ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Gay marriage in the US

Report this

UNTRugby

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1212

Report this Sep. 03 2010, 9:13 am

Quote: Tureaz'47 @ Sep. 03 2010, 9:02 am

Quote: UNTRugby @ Sep. 03 2010, 8:57 am

Quote: caltrek2 @ Sep. 03 2010, 8:51 am

Quote: Tureaz'47 @ Sep. 03 2010, 8:21 am

Quote: caltrek2 @ Sep. 03 2010, 8:13 am

>

>

>

>"What purpose does it fulfill?"

>Some claim that feathers first evolved as a means of insulation. Some argue that the reason dogs are so willing to have human masters is that human masters fill the role of the alpha animal in their lives, a nedd that is their based on genes.

>Homosexuals can become part of an extended family in which care is provided for the young. Homosexuality also can be found to emerge in periods of overcrowding, so it can be thought of as a natural population control device that actually helps to prevent future crashes due to overpopulation.

>"Profession based on what and whom?"

>Based on common agreement as to what should go into their diagnostic manuals. 

>"Mathematical equation."

>Please elaborate. Also, see above.

>
So, you have judged people to be "homosexual?"

I have labeled people as "homosexual". No judgement is intended.

It is a bit like saying somo one is a "redhead". No judgement is implied other than one concerning the color of their hair.

...or labeling someone to be a "blond".  That doesn't mean that there are no such thing as jokes about blonds.

But redheads and blondes are proven to be naturally occurring, homosexuality in nature is still just a theory. Hence Tureaz'47 using the word judging.
Are you wanting attention for "rugby?" How do you know what nature is?

That would be interesting?


I didnt say i knew what nature was im only suggesting that facts shouldnt be compared to theories. Obviously im talking to the wrong crowd.

Tureaz'47

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2605

Report this Sep. 03 2010, 9:19 am

Quote: UNTRugby @ Sep. 03 2010, 9:13 am

Quote: Tureaz'47 @ Sep. 03 2010, 9:02 am

Quote: UNTRugby @ Sep. 03 2010, 8:57 am

Quote: caltrek2 @ Sep. 03 2010, 8:51 am

Quote: Tureaz'47 @ Sep. 03 2010, 8:21 am

Quote: caltrek2 @ Sep. 03 2010, 8:13 am

>

>

>

>

>"What purpose does it fulfill?"

>Some claim that feathers first evolved as a means of insulation. Some argue that the reason dogs are so willing to have human masters is that human masters fill the role of the alpha animal in their lives, a nedd that is their based on genes.

>Homosexuals can become part of an extended family in which care is provided for the young. Homosexuality also can be found to emerge in periods of overcrowding, so it can be thought of as a natural population control device that actually helps to prevent future crashes due to overpopulation.

>"Profession based on what and whom?"

>Based on common agreement as to what should go into their diagnostic manuals. 

>"Mathematical equation."

>Please elaborate. Also, see above.

>
So, you have judged people to be "homosexual?"

I have labeled people as "homosexual". No judgement is intended.

It is a bit like saying somo one is a "redhead". No judgement is implied other than one concerning the color of their hair.

...or labeling someone to be a "blond".  That doesn't mean that there are no such thing as jokes about blonds.

But redheads and blondes are proven to be naturally occurring, homosexuality in nature is still just a theory. Hence Tureaz'47 using the word judging.
Are you wanting attention for "rugby?" How do you know what nature is?

That would be interesting?

I didnt say i knew what nature was im only suggesting that facts shouldnt be compared to theories. Obviously im talking to the wrong crowd.

This is a time to find out perhaps? I agree, but what are the facts that you are posting about that are proven? How about talking to yourself?You'll figure it out.


It's strange, being a catalyst for things that move outside.

