GoldenEagle Posted November 29, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 764 Topics Per Day: 0.18 Content Count: 7,626 Content Per Day: 1.81 Reputation: 1,559 Days Won: 44 Joined: 10/03/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted November 29, 2012 After catching up I find this thread slightly humorous and sad at the same time. God bless, GE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted November 29, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.28 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted November 29, 2012 Unfortunately and in accords with their Leftist trend of late they will likely create a special class of protection for the Homosexual that will open the floodgates that Cajun mentioned above. I agree they will rule in favor of same sex marriage, I also agree it is the right ruling based on our constitution. I still dont see people marrying goats and kids becuase of this. But I do think that pologomy will be the next thing that be addressed. We differ only in that I believe that it is not Constitiutional because the Constitution guarentee's the rights of the individual and the right to Homosexual Marriage does not exist. That will not stop them from ruling in favor though because they stopped following the Constitution the day they approved of Obamacare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted November 29, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.28 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted November 29, 2012 After catching up I find this thread slightly humorous and sad at the same time. God bless, GE Why is it sad brother? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenEagle Posted November 29, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 764 Topics Per Day: 0.18 Content Count: 7,626 Content Per Day: 1.81 Reputation: 1,559 Days Won: 44 Joined: 10/03/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted November 29, 2012 After catching up I find this thread slightly humorous and sad at the same time. God bless, GE Why is it sad brother? I'm saddened when from my perspective Christians know the truth and choose to align themselves with what goes against God's Word. I'd love to get your thoughts once you take 15-20 minutes to read the article. I'm glad we agree homosexuality is a sin. Then why as a Christian where marriage in the Bible is defined as between one man and one woman would you support the change to marriage to be defined in different terms contrary to the Bible? Why are you siding with pro-homosexual activists? Curious. God bless, GE I will respond when I have had a chance to read the study. The article means nothing; it is one group’s opinion of the study. as for the part in bold, because I believe that our country does not and should not base it's laws on my religious point of view. I want the freedom to drink a beer with my dinner, but there are those religious groups that would seek to take that away from me because their religious views are that all alcohol is sinful. The Catholic Church if it had its way would make all forms of birth control illegal, based on their religious point of view. If I fight to impose my religions views on people I may one day be on the receiving end and then I will have no room to complain. We are a representative republic, not a theocracy. And since the “marriage” we are talking about has nothing at all to do with religion and everything to do with government benefits, it should be up to the people who are the government to choose who gets said benefits. There are a few theocracies in the world right now, and I would not want to live in any of them. If I understand this correctly... The logic is as follows... Because I may be on the receiveing end of being told what is true I should not stand up for the truth in the Bible. It saddens my heart when I think that many others believe the same thing. Yet God is good. All the time. All the time God is good. I hope Jesus comes back soon. I'm glad of His promise to return. God bless, GE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Being treated equally under the law is not an unqualifed right. It doesn't apply to everything in life. We are quaranteed equal treatment under the law, not equal treatment. Equal treatment only applies to actual constitutional rights, such human and civil rights. Because marriage is not a constitutionally protected right, it is not unlawful or unfair to deny them marriage status. "Gay rights" don't exist either. To argue that gays have rights by virtue of being gay is nonsense. Gays are not a minority and should not be afforded minority status. To give people minority status on the basis of how they have sex is absurd. We have constitutional rights only as American citizens, not as gays or straight. That is what makes the whole gay marriage thing completely ridiculous. But as always the liberalization of our society has only served to muddy the waters and create a nation bereft of moral clarity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenEagle Posted November 29, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 764 Topics Per Day: 0.18 Content Count: 7,626 Content Per Day: 1.81 Reputation: 1,559 Days Won: 44 Joined: 10/03/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted November 29, 2012 I am saddened by this as well... Entirely different than racial equality and it is what I have been stating. You are talking about discrimination and in so doing upholding my earlier statements. You are making a case for eqaul ttreatment under the law for a basic human right that does not exist especially when homosexuality is a choice, as you have admitted. No one is being denied any right by denying homosexual marriage because no is forced by birth to live in that minority. for the 10th time or so, I am not and never have been talking about discrimination. I am making the case that if the Govt is going to deny benefits to one group they give to another there needs to be a compelling reason. However, you just said this; No different than when couple of different races were included in to the definition There's a huge difference between denying an interacial couple and denying a Homosexual one. The interacial couple did not choose their race and thus deserve basic human rights afforded in the Constitution. The Homosexual has those same rights a s a human being. However, They do no have extra rights afforded their lifestyle choice. That is the argument that you are making. That all people have to be treated equal under the law and what I am saying is that they currently are. and this is what SCOTUS will determine Unfortunately and in accords with their Leftist trend of late they will likely create a special class of protection for the Homosexual that will open the floodgates that Cajun mentioned above. The response that saddens me from a socio/political standpoint: I agree they will rule in favor of same sex marriage, I also agree it is the right rulingbased on our constitution. We differ only in that I believe that it is not Constitiutional because the Constitution guarentee's the rights of the individual and the right to Homosexual Marriage does not exist. That will not stop them from ruling in favor though because they stopped following the Constitution the day they approved of Obamacare. From a constitutional perspective I agree with Matthitjah and the reality saddens me. God bless, GE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajunluvie Posted November 29, 2012 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 221 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 6 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/06/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted