SCOTUS makes a good call for once!

[OC for ME]

That's not true - the Bible contains references to homosexual activity regardless of whether or not "the word" "existed". ...

http://biblehub.com/leviticus/18-22.htm

Thou shalt not use facts and figures to cloud the discussion. Then again, some folks believe the bible is not a divine document, but merely a product of a bunch of long dead white guys.

What is not debatable is that liberty took another hit.

 

[nonameisgood]

What is not debatable is that liberty took another hit.

How did liberty "take a hit" when the ruling took power from the states and gave it back to the individual? A bunch of states each making a different, arbitrary rule to restrict the liberty of a specific group were told that they have to treat people equally. That group of people are now free to make decisions for themselves rather than being told by their respective state that they cannot enjoy the rights and privileges of every other group.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sudden valley gunner]

How did liberty "take a hit" when the ruling took power from the states and gave it back to the individual? A bunch of states each making a different, arbitrary rule to restrict the liberty of a specific group were told that they have to treat people equally. That group of people are now free to make decisions for themselves rather than being told by their respective state that they cannot enjoy the rights and privileges of every other group.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

People asked for more government intervention and they got it........

 

[nonameisgood]

People asked for more government intervention and they got it........

Yes, they asked for the right to make the same decision as heterosexuals. They are not required to participate in marriage any more than I am. The issue of whether the government has a compelling interest in the regulation or recognition of marriage is an entirely different issue and had nothing to do with the case decided.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[OC for ME]

Yes, they asked for the right to make the same decision as heterosexuals. They are not required to participate in marriage any more than I am. The issue of whether the government has a compelling interest in the regulation or recognition of marriage is an entirely different issue and had nothing to do with the case decided.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, that is not what was decided. What was decided was the opportunity to take advantage of state recognized/promoted privileges that straight folks take advantage of. The threat of state force compels private businesses to adhere to state mandates regarding marriage.

Straight folks don't need to get married to be together...if they do not, they are in the same boat gays were in last Thursday.

Liberty took a hit, no doubt about it.

 

[Redbaron007]

I think those who want to pursue the avenue of permitted marriage should undergo a vigorous back ground check, including medical (make sure there are no defects and everything works), endure 16-32 hours of classroom training, then spend 8 hours demonstrating their knowledge; then wait 2-12 weeks before they are able to receive their permit. We do not need married people roaming the streets half cocked without proper government training and competencies.

 

[solus]

That's not true - the Bible contains references to homosexual activity regardless of whether or not "the word" "existed". What do you think homosexuality never existed until recently? Or that it existed but no one ever spoke about it until recently? Certainly it existed and certainly they spoke about it. If not using "the word" homosexuality then using other words. The Bible references homosexual activity numerous times, and never in a good way. In some cases it seems to me to reference consensual homosexual activity and in other cases it seems to be referring to violent homosexual activity (rape of visitors/travelers). In all cases the activity appears to be condemned. Moreover, the Bible speaks of marriage as between a man and woman and appears to define moral sexual activity as only within the marriage (yes, that means heterosexual relations outside of the marriage are sinful too, but I see that as pretty irrelevant to the discussion). To be honest I'm not interested in pandering and trying to rewrite the Bible to accommodate homosexuality just because it's been framed as some sort of freedom movement. Nor am I to rewrite it to allow myself to condemn them when it isn't my place. I hope and pray that their dedication to a sinful lifestyle doesn't override convictions by the holy spirit and I pray they they're led to surrender and salvation and repentance.

glad the status quo is about to returned...

stealth, and not one cite for the appears or seems to me or ...darn your ether-net must be broke so you can't get to al gore's invention to provide one small cite from the huge amount of theologian rhetoric floating out there... other than your hyperbole?

and the underlined and italics is back at ya...

ipse

 

[nonameisgood]

I think those who want to pursue the avenue of permitted marriage should undergo a vigorous back ground check, including medical (make sure there are no defects and everything works), endure 16-32 hours of classroom training, then spend 8 hours demonstrating their knowledge; then wait 2-12 weeks before they are able to receive their permit. We do not need married people roaming the streets half cocked without proper government training and competencies.