UNTRugby

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1212

Report this Sep. 03 2010, 9:25 am

Quote: Tureaz'47 @ Sep. 03 2010, 9:19 am

Quote: UNTRugby @ Sep. 03 2010, 9:13 am

Quote: Tureaz'47 @ Sep. 03 2010, 9:02 am

Quote: UNTRugby @ Sep. 03 2010, 8:57 am

Quote: caltrek2 @ Sep. 03 2010, 8:51 am

Quote: Tureaz'47 @ Sep. 03 2010, 8:21 am

Quote: caltrek2 @ Sep. 03 2010, 8:13 am

>

>

>

>

>"What purpose does it fulfill?"

>Some claim that feathers first evolved as a means of insulation. Some argue that the reason dogs are so willing to have human masters is that human masters fill the role of the alpha animal in their lives, a nedd that is their based on genes.

>Homosexuals can become part of an extended family in which care is provided for the young. Homosexuality also can be found to emerge in periods of overcrowding, so it can be thought of as a natural population control device that actually helps to prevent future crashes due to overpopulation.

>"Profession based on what and whom?"

>Based on common agreement as to what should go into their diagnostic manuals. 

>"Mathematical equation."

>Please elaborate. Also, see above.

>
So, you have judged people to be "homosexual?"

I have labeled people as "homosexual". No judgement is intended.

It is a bit like saying somo one is a "redhead". No judgement is implied other than one concerning the color of their hair.

...or labeling someone to be a "blond".  That doesn't mean that there are no such thing as jokes about blonds.

But redheads and blondes are proven to be naturally occurring, homosexuality in nature is still just a theory. Hence Tureaz'47 using the word judging.
Are you wanting attention for "rugby?" How do you know what nature is?

That would be interesting?

I didnt say i knew what nature was im only suggesting that facts shouldnt be compared to theories. Obviously im talking to the wrong crowd.

This is a time to find our perhaps? I agree, but what are the facts that you are posting about that are proven? How about talking to yourself?You'll figure it out.


The facts i was talking about was caltrek2 comparing the born to homosexuality theory to the fact the people can be born with blond or redhair

Tureaz'47

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2605

Report this Sep. 03 2010, 9:37 am

Quote: UNTRugby @ Sep. 03 2010, 9:25 am

Quote: Tureaz'47 @ Sep. 03 2010, 9:19 am

Quote: UNTRugby @ Sep. 03 2010, 9:13 am

Quote: Tureaz'47 @ Sep. 03 2010, 9:02 am

Quote: UNTRugby @ Sep. 03 2010, 8:57 am

Quote: caltrek2 @ Sep. 03 2010, 8:51 am

Quote: Tureaz'47 @ Sep. 03 2010, 8:21 am

Quote: caltrek2 @ Sep. 03 2010, 8:13 am

>

>

>

>

>"What purpose does it fulfill?"

>Some claim that feathers first evolved as a means of insulation. Some argue that the reason dogs are so willing to have human masters is that human masters fill the role of the alpha animal in their lives, a nedd that is their based on genes.

>Homosexuals can become part of an extended family in which care is provided for the young. Homosexuality also can be found to emerge in periods of overcrowding, so it can be thought of as a natural population control device that actually helps to prevent future crashes due to overpopulation.

>"Profession based on what and whom?"

>Based on common agreement as to what should go into their diagnostic manuals. 

>"Mathematical equation."

>Please elaborate. Also, see above.

>
So, you have judged people to be "homosexual?"

I have labeled people as "homosexual". No judgement is intended.

It is a bit like saying somo one is a "redhead". No judgement is implied other than one concerning the color of their hair.

...or labeling someone to be a "blond".  That doesn't mean that there are no such thing as jokes about blonds.

But redheads and blondes are proven to be naturally occurring, homosexuality in nature is still just a theory. Hence Tureaz'47 using the word judging.
Are you wanting attention for "rugby?" How do you know what nature is?

That would be interesting?

I didnt say i knew what nature was im only suggesting that facts shouldnt be compared to theories. Obviously im talking to the wrong crowd.

This is a time to find our perhaps? I agree, but what are the facts that you are posting about that are proven? How about talking to yourself?You'll figure it out.
The facts i was talking about was caltrek2 comparing the born to homosexuality theory to the fact the people can be born with blond or redhair


Incorrect. a "hair colour" doesn't determine a person's actions.