November 29, 2012 Fyi, I had to go off the laptop to fix dinner so now I'm only using my phone so I wont be going into detailed, torturous commentary after commentary to deal with each point. I think you are making my case for me in regards to changing the laws. Sorry, there are marriages that are not fully consentual in the U.S. Someone else like family relative does the arranging of future spouse or religious leader does it for you. Yes, there are some laws regarding consent but your point was incomplete in claiming animals and children cant consent therefore that sort of invalidated my comments? No, it didnt. If one demands constitutional right wheras the Constitution is silent on such topic then an argument must be found elsewhere depending on the angle of the legal argument. Gays have the same basic rights. They can marry the other sex because the traditional understanding of recognized marriage institution is between men and women. In order to say they are discriminated, they need to change the principle. Consent is not the point for anything. If they want to change the status quo or anyone in favor for it then sexual preference is very a subjective basis to rest a legal argument for constitional right. We go full circle back to what I said originally if one was able to get the implication is it will become harder to not deny others when their turn comes up. this last part may be true, but that has no impact on the debate of same sex marriage. Each argument will have to be taken on it's own merit. If you would recall, I never said it had any impact on the debate of same sex marriage in my original post. I am saying the RESULT may LEAD to it regardless of "each argument will have to be taken on its own merit". That is not the POINT whether there is merit to it or not. The POINT IS: we will have to recognize the fact that claiming same sex marriages is a special dispensed right will LEAD to other groups CLAIMING they in turn do so regardless of merit or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajunluvie Posted November 29, 2012 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 221 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 6 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/06/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted November 29, 2012 Being treated equally under the law is not an unqualifed right. It doesn't apply to everything in life. We are quaranteed equal treatment under the law, not equal treatment. Equal treatment only applies to actual constitutional rights, such human and civil rights. Because marriage is not a constitutionally protected right, it is not unlawful or unfair to deny them marriage status. "Gay rights" don't exist either. To argue that gays have rights by virtue of being gay is nonsense. Gays are not a minority and should not be afforded minority status. To give people minority status on the basis of how they have sex is absurd. We have constitutional rights only as American citizens, not as gays or straight. That is what makes the whole gay marriage thing completely ridiculous. But as always the liberalization of our society has only served to muddy the waters and create a nation bereft of moral clarity. Well said. I myself have taken a feminist course that included gay/ lesbian issues when I thought it was only mainly a study regarding women then to find out it encompassed much more. The professor asked me to take it since I was a former student of hers in other courses. It was interesting but I made my view known on some issues only to find out other students also expressed doubt especially on gender identification and abortion issues. It was almost being behind the enemy line and I could see how the trend would go in spite of some people's refusal to see the writing on the wall. It would only be "contained". Not so. As long as humans see the line being moved, they will find a way to push the line further where THEY demand it to be. I noticed that literature and media is usually one of the early tools to introduce a concept before a legislation or ruling becomes reality. Just a side observation I've picked up on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted November 29, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.28 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted November 29, 2012 Being treated equally under the law is not an unqualifed right. It doesn't apply to everything in life. We are quaranteed equal treatment under the law, not equal treatment. Equal treatment only applies to actual constitutional rights, such human and civil rights. Because marriage is not a constitutionally protected right, it is not unlawful or unfair to deny them marriage status. "Gay rights" don't exist either. To argue that gays have rights by virtue of being gay is nonsense. Gays are not a minority and should not be afforded minority status. To give people minority status on the basis of how they have sex is absurd. We have constitutional rights only as American citizens, not as gays or straight. That is what makes the whole gay marriage thing completely ridiculous. But as always the liberalization of our society has only served to muddy the waters and create a nation bereft of moral clarity. Amen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted November 29, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.28 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted November 29, 2012 I am saddened by this as well... Entirely different than racial equality and it is what I have been stating. You are talking about discrimination and in so doing upholding my earlier statements. You are making a case for eqaul ttreatment under the law for a basic human right that does not exist especially when homosexuality is a choice, as you have admitted. No one is being denied any right by denying homosexual marriage because no is forced by birth to live in that minority. for the 10th time or so, I am not and never have been talking about discrimination. I am making the case that if the Govt is going to deny benefits to one group they give to another there needs to be a compelling reason. However, you just said this; No different than when couple of different races were included in to the definition There's a huge difference between denying an interacial couple and denying a Homosexual one. The interacial couple did not choose their race and thus deserve basic human rights afforded in the Constitution. The Homosexual has those same rights a s a human being. However, They do no have extra rights afforded their lifestyle choice. That is the argument that you are making. That all people have to be treated equal under the law and what I am saying is that they currently are. and this is what SCOTUS will determine Unfortunately and in accords with their Leftist trend of late they will likely create a special class of protection for the Homosexual that will open the floodgates that Cajun mentioned above. The response that saddens me from a socio/political standpoint: I agree they will rule in favor of same sex marriage, I also agree it is the right rulingbased on our constitution. We differ only in that I believe that it is not Constitiutional because the Constitution guarentee's the rights of the individual and the right to Homosexual Marriage does not exist. That will not stop them from ruling in favor though because they stopped following the Constitution the day they approved of Obamacare. From a constitutional perspective I agree with Matthitjah and the reality saddens me. God bless, GE Amen and we are left with this, IMO; Heb 10:31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts