important personal evangelism roles. And even mentions women as "deacons" of new testament churches.

I will grant you all of that. However is it necessary for me to find all the examples of some folks using the bible to endorse slavery, endorse discrimination, endorse bans on interracial marriage, restrict women in leadership roles, etc.? My original point was the bible has not been looked at only one way for so many years. Even given what you've posted I don't believe you've refuted that particular posit.


With ALL the scriptures acknowledged I'm not sure how one can LEAP OVER "husband of one wife" by modern "interpretations" FJ.
Again this seems to me an area where people WISH the Bible said something different than it does and begin to twist it to accommodate their personal desires or cultural pressures. Rather than letting the Bible say what it is clearly seems to say.

I think I see a chink in the armor. :poke: I can agree that there may be some who wish it says something different but you should also agree that there are some who have thoughtfully investigated what the bible says and may disagree with some interpretations. To go further requires discussion of particular passages and context and original languages and all that goes with it.

I've already mentioned S&G being about the lack of hospitality by even conservative commentators. My mother mentioned Jesus in Matthew but that was a question about divorce. And we've discussed other passages in other threads ad infinitum.

From a different perspective I see this as what will be the future of the church. Given the graphs I've posted of changing attitudes of younger people how will they look at the church if it's constantly berating a group of people that they have no problem with?

[revelarts]

I will grant you all of that. However is it necessary for me to find all the examples of some folks using the bible to endorse slavery, endorse discrimination, endorse bans on interracial marriage, restrict women in leadership roles, etc.? My original point was the bible has not been looked at only one way for so many years. Even given what you've posted I don't believe you've refuted that particular posit.

I think I see a chink in the armor. :poke: I can agree that there may be some who wish it says something different but you should also agree that there are some who have thoughtfully investigated what the bible says and may disagree with some interpretations. To go further requires discussion of particular passages and context and original languages and all that goes with it.

I've already mentioned S&G being about the lack of hospitality by even conservative commentators. My mother mentioned Jesus in Matthew but that was a question about divorce. And we've discussed other passages in other threads ad infinitum.

From a different perspective I see this as what will be the future of the church. Given the graphs I've posted of changing attitudes of younger people how will they look at the church if it's constantly berating a group of people that they have no problem with?

It seems at the end there you're saying that the church will move based on what younger people think rather than what the Bible says.
As has been the case with easy divorce, premarital sex, remarriage, abortion, profanity, etc..
there are many people in the church that will argue that NONE of the above is really that bad or maybe not SIN AT ALL.
some will take great pains to prove it so by looking more closely at the "original languages" and the customs :rolleyes:.

FJ there's no difference in the process of someone looking for justification for slavery as they practiced it or for homosexual marriage as they want to practice it. Or liberation theology, or white supremacy, or british Israelism or gnosticism, or long ages for the earth or angels really are alien visitations.

It's not that the Bible actual says those things it's just that people use the Bible like a buffet table and pick what they like and leave what they don't and often add in some mix from home into the meal and claim THIS is what the Bible REALLY means.

We all know the Bible doesn't tell us EVERYTHING but some people use the gaps to fill in want they'd like to see.
However what it does say in many areas is very clear.
homosexual marriage is clearly NOT endorsed. there are NONE in the bible
It's not allowed, there are no God sanctioned homosexual relationships found in the Bible AT ALL.
but it is condemned. in the old and new testaments. LUMPED IN with other sexual sins in the context for crying out loud man.
There's no HONEST interpretations that change that.
only a lot of playing with words, assuming of the narrowest thoughts in one place, giving the most liberal benny of the doubt in others and ignoring some to arrive at the desired "interpretation". Very similar to what i did with the Popes quote.
your own reply shows that my interpretation of his quote COULD BE considered some how valid and maybe scholarly if it were old enough or in a different lanaguage.
But it would not be an HONEST interpretation at all.
sorry FJ.