It's strange, being a catalyst for things that move outside.

Tureaz'47

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2605

Report this Sep. 03 2010, 9:40 am

Quote: Tureaz'47 @ Sep. 03 2010, 9:19 am

Quote: UNTRugby @ Sep. 03 2010, 9:13 am

Quote: Tureaz'47 @ Sep. 03 2010, 9:02 am

Quote: UNTRugby @ Sep. 03 2010, 8:57 am

Quote: caltrek2 @ Sep. 03 2010, 8:51 am

Quote: Tureaz'47 @ Sep. 03 2010, 8:21 am

Quote: caltrek2 @ Sep. 03 2010, 8:13 am

>

>

>

>

>

>"What purpose does it fulfill?"

>Some claim that feathers first evolved as a means of insulation. Some argue that the reason dogs are so willing to have human masters is that human masters fill the role of the alpha animal in their lives, a nedd that is their based on genes.

>Homosexuals can become part of an extended family in which care is provided for the young. Homosexuality also can be found to emerge in periods of overcrowding, so it can be thought of as a natural population control device that actually helps to prevent future crashes due to overpopulation.

>"Profession based on what and whom?"

>Based on common agreement as to what should go into their diagnostic manuals. 

>"Mathematical equation."

>Please elaborate. Also, see above.

>
So, you have judged people to be "homosexual?"

I have labeled people as "homosexual". No judgement is intended.

It is a bit like saying somo one is a "redhead". No judgement is implied other than one concerning the color of their hair.

...or labeling someone to be a "blond".  That doesn't mean that there are no such thing as jokes about blonds.

But redheads and blondes are proven to be naturally occurring, homosexuality in nature is still just a theory. Hence Tureaz'47 using the word judging.
Are you wanting attention for "rugby?" How do you know what nature is?

That would be interesting?

I didnt sayii knew what nature was im only suggesting that facts shouldnt be compared to theories. Obviously im talking to the wrong crowd.

This is a time to find out perhaps? I agree, but what are the facts that you are posting about that are proven? How about talking to yourself?You'll figure it out.

I used "judgement" which is a general term for the word, not a "consecutive" one. Do you know what "judging" means?


It's strange, being a catalyst for things that move outside.

UNTRugby

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1212

Report this Sep. 03 2010, 9:44 am

Quote: Tureaz'47 @ Sep. 03 2010, 9:37 am

Quote: UNTRugby @ Sep. 03 2010, 9:25 am

Quote: Tureaz'47 @ Sep. 03 2010, 9:19 am

Quote: UNTRugby @ Sep. 03 2010, 9:13 am

Quote: Tureaz'47 @ Sep. 03 2010, 9:02 am

Quote: UNTRugby @ Sep. 03 2010, 8:57 am

Quote: caltrek2 @ Sep. 03 2010, 8:51 am

Quote: Tureaz'47 @ Sep. 03 2010, 8:21 am

Quote: caltrek2 @ Sep. 03 2010, 8:13 am

>

>

>

>

>"What purpose does it fulfill?"

>Some claim that feathers first evolved as a means of insulation. Some argue that the reason dogs are so willing to have human masters is that human masters fill the role of the alpha animal in their lives, a nedd that is their based on genes.

>Homosexuals can become part of an extended family in which care is provided for the young. Homosexuality also can be found to emerge in periods of overcrowding, so it can be thought of as a natural population control device that actually helps to prevent future crashes due to overpopulation.

>"Profession based on what and whom?"

>Based on common agreement as to what should go into their diagnostic manuals. 

>"Mathematical equation."

>Please elaborate. Also, see above.

>
So, you have judged people to be "homosexual?"

I have labeled people as "homosexual". No judgement is intended.

It is a bit like saying somo one is a "redhead". No judgement is implied other than one concerning the color of their hair.

...or labeling someone to be a "blond".  That doesn't mean that there are no such thing as jokes about blonds.

But redheads and blondes are proven to be naturally occurring, homosexuality in nature is still just a theory. Hence Tureaz'47 using the word judging.
Are you wanting attention for "rugby?" How do you know what nature is?