Not long ago, there were blood tests for syphilis before issue of a marriage license. The Catholic church and many other do require "training" before allowing a marriage to be performed in a church. As far as being half-cocked, I'll let that slide.

 

[Citizen]

I think those who want to pursue the avenue of permitted marriage should undergo a vigorous back ground check, including medical (make sure there are no defects and everything works), endure 16-32 hours of classroom training, then spend 8 hours demonstrating their knowledge; then wait 2-12 weeks before they are able to receive their permit. We do not need married people roaming the streets half cocked without proper government training and competencies.

That was good; I didn't see that one coming.


I'm pretty sure we need the same for politicians before they can hold office. I'm kinda favoring a version of the ancient trial by ordeal, myself. Remember the form of trial where the defendant was trussed up and tossed into a pond or lake that had just been consecrated. If he sank he was innocent, the rationale being that consecrated water would reject the guilty, causing him to float. I'm kinda thinking a similar permit process for a politician license. Hang them by the neck for thirty minutes. If they don't strangle, they're in.

 

[solus]

http://biblehub.com/leviticus/18-22.htm
Thou shalt not use facts and figures to cloud the discussion. Then again, some folks believe the bible is not a divine document, but merely a product of a bunch of long dead white guys.
What is not debatable is that liberty took another hit.

religious scholars & theologians have for centuries discussed this and that about the original biblical tomes being written, revised, then revised yet again, and so forth, to what is now self-proclaimed as the 'word of our religion' handed down from some Deity...(you're on your own since different religious sects have different tomes comprising the books that are the center of their religion basis)

one sect is centered on their own tome from the early 1800s from Prophet Smith's dealings with the ancient prophets who lived on the north american continent a whole whole long time ago.

by the way, Joseph Smith, the Prophet, was one of the few white guys writing the tomes i am aware of...unless you call European ethnicity 'white' as Luther was Deutscher.

most of the religious zealots forget James 4:12 completely, so yes OC4Me, i am tolerant towards the intolerant as I and only I have to meet whomever, for whatever, upon my passing.

ipse

 

[WalkingWolf]

http://biblehub.com/leviticus/18-22.htm

Thou shalt not use facts and figures to cloud the discussion. Then again, some folks believe the bible is not a divine document, but merely a product of a bunch of long dead white guys.

What is not debatable is that liberty took another hit.

Well maybe that cloud can be cleared with some citations.

 

[HPmatt]

... tossed into a pond or lake that had just been consecrated. If he sank he was innocent, the rationale being that consecrated water would reject the guilty, causing him to float....

Tiny rocks float...http://youtu.be/zrzMhU_4m-g




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[solus]

I think those who want to pursue the avenue of permitted marriage should undergo a vigorous back ground check, including medical (make sure there are no defects and everything works), endure 16-32 hours of classroom training, then spend 8 hours demonstrating their knowledge; then wait 2-12 weeks before they are able to receive their permit. We do not need married people roaming the streets half cocked without proper government training and competencies.

unfortunately the genetic defect blood testing and reaction by the parents is eh...worthless since emotions enter as well as Gparents wanting a grand child at any cost!!

personally know of several individuals who both suffer from active Huntington's; another pair, the male was diagnosed in their early 20s with MS and is suffering the disease's profound affects; and of course those who are medium to high functioning but barely self sufficient in society obviously disabled with mental retardation; who decided against all advice...became parents. (yes, yes...i know you know someone or a friend of a friend has told you of someone who is similar who's offspring seem fine ~ my examples are known to me and i have interacted with, in one case held as a newborn...)

those in the counseling arena recommend a minimum of 10 hours of face to face "non-spiritual" counseling to those thinking or about to get married as well as those starting over again.

and yet all your mentioned rigmorole Red, appears to be for naught...while divorce rates are dropping, (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/02/divorce-rate-declining-_n_6256956.html) the stats do not take into account the numbers of individuals who, since the stigma is gone, are cohabiting and ignoring the pomp and ceremony.

ipse

 

[Redbaron007]

Not long ago, there were blood tests for syphilis before issue of a marriage license. The Catholic church and many other do require "training" before allowing a marriage to be performed in a church. As far as being half-cocked, I'll let that slide.