I really have difficult time accepting that some Christians would seriously think that if Moses were here today he'd BLESS homosexual marriage. Or if Peter or Paul were here today that they'd write letters clarifying the sanctity of homosexual marriages? O if Jesus were here today he'd help celebrate a homosexual wedding? I don't see that AT ALL. frankly the idea is perverse. I suspect he might take out the whips again since marriage is a God ordained institution. God created man and women and said clearly that "a Man should leave his home and join with his wife" There is NOTHING ANYWHERE in scripture that alters God desire for all to operate by that 1st standard. God only allowed 1 form of compromise here that i know of and that was multiple wives. But even with that the prophets and apostles constantly reiterate the standard. Discouraged polygamy and pointed out the problems of it. How much more out of line with the standard is homosexuality, fornication, adultery, beastality, necropillia, etc

Your mom is right. Jesus was talking about divorce but in the clear context of the ONLY type of marriage God ever ordained.
He pointed to creation. 1 man 1 woman period end of story.

Look what the "young people" do is on them but the Bible hasn't changed even if they do.
and Bible hasn't changed even if, like the old slave owners, the homosexuals find exactly the justifications they want in their "interpretations".

[Black Diamond]

revelarts

Millennials will change the definition of everything...

Which will change everything.

[indago]

@revelarts (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=1760)

Millennials will change the definition of everything...

Which will change everything.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

[aboutime]

"All of this nonsense has been going in since Bubba Clinton told American teenagers that a BJ isn't sex.

The morals (if there are any left in America) have been eroded, ignored, abused, and now a cause, or rather a GOOD excuse for the Young, Uneducated, Irresponsible, Spoiled, Selfish Americans to proclaim they DO NOT BELIEVE IN ANY GOD. And by calling themselves Agnostics, or Athiest....they have no fears of being accused of abusing the common laws of mankind...as in the 10 commandments.

If they declare they don't believe. That gives them the freedom to ABUSE all the natural, common sense, Morality most humans have decided to use to identify RIGHT from WRONG."
(a quote from aboutime)

[indago]

Just like the blacks "forced themselves on society" right?

Yes, in some places!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I didn't deny anything. That wasn't an implication he has mental issues. You however keep seeing liberals everywhere someone dares have an alternative viewpoint from you.



:blah: Do you have an actual argument or do you simply wish to whine incessantly. I'm starting to think you're British.




You keep reading what isn't there.




You might have a point if you can point out where Cheney "suddenly changed his opinion." I can wait for you to find a link. But then you'll also have to point out where every other conservative also had a change of opinion based on their kids orientation.




I'm pretty sure you are clueless as to who John Bolton is.



I insulted who the what now? Nevertheless all of that and you didn't even attempt to make a rational argument.



I'm pretty sure you are clueless as to who John Bolton is.

^^^^^ I am damn sure that not only do I know who the traitor is but I've commented about his flip flop that upheld obamacare many times here and could give links but why do so?
As only you in some dumbass world you live in, seems to have never read any of them yet commented on several in the past. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:--Tyr

[revelarts]

@revelarts (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=1760)
Millennials will change the definition of everything...
Which will change everything.

none of us older folks are as white as snow here though.
the baby boomers got the ball rolling down hill pretty good with the "free love", " a marriage license is just a piece of paper", "if it feels good do it", quickie divorces etc etc

The slide toward Sodom got rolling a good distance there and the millennial are dealing with the fallout from all that and following through to the next lower levels thinking they are "progressive" and "modern".

But it's just moving toward the same old ancient perversions of the greeks, romans, those in india and some M.E. pagans who all practiced weird sexual rituals as part of their culturally accepted legal and celebrated "normal lifestyles".

Same crap different day.
It's just been so long since Christianity thoroughly beat that crap into the corner shadows of western cultural that it seems new.





PS
People worry abut Muslims infiltrating culturally but we don't have to look far to see what's happened in the other direction to "Christian America" in the last 70 years.

[Russ]

I'm not sure how you see government restrictions on marriage and changing attitudes about government restrictions on marriage as irrelevant.