That would be interesting?

I didnt say i knew what nature was im only suggesting that facts shouldnt be compared to theories. Obviously im talking to the wrong crowd.

This is a time to find our perhaps? I agree, but what are the facts that you are posting about that are proven? How about talking to yourself?You'll figure it out.
The facts i was talking about was caltrek2 comparing the born to homosexuality theory to the fact the people can be born with blond or redhair
Incorrect. a "hair colour" doesn't determine a person's actions.


I didnt make that comparison caltrek2 did talk to him not me

Tureaz'47

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2605

Report this Sep. 03 2010, 9:49 am

Quote: UNTRugby @ Sep. 03 2010, 9:44 am

Quote: Tureaz'47 @ Sep. 03 2010, 9:37 am

Quote: UNTRugby @ Sep. 03 2010, 9:25 am

Quote: Tureaz'47 @ Sep. 03 2010, 9:19 am

Quote: UNTRugby @ Sep. 03 2010, 9:13 am

Quote: Tureaz'47 @ Sep. 03 2010, 9:02 am

Quote: UNTRugby @ Sep. 03 2010, 8:57 am

Quote: caltrek2 @ Sep. 03 2010, 8:51 am

Quote: Tureaz'47 @ Sep. 03 2010, 8:21 am

Quote: caltrek2 @ Sep. 03 2010, 8:13 am

>

>

>

>

>"What purpose does it fulfill?"

>Some claim that feathers first evolved as a means of insulation. Some argue that the reason dogs are so willing to have human masters is that human masters fill the role of the alpha animal in their lives, a nedd that is their based on genes.

>Homosexuals can become part of an extended family in which care is provided for the young. Homosexuality also can be found to emerge in periods of overcrowding, so it can be thought of as a natural population control device that actually helps to prevent future crashes due to overpopulation.

>"Profession based on what and whom?"

>Based on common agreement as to what should go into their diagnostic manuals. 

>"Mathematical equation."

>Please elaborate. Also, see above.

>
So, you have judged people to be "homosexual?"

I have labeled people as "homosexual". No judgement is intended.

It is a bit like saying somo one is a "redhead". No judgement is implied other than one concerning the color of their hair.

...or labeling someone to be a "blond".  That doesn't mean that there are no such thing as jokes about blonds.

But redheads and blondes are proven to be naturally occurring, homosexuality in nature is still just a theory. Hence Tureaz'47 using the word judging.
Are you wanting attention for "rugby?" How do you know what nature is?

That would be interesting?

I didnt say i knew what nature was im only suggesting that facts shouldnt be compared to theories. Obviously im talking to the wrong crowd.

This is a time to find our perhaps? I agree, but what are the facts that you are posting about that are proven? How about talking to yourself?You'll figure it out.
The facts i was talking about was caltrek2 comparing the born to homosexuality theory to the fact the people can be born with blond or redhair
Incorrect. a "hair colour" doesn't determine a person's actions.
I didnt make that comparison caltrek2 did talk to him not me


Ok! Give some kind of distinction of the posts?

It's strange, being a catalyst for things that move outside.

Tureaz'47

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2605

Report this Sep. 03 2010, 9:54 am

Quote: UNTRugby @ Sep. 03 2010, 9:44 am

Quote: Tureaz'47 @ Sep. 03 2010, 9:37 am

Quote: UNTRugby @ Sep. 03 2010, 9:25 am

Quote: Tureaz'47 @ Sep. 03 2010, 9:19 am

Quote: UNTRugby @ Sep. 03 2010, 9:13 am

Quote: Tureaz'47 @ Sep. 03 2010, 9:02 am

Quote: UNTRugby @ Sep. 03 2010, 8:57 am

Quote: caltrek2 @ Sep. 03 2010, 8:51 am

Quote: Tureaz'47 @ Sep. 03 2010, 8:21 am

Quote: caltrek2 @ Sep. 03 2010, 8:13 am

>

>

>

>

>"What purpose does it fulfill?"

