SUPREME COURT EXTENDS GAY MARRIAGE NATIONWIDE

[Stripe]

Not true, and parsing what? Leviticus 19:19?

You want to have laws that are malleable in all cases.

However, some things are non-negotiable, indicating that an authority exists that is beyond what men put in place.

You wrote:And now you're sidling up to me about our shared faith? Else, when someone repeats the same mantra over and over after being answered in a way that should preclude it I'd say parroting is an apt description. If I meant to really mock you there'd be no question about it. Ask aCW. On the scale of intellectual challenges he's the equivalent of a circle a word puzzle. So no, you were getting the slightest taste of what you dished out, a fairly gentle brush back at that for beginning to crowd the plate.I don't think you're built for this sort of discourse. You have a blind spot or something sticks in your gears and it's my fault for moving forward with it when I should know that by now.

Nope. This is just you being an arrogant fool. You have not once engaged with what I believe, preferring to insist that we talk using your assumptions.

The regulations your system makes do not meet God's standards, therefore they are not lawful; they cannot be rightly called laws.

 

[seehigh]

You want to have laws that are malleable in all cases.

However, some things are non-negotiable, indicating that an authority exists that is beyond what men put in place.

Nope, some people believe that there is no authority beyond man. Of course they make an assertion, and have no proof beyond possibly their holy books, which disagree with each other and disagree internally. I mean, why should we follow the Bhagavad Gita or the Bible, or the Quran or the Avesta? All claim they are the only and correct path to the hereafter.

 

[kiwimacahau]

And that is the point. All laws within a secular nation must be irreligious.

 

[seehigh]

And that is the point. All laws within a secular nation must be irreligious.

I HOPE so.

Any laws that affect religion other than the freedom of religion should be unconstitutional unbanned.

 

[Stripe]

Nope, some people believe that there is no authority beyond man.

And yet some things are wrong no matter what regulations men make up; a clear indication that there is a higher authority.

Why should we follow the Bhagavad Gita or the Bible, or the Quran or the Avesta? All claim they are the only and correct path to the hereafter.

We are not talking about salvation; we are talking about the law.

All laws within a secular nation must be irreligious.

Which is why secular nations are destroyed.

 

[seehigh]

And yet some things are wrong no matter what regulations men make up; a clear indication that there is a higher authority.

We are not talking about salvation; we are talking about the law.


Which is why secular nations are destroyed.

Canada seems to be doing well. Germany is. Australia is.

USA? Not so much, but it's more religious. Syria is really religious. They ain't doing worth a scat.

 

[Stripe]

Canada seems to be doing well. Germany is. Australia is. USA? Not so much, but it's more religious. Syria is really religious. They ain't doing worth a scat.

That's nice.

Meanwhile, some things are wrong regardless of what regulations men invent, indicating that there is a higher authority.

 

[seehigh]

That's nice.

Meanwhile, some things are wrong regardless of what regulations men invent, indicating that there is a higher authority.

Or, as is more likely, there is no "higher authority".

After all, an extraordinary claim require extraordinary proof.

 

[Town Heretic]

Nope. This is just you being an arrogant fool.

You lecturing on arrogance is just funny, Stripe. Not as funny as the last time you tried to lecture me on the law, but funny. You are to humility what Gandhi was to MMA. But putting the fool in there really caps your publicly demonstrated problem.

You have not once engaged with what I believe, preferring to insist that we talk using your assumptions.

Nope. You're just not listening. Nothing in your position is particularly difficult to understand and nothing in it really has much to do with the actual point under the OP.

The regulations your system makes do not meet God's standards,

Some do and some don't. Depends on how broadly or particularly you mean that.

therefore they are not lawful;

That's a meaningless statement within the context of a discussion of the S. Ct. decision, since its contrary to the fact. As a statement of belief and principle it's understood and has been I suspect by anyone looking on. All you ever had to say on the matter was, "God's law is truth and any law that runs contrary to it has no moral force and is an unjust law."

they cannot be rightly called laws.

But they are and they are in force and have impact on our compact and that is the discussion at hand.

You can argue and believe that God's laws are the moral and absolute measurement for action and that violation of them on point or in principle is a moral failure of any system so situated and we'd never cross swords on it. But that's not the point here and those laws aren't what the S. Ct. ruled on, etc.

 

[Stripe]

You lecturing on arrogance is just funny, Stripe.

And you being an arrogant fool is not funny. Since when do you get to dictate who has and hasn't said enough?

What you need to do is show a little respect. :up:

Nothing in your position is particularly difficult to understand.

Strange then how you have not once properly represented it.

And nothing in it really has much to do with the actual point under the OP.

We have all heard the news plastered in every corner of every aspect of social media, television, and radio. The Supreme Court declared Friday that same-sex couples have a right to marry anywhere in the United States.

Those in favor of such a ruling are running their parade lap while those opposed are recoiling.

But what does it all really mean? What will this mean for religious liberty in this country? Is that officially dead now?

Liberty is impinged when lawlessness takes hold.

Perfectly on point. However, you will not even attempt to reconcile my position against what I believe, preferring to insist that we use your language and trust your system.

Some do and some don't. Depends on how broadly or particularly you mean that.

This one does not live up to God's standards.

That's a meaningless statement within the context of a discussion of the S. Ct. decision, since its contrary to the fact.