I'm pretty sure I said that a couple of times now. :confused:

You didn't see my post about it 10 years ago? Did you see the one I posted 10 days ago? From what I've read he had that opinion during the 2000 campaign but didn't talk about it so it wouldn't be a distraction and GWB could be elected. I've noticed that a lot of people like to pigeonhole conservative/liberal sometimes with little understanding of the particular issues. But as I've asked many others here if you can point out any of my positions that are not small government, pro-Constitution then I suppose you might have a point.

On your two views.
1. I don't disagree, NDA laws violate freedom of religion in this case and are generally counterproductive.
2. The definition of strawman is not something you can't dispute. :poke:

Bolton, and the same thing with Eastwood; Olson was only a picture IIRC. So it seems that I've proven by your admission that conservatives can support gay marriage. I'm pretty sure you just validated one of my "strawman posts." :)


Ha! FJ, I must say you are quite a character. Having a debate with you is like herding cats. No responses on some items, responses going off in all kinds of tangential directions for other items. Clearly you know a lot of stuff, but staying on topic is not your first priority. I also think that all I need to say is "What's up, FJ?" and I can get a "You've proved my point!" back as a response.

I'm coming to the conclusion that a debate with FJ is much like General Bonkers' 'War on String'. "Unwinnable". :laugh:

Here's to you FJ...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8275&stc=1

[aboutime]

John Bolton....https://www.aei.org/scholar/john-r-bolton/

[Gunny]

You most definitely did try to define other people's arguments. You posted a graph of the approval and disapproval of interracial marriage over the decades - curiously with no comment by yourself, but with some kind of nebulous implication that it was an analogy to gay marriage. Before and after that you posted pictures and/or comments from well known people we generally would expect to be against gay marriage, always with some kind of nebulous implication that they are now in favor of gay marriage. All posts were curiously without any comment by yourself.

Clearly, you were trying to make a statement in favor of gay marriage while, because you made no actually comment yourself, hoping to keep deniability that you had ever actually made a statement. I'm not buying it. I'm saying right now that you did make a statement. And in the future, stand up straight and actually put your statements in written text - don't make everything an implication.



Again, you were clearly implying that the Pope endorses gay marriage by posting that quote without saying anything about the context, and by including it in a stream of pro gay marriage posts.


In regard to Cheyney, I notice you didn't mention that one of his daughters came out as gay. He's obviously going to support his daughter. In regard to Bolton - who the heck is he? Wait - never mind - I don't really care. Anyway, I don't look to the opinions of famous people before I form my opinions.

THAT argument is an easy shoot-down: Being born black is a physical hereditary fact. Gay manifests itself solely by behavior.

[fj1200]

@revelarts (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=1760)

Millennials will change the definition of everything...

Which will change everything.

True statement is true.


Yes, in some places!

Alright then. :backsaway:


THAT argument is an easy shoot-down: Being born black is a physical hereditary fact. Gay manifests itself solely by behavior.

Of course that wasn't the argument. :poke:

[fj1200]

^^^^^ I am damn sure that not only do I know who the traitor is but I've commented about his flip flop that upheld obamacare many times here and could give links but why do so?
As only you in some dumbass world you live in, seems to have never read any of them yet commented on several in the past. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:--Tyr

I would love to see those links.

Hint: John Bolton is not John Roberts.

[fj1200]

Ha! FJ, I must say you are quite a character. Having a debate with you is like herding cats. No responses on some items, responses going off in all kinds of tangential directions for other items. Clearly you know a lot of stuff, but staying on topic is not your first priority. I also think that all I need to say is "What's up, FJ?" and I can get a "You've proved my point!" back as a response.

I'm coming to the conclusion that a debate with FJ is much like General Bonkers' 'War on String'. "Unwinnable". :laugh:

Here's to you FJ...