:lol:

That was good; I didn't see that one coming.


I'm pretty sure we need the same for politicians before they can hold office. I'm kinda favoring a version of the ancient trial by ordeal, myself. Remember the form of trial where the defendant was trussed up and tossed into a pond or lake that had just been consecrated. If he sank he was innocent, the rationale being that consecrated water would reject the guilty, causing him to float. I'm kinda thinking a similar permit process for a politician license. Hang them by the neck for thirty minutes. If they don't strangle, they're in.

Not a bad idea! That would definitely weed the burgers out.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Homosexuality, Slavery, and the Bible

http://goodnewsmag.org/2013/05/homosexuality-slavery-and-the-bible/

Southern preachers and slave owners believed the many references in the Bible permitting and regulating slavery (well over 100 verses), in both the Old and the New Testaments, were clear evidence that the institution was a part of God’s social and moral order. Abolitionist preachers argued in their sermons that the verses related to slavery in the Bible were a reflection of the cultural context and times in which the Bible was written and did not reflect God’s endorsement of slavery. They argued that there were “weightier” scriptures on justice, mercy and love that superseded those on slavery. This was the position that Lincoln himself adopted.

 

[solus]

snip...I'm pretty sure we need the same for politicians before they can hold office. I'm kinda favoring a version of the ancient trial by ordeal, myself.

citizen, while trial by being thrown into a body of water might thin the political herd, just a bit, it might be kinda tough to have viable candidates wanting to apply for positions. i find it interesting one current religion makes it mandatory to work your way up through the ranks to the calling of Apostle then be selected unanimously as President & Prophet who selects two other Apostles as counselors run the church! there is no lobbying or such antics as it is specifically frowned upon as it is a calling from the Divine!! the President & Prophet, counselors, and 12 Apostles run the church.

sorry, while have been done for a gaggle of years, the pope's replacement doesn't work that way...the bishops do not take an active role like the LDS Apostle(s) do in the active running of the church and continuing it's philosophy! and there is lobbying galore for the position.

there was a work of fiction many many years ago about a triad running the US' presidential office...at the time was young and idealist and thought...eh might work, got disillusion, but in retrospect...hmmm might work!!

ipse

 

[stealthyeliminator]

glad the status quo is about to returned...

stealth, and not one cite for the appears or seems to me or ...darn your ether-net must be broke so you can't get to al gore's invention to provide one small cite from the huge amount of theologian rhetoric floating out there... other than your hyperbole?

and the underlined and italics is back at ya...

ipse

Who am I to know when or where one might desire a citation? If you'd like one, ask for one. I don't see much value in criticizing because I didn't preemptively cite where a cite might or might not be desired by a reader. Plus, I have limited time, and I'd hate to waste it citing unnecessarily.

 

[Liberty-or-Death]

Haters of the religious right think it's bigotry, but it isn't.
http://youtu.be/utph8ba8koo

 

[WalkingWolf]

Haters of the religious right think it's bigotry, but it isn't.
http://youtu.be/utph8ba8koo

Do you have a video on slavery also?

 

[nonameisgood]

I don't hate the religious right. I hate hypocrisy and pettiness. What other people do should be of no concern to you unless and until it causes you harm. I cannot think of any way, real or imagined, that allowing people to commit to a relationship that doesn't involve you will hurt you.
Do not presume to think you are right and others are wrong when it comes to spiritual matters. Their soul isn't your concern either, so don't bother trying to explain how their salvation from eternal damnation is your business.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk