SUPREME COURT EXTENDS GAY MARRIAGE NATIONWIDE

[Stripe]

Declared and answered as a point of law, though any number of definitions change over time. Bread once meant only a consumable substance. Fag was something else. You can't rest on a dictionary for an unchanging authority.

Am I allowed to rest on the immutable word of God?

If they're judges and/or legislators and the topic is legal it does. Otherwise it's about usage over time, though that won't control the legal import or use.

Nope. Murder will always be against the law, no matter what men say. The same goes for homo "marriage." It can never exist.

Our compact isn't predicated on your moral understanding.

I know. However, that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that your compact denies the authority of God. God's standards trump yours. When you make up rules that are against the law, your word does not become law.

You're just not very consistent in the approach.

Perfectly consistent, in fact. It is no law that which perverts God's standards.

the mistake of laying a practice of some at the feet of everyone in a country.

Your nation is culpable for the babies it has murdered.

Most people here could be set against it without being able to do anything about it.

The fags worked tirelessly to get their agenda across. The man who says he can't do anything is not excused from doing anything.

We're going to have to affect a deep sea change to move toward the means of overwhelming that decision.

Starts with one person. :up:

It's foolish to tar the nation with that and wrong.

Nope. Correct is the word you want.

 

[Town Heretic]

Am I allowed to rest on the immutable word of God?

Who said you weren't? You can rest on the Quaran if you like. Same impact on the secular law here.

Nope. Murder will always be against the law, no matter what men say. The same goes for homo "marriage." It can never exist.

We aren't arguing over moral precept.

I know. However, that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that your compact denies the authority of God.

No, it doesn't. In fact, it makes sure to protect those who love and serve God. It simply isn't an instrument fashioned to settle the question of which particular God and which moral truth a man must be accountable to. We believe in freedom of conscience here. We aren't afraid of allowing our citizens to decide the question for themselves and our laws are fashioned to allow them the exercise of that right with as much autonomy as can be had with respect to the rights of others.

The rest is you essentially saying the same thing I've answered on now...except.

Your nation is culpable for the babies it has murdered.

How about the Native Americans we slaughtered and robbed for gold and land? The peoples we enslaved and raped and murdered? There's no shortage of sin to go around if you want to approach it that way. There's also no real point. There isn't a nation on the face of the earth without an atrocity to speak for.

The fags worked tirelessly to get their agenda across. The man who says he can't do anything is not excused from doing anything.

We're free to live our lives by whatever standard and set whatever example we feel convicted to follow. But we aren't free to tell the next fellow his unless and until he violates our own right.

Starts with one person. :up:

It's been trending the right way for some time now.

Nope. Correct is the word you want.

No, but I understand why you think it's so.

 

[Jose Fly]

A lot of this boils down to how some fundamentalists just don't seem to accept the fact that the US is not a theocracy.

 

[Granite]

Now Ted Cruz is proposing we look at electing members of the Supreme Court and mused about impeaching five members because he didn't get his way.

Is there anything about America these people actually like?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420409/ted-cruz-supreme-court-constitutional-amendment

 

[Stripe]

Who said you weren't?

God's law trumps your regulations.

We aren't arguing over moral precept.

Sure, we are. Homosexuality is immoral.

No, it doesn't.

Sure, it does. The Bible makes it clear: Marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

How about the Native Americans we slaughtered and robbed for gold and land? The peoples we enslaved and raped and murdered? There's no shortage of sin to go around if you want to approach it that way. There's also no real point. There isn't a nation on the face of the earth without an atrocity to speak for.

Sure. And the US is culpable for the murders it has allowed.

We're free to live our lives by whatever standard and set whatever example we feel convicted to follow. But we aren't free to tell the next fellow his unless and until he violates our own right.

Sorry. God's law trumps your niceties.

It's been trending the right way for some time now.

Only if you count 3,000 babies murdered a day a trend in the right direction.

 

[kiwimacahau]

The job of a government is to make religiously neutral laws. No government should enforce religiously based laws.

 

[Jose Fly]

Now Ted Cruz is proposing we look at electing members of the Supreme Court and mused about impeaching five members because he didn't get his way.

Is there anything about America these people actually like?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420409/ted-cruz-supreme-court-constitutional-amendment

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said we should just do away with the Supreme Court altogether. So much for that Constitution they've been bandying about for the last decade or so.

 

[Town Heretic]

God's law trumps your regulations.

See, that's why the whole dictionary angle was just a waste of time. What it boils down to is that you would prefer a code of law that is strictly Biblical. Okay, but that's not what we're talking about when we're talking about the American compact or the Supreme Court ruling on the law that controls it.

I've answered the rest and don't see the point in repeating what you aren't interested in to begin with.

:e4e:

 

[heir]

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

What we should be concerned with is, does the ruling change our ministry? It doesn't.


2 Corinthians 5:14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:

2 Corinthians 5:15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

2 Corinthians 5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

2 Corinthians 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

2 Corinthians 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

 

[Shasta]

Wrong, it assumes a stereotype of someone who represents themselves with a Confederate battle flag, pickets with signs about things that are different, and who does not like Obama.

I assumed your cartoon was somehow connected with the issue of homosexual marriage. That is, after all, what this thread is about.

 

[seehigh]

What we should be concerned with is, does the ruling change our ministry? It doesn't.


2 Corinthians 5:14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:

2 Corinthians 5:15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

2 Corinthians 5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

2 Corinthians 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

2 Corinthians 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Exactly.

Giving others equal rights does not restrict yours. It has no effect on you, me or anyone else other than the two consenting adults involved.

Let's wish them happiness, and go on our own respective ways.

 

[Stripe]

The job of a government is to make religiously neutral laws. No government should enforce religiously based laws.

Because you say so?

See, that's why the whole dictionary angle was just a waste of time.

You're the only person who has mentioned a dictionary.

What it boils down to is that you would prefer a code of law that is strictly Biblical.

Nope. You need to respond to what I say.

That's not what we're talking about when we're talking about the American compact or the Supreme Court ruling on the law that controls it.

Your court has perverted God's standards, hence its ruling is no law.

 

[drbrumley]

Responding to the recent controversy surrounding the Confederate flag, World Wrestling Entertainment has announced that all footage of the flag in footage of the Fabulous Freebirds on the WWE Network will be digitally altered to show the rainbow “gay pride” flag instead.

:rotfl:

 

[Town Heretic]

You're the only person who has mentioned a dictionary.

I addressed meaning in relation to your:

My "objection" is that the word marriage has a meaning.

And I noted it has changeable meaning outside of an absolute and unchanging authority. So telling anyone it has meaning is meaningless unless you're arguing for that eternal standard and arguing for it within the system of laws.

And your:

The Bible makes it clear: Marriage can only be between a man and a woman..

I wrote: What it boils down to is that you would prefer a code of law that is strictly Biblical.

Nope. You need to respond to what I say.

I have and your "Nope" is contradicted by statements like the ones above and the ones that follow in illustration:

The Bible makes it clear: Marriage can only be between a man and a woman..

If you don't mean the Bible to be the model for law then it's a pointless statement in the context of a discussion of law.

God's law trumps your regulations.

Supra.

What is relevant is that your compact denies the authority of God. God's standards trump yours. When you make up rules that are against the law, your word does not become law.

Supra.

And you cement the point with this:

Your compact perverts God's standards, hence it is no law.

 

[Stripe]

I addressed meaning in relation to your:And I noted it has changeable meaning outside of an absolute and unchanging authority. So telling anyone it has meaning is meaningless unless you're arguing for that eternal standard and arguing for it within the system of laws.And your:I wrote: What it boils down to is that you would prefer a code of law that is strictly Biblical.I have and your "Nope" is contradicted by statements like the ones above and the ones that follow in illustration:If you don't mean the Bible to be the model for law then it's a pointless statement in the context of a discussion of law.Supra.Supra.And you cement the point with this:

Your logic is appalling.

The word marriage has a meaning set by the authority of God. According to His "system of laws," your supreme court has perverted the law. Therefore, its ruling is no law.

Your court is subject to His standards.

The Bible makes it clear: Marriage can only be between a man and a woman. That does not mean I want a code of law that is strictly Biblical. The Bible does not comment upon plenty of things that might reasonably be laws.

For a start: Traffic laws.

In a discussion of the law, we need to agree on what the law is. I have given my definition. You think men who make rulings — whatever they might be — defines what is law.

Your court has perverted God's standards, therefore its ruling is no law.

 

[Dan Emanuel]

Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.​

Nothing that the Supreme Court or Constitution say's change's the above.

Does the secular marriage contract require consummation to be in force? Church marriage does.


Daniel

 

[Town Heretic]

Your logic is appalling.

Not demonstrably, no. As with the straw man earlier, you're mostly projecting.

The word marriage has a meaning set by the authority of God.

Certainly we believe that. Not everyone does and in any event our belief doesn't impact or control the actual topic here.

You might as well have simply set out: it is my opinion that Biblical law and principle should be the law of your land and any law contrary to that should be negated.

Nothing wrong with that, it's just not how it works here, so there's no way to meet that in a discussion of what's actually happened and its repercussions.

The Bible does not comment upon plenty of things that might reasonably be laws. For a start: Traffic laws.

That wouldn't negate a Biblical model given that no matter how you address it the system would demand nothing in it could run contrary to an expression of Godly principal as found in the books of the Bible.

In a discussion of the law, we need to agree on what the law is.

No, on this point we only have to understand what it is irrespective of what we wish it would be or what we think it is beyond the point of discourse on the topic.

I have given my definition. You think men who make rulings — whatever they might be — defines what is law.

It's not arguable as it pertains to the S. Ct. and this ruling. You're trying to have a different conversation.

 

[Stripe]

Certainly we believe that. Not everyone does and in any event our belief doesn't impact or control the actual topic here.

The law does not bow to beliefs. What we believe is not relevant. God created marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

Reality, not belief.

You might as well have simply set out: it is my opinion that Biblical law and principle should be the law of your land and any law contrary to that should be negated.

I would have, if that were my opinion. However, I have clearly set out my opinion otherwise:

God has standards. Anything that goes against those standards can never be law.

Nothing wrong with that, it's just not how it works here, so there's no way to meet that in a discussion of what's actually happened and its repercussions.

That your nation rejects God as the lawgiver is not any argument against what I say and if you're not discussing God's standards, you're not responding to what I say.

That wouldn't negate a Biblical model given that no matter how you address it the system would demand nothing in it could run contrary to an expression of Godly principal as found in the books of the Bible.

Cool. :up:

No, on this point we only have to understand what it is irrespective of what we wish it would be or what we think it is beyond the point of discourse on the topic.

So what do you think it is?

It's not arguable as it pertains to the S. Ct. and this ruling. You're trying to have a different conversation.

Sure, it is. The SCOTUS decision perverts God's standards, therefore what they have said is no law.

 

[Dan Emanuel]

"Eric Rudolph is a monster, an American terrorist."

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-05-rudolph-cover-partone_x.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Rudolph


Daniel

 

[rexlunae]

One side of this thread is like all the worst people in America having a huge collective anxiety attack. I confess to enjoying watching the spectacle, as unhinged as it is.