I'm not sure what I've not responded to. Most of your posting to me was about strawman arguments and what liberals do. But I think we can agree that some conservatives are for gay marriage. Nevertheless I'm pretty sure I've made a good faith effort to stay on topic but sometimes others do their best to pull arguments away. :dunno:

[fj1200]

It seems at the end there you're saying that the church will move based on what younger people think rather than what the Bible says.
As has been the case with easy divorce, premarital sex, remarriage, abortion, profanity, etc..
there are many people in the church that will argue that NONE of the above is really that bad or maybe not SIN AT ALL.
some will take great pains to prove it so by looking more closely at the "original languages" and the customs :rolleyes:.

No. I'm saying that younger people have different views and they will not be attracted to a church that only condemns a group of people that they have no ill will towards.


FJ there's no difference in the process of someone looking for justification for slavery as they practiced it or for homosexual marriage as they want to practice it. Or liberation theology, or white supremacy, or british Israelism or gnosticism, or long ages for the earth or angels really are alien visitations.

It's not that the Bible actual says those things it's just that people use the Bible like a buffet table and pick what they like and leave what they don't and often add in some mix from home into the meal and claim THIS is what the Bible REALLY means.

We all know the Bible doesn't tell us EVERYTHING but some people use the gaps to fill in want they'd like to see.
However what it does say in many areas is very clear.
homosexual marriage is clearly NOT endorsed. there are NONE in the bible
It's not allowed, there are no God sanctioned homosexual relationships found in the Bible AT ALL.
but it is condemned. in the old and new testaments. LUMPED IN with other sexual sins in the context for crying out loud man.
There's no HONEST interpretations that change that.
only a lot of playing with words, assuming of the narrowest thoughts in one place, giving the most liberal benny of the doubt in others and ignoring some to arrive at the desired "interpretation". Very similar to what i did with the Popes quote.
your own reply shows that my interpretation of his quote COULD BE considered some how valid and maybe scholarly if it were old enough or in a different lanaguage.
But it would not be an HONEST interpretation at all.
sorry FJ.

I really have difficult time accepting that some Christians would seriously think that if Moses were here today he'd BLESS homosexual marriage. Or if Peter or Paul were here today that they'd write letters clarifying the sanctity of homosexual marriages? O if Jesus were here today he'd help celebrate a homosexual wedding? I don't see that AT ALL. frankly the idea is perverse. I suspect he might take out the whips again since marriage is a God ordained institution. God created man and women and said clearly that "a Man should leave his home and join with his wife" There is NOTHING ANYWHERE in scripture that alters God desire for all to operate by that 1st standard. God only allowed 1 form of compromise here that i know of and that was multiple wives. But even with that the prophets and apostles constantly reiterate the standard. Discouraged polygamy and pointed out the problems of it. How much more out of line with the standard is homosexuality, fornication, adultery, beastality, necropillia, etc

Your mom is right. Jesus was talking about divorce but in the clear context of the ONLY type of marriage God ever ordained.
He pointed to creation. 1 man 1 woman period end of story.

Look what the "young people" do is on them but the Bible hasn't changed even if they do.
and Bible hasn't changed even if, like the old slave owners, the homosexuals find exactly the justifications they want in their "interpretations".

OK, we disagree. :) But I'll leave you with the gay centurion. :)

http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/gay_couple.html

[Gunny]

True statement is true.



Alright then. :backsaway:



Of course that wasn't the argument. :poke:

Bull. I responded to what was posted. Interracial marriage being compared to gay marriage. Apples and oranges.

[fj1200]

Bull. I responded to what was posted. Interracial marriage being compared to gay marriage. Apples and oranges.

What was posted was a graph showing changes in America's views on interracial marriage.

[Gunny]

What was posted was a graph showing changes in America's views on interracial marriage.

Which is irrelevant to the topic of this thread. You would not have posted it had you been trying to make a correlation. America's view has changed on marrying 14 years old too. Used to be when you got married and you were an old maid by 18. Big deal. That's irrelevant too.

A Christian church is NOT "America", remember?

[fj1200]

Which is irrelevant to the topic of this thread. You would not have posted it had you been trying to make a correlation. America's view has changed on marrying 14 years old too. Used to be when you got married and you were an old maid by 18. Big deal. That's irrelevant too.

A Christian church is NOT "America", remember?