What fact? The court said homos can marry. That is in direct opposition to the law.

As a statement of belief and principle it's understood and has been I suspect by anyone looking on. All you ever had to say on the matter was, "God's law is truth and any law that runs contrary to it has no moral force and is an unjust law."

Nope. I've said more than that.

But they are and they are in force and have impact on our compact and that is the discussion at hand.

Nope. The discussion is the impact on liberty now that godlessness has been more heavily regulated.

You can argue and believe that God's laws are the moral and absolute measurement for action and that violation of them on point or in principle is a moral failure of any system so situated and we'd never cross swords on it. But that's not the point here and those laws aren't what the S. Ct. ruled on, etc.

The court said homos can marry. That is a violation of God's standards.

 

[seehigh]

.....

This one does not live up to God's standards.

What fact? The court said homos can marry. That is in direct opposition to the law.

....

The court said homos can marry. That is a violation of God's standards.

Isn't it a great thing that there founding fathers were wise enough to ensure that secular laws would rule the country rather than religious ones?

Good grief, otherwise it would be like Iran.

 

[Stripe]

Isn't it a great thing that there founding fathers were wise enough to ensure that secular laws would rule the country rather than religious ones?Good grief, otherwise it would be like Iran.

Meanwhile, some things are against the law no matter what regulations men make up; clear indication that there is a higher authority.

 

[seehigh]

Meanwhile, some things are against the law no matter what regulations men make up; clear indication that there is a higher authority.

There is that "higher authority" assertion again. Again made without being able to substantiate it.

 

[Stripe]

There is that "higher authority" assertion again. Again made without being able to substantiate it.

Some things are wrong no matter what regulations men invent.

 

[republicanchick]

no one should be surprised

the country has been going morally down hill at an accelerated rate since Roe v Wade

If you don't respect what's morally right RE human life, you won't respect human life RE sexual normalcy



+++

 

[seehigh]

no one should be surprised

the country has been going morally down hill at an accelerated rate since Roe v Wade

If you don't respect what's morally right RE human life, you won't respect human life RE sexual normalcy



+++

So you are against the death penalty?

 

[Town Heretic]

And you being an arrogant fool is not funny.

You thinking yourself the judge of that is though. Okay, more sad and indicative of a problem you have than funny, but funny in the loosest sense then.

Since when do you get to dictate who has and hasn't said enough?

We each get to decide for ourselves when we've heard enough repetition. I haven't tried to dictate anyone else's part.

What you need to do is show a little respect. :up:

You need to evidence a conduct and consideration that earns it. That's how it works and how it doesn't. And this is me making that decision I spoke to a minute ago.

:e4e:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

More than once I have pondered just what government ruling would make Town Heretic concerned.

It seems no matter what comes out of Washington it's really "not a big deal".

:idunno:

 

[Town Heretic]

More than once I have pondered just what government ruling would make Town Heretic concerned.

All you have to do is ask, but any number, really.

Recently? Expanding eminent domain and conflating money with speech. Those were troubling in terms of what they did to property rights and skewing the chance for people to get an honest look at politicians.

I've spoken on both, but it's not sexy and front and center around here so it's easy to miss, I suppose. Homosexual marriage? Saw the necessity of this ruling coming years ago. Like I said somewhere, once the blue laws started falling it was only a matter of time.

It seems no matter what comes out of Washington it's really "not a big deal".

That's not an accurate reflection of what I've been saying or thinking. This latest one, by way of example, is a historic big deal. What it isn't necessarily is a domino that will undo religious liberty or suddenly reverse protections for kids.

What you mostly hear me say is in response to fears generated by people who don't understand the foundations and process of law.

So when anyone says, "Now pedophiles have a shot!" I know that's unreasonable and I know why.

They don't, which isn't their fault often enough, so I step up and say, "No that would unhinge the entire foundation of contract law, which is predicated upon competence, among other absolutes," and that sort of thing.

Sometimes it's appreciated. Often it isn't. But it's always a measured attempt to assuage needless worry and offer comfort in uncomfortable circumstance.

 

[Stripe]

All you have to do is ask, but any number, really.

Recently? Expanding eminent domain and conflating money with speech. Those were troubling in terms of what they did to property rights and skewing the chance for people to get an honest look at politicians.

I've spoken on both, but it's not sexy and front and center around here so it's easy to miss, I suppose. Homosexual marriage? Saw the necessity of this ruling coming years ago. Like I said somewhere, once the blue laws started falling it was only a matter of time.


That's not an accurate reflection of what I've been saying or thinking. This latest one, by way of example, is a historic big deal. What it isn't necessarily is a domino that will undo religious liberty or suddenly reverse protections for kids.

What you mostly hear me say is in response to fears generated by people who don't understand the foundations and process of law.

So when anyone says, "Now pedophiles have a shot!" I know that's unreasonable and I know why.

They don't, which isn't their fault often enough, so I step up and say, "No that would unhinge the entire foundation of contract law, which is predicated upon competence, among other absolutes," and that sort of thing.

Sometimes it's appreciated. Often it isn't. But it's always a measured attempt to assuage needless worry and offer comfort in uncomfortable circumstance.

And the problem remains: We don't need to worry about potentially "legalized" pedophilia; we already have regulated homos.

Not to mention child killing.