>Some claim that feathers first evolved as a means of insulation. Some argue that the reason dogs are so willing to have human masters is that human masters fill the role of the alpha animal in their lives, a nedd that is their based on genes.

>Homosexuals can become part of an extended family in which care is provided for the young. Homosexuality also can be found to emerge in periods of overcrowding, so it can be thought of as a natural population control device that actually helps to prevent future crashes due to overpopulation.

>"Profession based on what and whom?"

>Based on common agreement as to what should go into their diagnostic manuals. 

>"Mathematical equation."

>Please elaborate. Also, see above.

>
So, you have judged people to be "homosexual?"

I have labeled people as "homosexual". No judgement is intended.

It is a bit like saying somo one is a "redhead". No judgement is implied other than one concerning the color of their hair.

...or labeling someone to be a "blond".  That doesn't mean that there are no such thing as jokes about blonds.

But redheads and blondes are proven to be naturally occurring, homosexuality in nature is still just a theory. Hence Tureaz'47 using the word judging.
Are you wanting attention for "rugby?" How do you know what nature is?

That would be interesting?

I didnt say i knew what nature was im only suggesting that facts shouldnt be compared to theories. Obviously im talking to the wrong crowd.

This is a time to find our perhaps? I agree, but what are the facts that you are posting about that are proven? How about talking to yourself?You'll figure it out.
The facts i was talking about was caltrek2 comparing the born to homosexuality theory to the fact the people can be born with blond or redhair
Incorrect. a "hair colour" doesn't determine a person's actions.
I didnt make that comparison caltrek2 did talk to him not me


Be specific about the motive being conveyed.

It's strange, being a catalyst for things that move outside.

caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this Sep. 03 2010, 9:55 am

"The facts i was talking about was caltrek2 comparing the born to homosexuality theory to the fact the people can be born with blond or redhair"


 


I never compared the "born to homosexual" theory to the "fact" that people can be born with blond or red hair. I was merely making a point about labeling. I notice some highly popular actresses of late have taken to dying their hair as they take on different acting parts. So calling some one a "blond" says nothing about the hair color they were "born" with.


Frankly, I really don't care if people are "born to be homosexuals" or "chose" to be homosexuals. That really does not affect my conclusions. It may be important to other people as to what stance they take in this debate, but personally I could not care less.

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4031

Report this Sep. 03 2010, 9:57 am

Quote: Tureaz'47 @ Sep. 03 2010, 6:51 am

Quote: wissa @ Sep. 01 2010, 9:54 am

Quote: Tureaz'47 @ Sep. 01 2010, 7:05 am

Quote: caltrek2 @ Sep. 01 2010, 6:33 am

> >>Below I have posted Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling that found Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional. Through out much of this thread, I have sought as best as I could to outline the gist of the reasoning presented in this ruling. An exception is that I have added my own personal thoughts regarding the theological aspects of this debate. It was never my intent to directly challenge Christian doctrine, nor do I relish the idea of going forth in this thread to do so. Conventional wisdom has it that this ruling will eventually be overturned. Others think that the case against gay marriage as presented before Judge Walker was so weak that his ruling will be allowed to stand, but not be allowed to extend beyond his own jurisdiction. The thinking is that perhaps a ruling in another district will be what the higher courts look at to provide a final determination as to the Constitutional arguments presented. Another possibility is that it will make it to the Supreme Court and that Justice Kennedy will break with the other conservative justices on the court to support Judge Walker's ruling. Apparently, Justice Kennedy has expressed some sympathy to gays in previous rulings. As a potential swing vote, he may very well be instrumental in determining the final outcome of this controversy. Personally, I am not an attorney or a professional court watcher, so my prediction as to the outcome carries little weight.