A fairly clear correlation IMO. And I agree a Christian church is not America but some would like to legislate based on the premise that it is.

[Russ]

I'm not sure what I've not responded to. Most of your posting to me was about strawman arguments and what liberals do. But I think we can agree that some conservatives are for gay marriage. Nevertheless I'm pretty sure I've made a good faith effort to stay on topic but sometimes others do their best to pull arguments away. :dunno:

This thread was not about whether or not there are some conservative for gay marriage, so I'm not agreeing or disagreeing about that. That was one of those tangents you took us for a ride on.
I will say that, yes, you probably do think you are making a good effort to stay on topic. :poke:

[Russ]

No. I'm saying that younger people have different views and they will not be attracted to a church that only condemns a group of people that they have no ill will towards.



OK, we disagree. :) But I'll leave you with the gay centurion. :)

http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/gay_couple.html


This kind of Bible verse twisting really irritates me. People that try to select 2 or 3 Bible verses from here and there, add a little interpolation, interpretation of the Greek, jumping to conclusions, and ignoring any multitude of Bible verses that don't say what they want, and end up with the result "Jesus would have been in favor of my political issue." I don't think Jesus would be in favor of your link, here, FJ. :no:

[Black Diamond]

One of the first things Satan says in the Bible is "Did God really say that?"

[Russ]

One of the first things Satan says in the Bible is "Did God really say that?"

Absolutely, BD

[aboutime]

Personally. I don't care what anyone thinks, or believes. Nor do I care whether anyone questions my faith, or personal belief as a Christian. That's the great thing about being a Christian. Nothing anyone says, or does to attempt to change minds, or to belittle, insult, or offend us...as Christians, Can, or Will change our minds.

Anyone who insists they do not believe. That's your problem. Not mine, or anyone else's. Anyone who intentionally hates someone, like Christians, and makes fun of the Bible by using out of context verses, or quotes, only proves how the power of ignorance, hatred, and immorality control their lives. So..I don't care.

If anyone needs to talk about what Churches are doing, or how they are reacting to present day situations by making fun of them, or running them down. Mirrors are your worst enemy.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

none of us older folks are as white as snow here though.
the baby boomers got the ball rolling down hill pretty good with the "free love", " a marriage license is just a piece of paper", "if it feels good do it", quickie divorces etc etc

The slide toward Sodom got rolling a good distance there and the millennial are dealing with the fallout from all that and following through to the next lower levels thinking they are "progressive" and "modern".

But it's just moving toward the same old ancient perversions of the greeks, romans, those in india and some M.E. pagans who all practiced weird sexual rituals as part of their culturally accepted legal and celebrated "normal lifestyles".

Same crap different day.
It's just been so long since Christianity thoroughly beat that crap into the corner shadows of western cultural that it seems new.





PS
People worry abut Muslims infiltrating culturally but we don't have to look far to see what's happened in the other direction to "Christian America" in the last 70 years.

You'd better worry about muslims getting control and murdering millions and not down play it with
silly comparisons about Christians failings in their faith. Their failings are on them and their soul whereas the muzzies murdering millions is not conspiracy theory stuff--its a very real possibility as they are currently murdering by the thousands as we speak.
9/11 was child's-play compared to what they will do with nukes . Ever hear of Iran???-Tyr

[fj1200]

This thread was not about whether or not there are some conservative for gay marriage, so I'm not agreeing or disagreeing about that. That was one of those tangents you took us for a ride on.
I will say that, yes, you probably do think you are making a good effort to stay on topic. :poke:

Actually the "leftie" charge had been brought up so I was well within my rights to counter the argument. As usual I'm not the one going on tangents. :)


This kind of Bible verse twisting really irritates me. People that try to select 2 or 3 Bible verses from here and there, add a little interpolation, interpretation of the Greek, jumping to conclusions, and ignoring any multitude of Bible verses that don't say what they want, and end up with the result "Jesus would have been in favor of my political issue." I don't think Jesus would be in favor of your link, here, FJ. :no:

Did you read the link? Do you think the original Greek is irrelevant here?

[fj1200]

^^^^^ I am damn sure that not only do I know who the traitor is but I've commented about his flip flop that upheld obamacare many times here and could give links but why do so?
As only you in some dumbass world you live in, seems to have never read any of them yet commented on several in the past. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:--Tyr

For one you could put me in my place, for two you could show yourself to be intellectually consistent, for three you could show us all that you are a man of your word... There is only upside for you to show those links.


I would love to see those links.

:)

[Russ]

Actually the "leftie" charge had been brought up so I was well within my rights to counter the argument. As usual I'm not the one going on tangents. :)


Ok.



Did you read the link? Do you think the original Greek is irrelevant here?

Yes, it's irrelevant, and the whole interpolation/interpretation of a few verses while ignoring entire chapters that say something else and don't even require interpretation is inappropriate. At best. Enough said.

[Black Diamond]

Ok.




Yes, it's irrelevant, and the whole interpolation/interpretation of a few verses while ignoring entire chapters that say something else and don't even require interpretation is inappropriate. At best. Enough said.
It's the twisting that bothers me the most.

[fj1200]

Yes, it's irrelevant, and the whole interpolation/interpretation of a few verses while ignoring entire chapters that say something else and don't even require interpretation is inappropriate. At best. Enough said.

OK then.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

For one you could put me in my place, for two you could show yourself to be intellectually consistent, for three you could show us all that you are a man of your word... There is only upside for you to show those links.
:)

Yes, I had a brain-fart and confused John Bolton and John Roberts.
I MAKE NO EXCUSES FOR THAT MISTAKE. HOWEVER I WILL EXPLAIN A BIT..
I HAD JUST READ ABOUT GINSBERG SHAFTING BIG BUSINESS AND HAD SCOTUS ON MY MIND.
Decided to come here and post a thread on it but got sidetracked into reading first.
Never claimed to be perfect, so shoot me..-Tyr

[Gunny]

A fairly clear correlation IMO. And I agree a Christian church is not America but some would like to legislate based on the premise that it is.

There is NO correlation between heredity and social acceptance.

[pete311]

freedom of religion does not mean freedom to discriminate

[Gunny]

freedom of religion does not mean freedom to discriminate

It most certainly does.

[pete311]

It most certainly does.

nope

[Gunny]

nope

You are absolutely wrong. Churches are based on a set of values/beliefs which is by definition discriminatory. I believe, you don't -- you don't belong here forcing your agenda by government mandate on my beliefs. If you don't hold the same core beliefs as the rest of the congregation then you don't belong, period.

[aboutime]

freedom of religion does not mean freedom to discriminate


Of course. You never discriminate then pete? Do you dislike any kind of food, and prefer another kind of food?

If so...you are Discriminating. And, on this topic. If you have any faith you believe in. Which do you prefer. Islam, or Christianity??

If you choose one. That is defined as Discrimination. FREEDOM OF RELIGION.

[fj1200]

Never claimed to be perfect, so shoot me..-Tyr

I don't want to shoot you. I just don't want my character attacked at every turn based on a false post.


There is NO correlation between heredity and social acceptance.

Umm, correct?

[fj1200]

It most certainly does.

Not in the secular world and not as long as NDA laws are on the books.

[jimnyc]

freedom of religion does not mean freedom to discriminate


It most certainly does.


Not in the secular world and not as long as NDA laws are on the books.

In the Church world... if a muslim wearing their garb comes walking in, a church worker CAN toss them out and ban them for discriminatory reasons, and have really no recourse. Of course most churches I've ever known of would ever do such a thing. Try the reverse in many mosques around the world, showing off your cross and all, and you may not have a head the next morning.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

In the Church world... if a muslim wearing their garb comes walking in, a church worker CAN toss them out and ban them for discriminatory reasons, and have really no recourse. Of course most churches I've ever known of would ever do such a thing. Try the reverse in many mosques around the world, showing off your cross and all, and you may not have a head the next morning.

Jim, do not confuse them with reality... :laugh:--Tyr