 

Anyone challenging Christianity is an attempt to change it, but it will not be successful. I don't know, who you are responding too? Anyway! Genesis 2:18-25 Ecclesiastes 3:12 Matthew 19:5 Matthew 19:6 Numbers 14:37 Ezekiel 4:11 Acts 15:20,29; 21:25 1Corinthians 6:9,18 Colossians 3:5 2 Corinthians 12:21 Galatians 5:19 Ephesians 5:3 1 Thessalonians 4:3 Jude 7 Revelation 2:14 The direct meaning as in this case is an "illicit or illegal act outside of God's constitution, based on what we know from the "Holy scripture's" which is the "Inspired word of God," according to 2 Timothy 3:16. A person in union is not only 2 persons becoming 1, but 2 persons becoming 3 or that God approves and blesse's that union based on his approval and therefore is a "vow," not between 2 person's, but 3, which includes God. God is the "Head covering" of such a constitution. That is why Ecclesiastes and Matthew 19:4-9, is significant!

no one is trying to change christianity. Or what is or is not considered a sin by people who follow christianity. The state is separate from any church. These are civil laws religious predjudice should have no bearing.
The "Laws" of the western world or ideology is based on the "10 commandments," supposedly. You need to do your research on that one. Basically, what this is stating is that the freedoms that is experienced where we are, is based on those commandments. The 'system,' has chosen to move or adapt or confuse it, to suit individual ideals and that is why it does and will not work, that is why it confuses us because we have a "natural-law" or inability, everyone has. There is "prejudice," and is not exclusive to any persons except the "true-christians."


what?

we have laws that coincide with the ten commandments but a majortiy of them are no longer against the law. And the state has no right to impose christian ideals on the populace.

We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

UNTRugby

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1212

Report this Sep. 03 2010, 10:01 am

Quote: caltrek2 @ Sep. 03 2010, 9:55 am

>

>"The facts i was talking about was caltrek2 comparing the born to homosexuality theory to the fact the people can be born with blond or redhair"

>I never compared the "born to homosexual" theory to the "fact" that people can be born with blond or red hair. I was merely making a point about labeling. I notice some highly popular actresses of late have taken to dying their hair as they take on different acting parts. So calling some one a "blond" says nothing about the hair color they were "born" with.

>Frankly, I really don't care if people are "born to be homosexuals" or "chose" to be homosexuals. That really does not affect my conclusions. It may be important to other people as to what stance they take in this debate, but personally I could not care less.

>


It does matter whether or not they are born homosexuals or chose to be one for labeling purposes. Blondes and redheads are not labeled that way becuase its not a choice. All though you can chose to dye your hair its still not a factor unless its dyed an unnatural color. People are labeled by their actions though. So if homosexuality isnt a choice they shouldn't be labeled as such and if it is a choice then a label is more appropriate.

CornishMonkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 13870

Report this Sep. 03 2010, 10:06 am

Pretty sure I concluded this discussion using my own inspired insight some pages back.

"What's wrong, Captain Picard?" "What's wrong? I'm a serious Shakespearian actor, and I'm talking to the ambassador of the F**KING WORM PEOPLE!"

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4031

Report this Sep. 03 2010, 10:07 am

Quote: UNTRugby @ Sep. 03 2010, 10:01 am

Quote: caltrek2 @ Sep. 03 2010, 9:55 am

>

>"The facts i was talking about was caltrek2 comparing the born to homosexuality theory to the fact the people can be born with blond or redhair"

>I never compared the "born to homosexual" theory to the "fact" that people can be born with blond or red hair. I was merely making a point about labeling. I notice some highly popular actresses of late have taken to dying their hair as they take on different acting parts. So calling some one a "blond" says nothing about the hair color they were "born" with.

>Frankly, I really don't care if people are "born to be homosexuals" or "chose" to be homosexuals. That really does not affect my conclusions. It may be important to other people as to what stance they take in this debate, but personally I could not care less.

>

It does matter whether or not they are born homosexuals or chose to be one for labeling purposes. Blondes and redheads are not labeled that way becuase its not a choice. All though you can chose to dye your hair its still not a factor unless its dyed an unnatural color. People are labeled by their actions though. So if homosexuality isnt a choice they shouldn't be labeled as such and if it is a choice then a label is more appropriate.



until science answers that question the answer is irrelevant.

We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

Tureaz'47

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2605

Report this Sep. 04 2010, 4:23 am

Quote: wissa @ Sep. 03 2010, 9:57 am

Quote: Tureaz'47 @ Sep. 03 2010, 6:51 am

Quote: wissa @ Sep. 01 2010, 9:54 am

Quote: Tureaz'47 @ Sep. 01 2010, 7:05 am

Quote: caltrek2 @ Sep. 01 2010, 6:33 am

>

> >>Below I have posted Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling that found Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional. Through out much of this thread, I have sought as best as I could to outline the gist of the reasoning presented in this ruling. An exception is that I have added my own personal thoughts regarding the theological aspects of this debate. It was never my intent to directly challenge Christian doctrine, nor do I relish the idea of going forth in this thread to do so. Conventional wisdom has it that this ruling will eventually be overturned. Others think that the case against gay marriage as presented before Judge Walker was so weak that his ruling will be allowed to stand, but not be allowed to extend beyond his own jurisdiction. The thinking is that perhaps a ruling in another district will be what the higher courts look at to provide a final determination as to the Constitutional arguments presented. Another possibility is that it will make it to the Supreme Court and that Justice Kennedy will break with the other conservative justices on the court to support Judge Walker's ruling. Apparently, Justice Kennedy has expressed some sympathy to gays in previous rulings. As a potential swing vote, he may very well be instrumental in determining the final outcome of this controversy. Personally, I am not an attorney or a professional court watcher, so my prediction as to the outcome carries little weight.

 

Anyone challenging Christianity is an attempt to change it, but it will not be successful. I don't know, who you are responding too? Anyway! Genesis 2:18-25 Ecclesiastes 3:12 Matthew 19:5 Matthew 19:6 Numbers 14:37 Ezekiel 4:11 Acts 15:20,29; 21:25 1Corinthians 6:9,18 Colossians 3:5 2 Corinthians 12:21 Galatians 5:19 Ephesians 5:3 1 Thessalonians 4:3 Jude 7 Revelation 2:14 The direct meaning as in this case is an "illicit or illegal act outside of God's constitution, based on what we know from the "Holy scripture's" which is the "Inspired word of God," according to 2 Timothy 3:16. A person in union is not only 2 persons becoming 1, but 2 persons becoming 3 or that God approves and blesse's that union based on his approval and therefore is a "vow," not between 2 person's, but 3, which includes God. God is the "Head covering" of such a constitution. That is why Ecclesiastes and Matthew 19:4-9, is significant!

no one is trying to change christianity. Or what is or is not considered a sin by people who follow christianity. The state is separate from any church. These are civil laws religious predjudice should have no bearing.
The "Laws" of the western world or ideology is based on the "10 commandments," supposedly. You need to do your research on that one. Basically, what this is stating is that the freedoms that is experienced where we are, is based on those commandments. The 'system,' has chosen to move or adapt or confuse it, to suit individual ideals and that is why it does and will not work, that is why it confuses us because we have a "natural-law" or inability, everyone has. There is "prejudice," and is not exclusive to any persons except the "true-christians."
what? we have laws that coincide with the ten commandments but a majortiy of them are no longer against the law. And the state has no right to impose christian ideals on the populace.


You cannot "impose" something that is not "practiced." The law system ideal was to be practiced on the 10 commandments according to those "fore-bearers" and others who had an idea of them and some that added to them. The distinction between "Christianity" and the current justice system is that Christianity does work when put into 'complete' practice, and it shows by the disintegration of the current sytems. Why?  The bible principles uses "love" as the prime, which in turn give mercy and justice, but these systems do not. The system now is a "greek" or philosophical system trying to integrate one belief to another. It won't work. God's laws are "perfect," we are not!


It's strange, being a catalyst for things that move outside.

Beccs_

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 41931

Report this Sep. 05 2010, 4:42 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

For. Why deny one group rights just because you don't like their lifestyle? Not so long ago many of the same people would have been protesting against mixed marriages, for the same reasons.
Beccs are you gay. Because you can tell me.


Why? Are you thinking that if I were gay you might actually have a chance with me?

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: darmokattanagra

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum