Page 15 of 20 FirstFirst ... 51011121314151617181920 LastLast
Results 281 to 300 of 398
  1. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #281  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Several SC case rulings state such.
    The SC also upheld "people of African Ancestory could never become a citizen of the United States", and to top it off "that the federal government did not have the power to prohibit slavery in its territories" if I am not mistaken. Hoovs could you give me a better example.
  2. #282  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    The bible also says we should kill homosexuals. Why pay attention to just one section of it?
    That's quite an ironic statement given the fact that for one to read that any modern non-Jewish government should govern by the laws of Leviticus is itself just paying attention to one section of the Bible.
  3. #283  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    The SC also upheld "people of African Ancestory could never become a citizen of the United States", and to top it off "that the federal government did not have the power to prohibit slavery in its territories" if I am not mistaken. Hoovs could you give me a better example.
    Well, you asked where it said marriage should be between a man and a woman. I was giving you a very pertinent answer that has yet to be overruled by any subsequent SC ruling.
  4. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #284  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Well, you asked where it said marriage should be between a man and a woman. I was giving you a very pertinent answer that has yet to be overruled by any subsequent SC ruling.
    So do you think we should let Sc handle it? And not, make an amendment to the constitution, thereby robbing a class of people of their day in court? Or would they be labeled 'activist' judges if they, the SC, ruled in favor of gay marriage?
  5. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #285  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    So do you think we should let Sc handle it? And not, make an amendment to the constitution, thereby robbing a class of people of their day in court? Or would they be labeled 'activist' judges if they, the SC, ruled in favor of gay marriage?
    But, the people have voted on it numerous times and it has failed every time. Are we not a gov't of the people, by the people, for the people? I understand that you disagree with what the people have voted for, but it is what they voted for. If a new tax was voted in and you disagree, you will still pay the tax.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  6. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #286  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    But, the people have voted on it numerous times and it has failed every time. Are we not a gov't of the people, by the people, for the people? I understand that you disagree with what the people have voted for, but it is what they voted for. If a new tax was voted in and you disagree, you will still pay the tax.
    What have they voted on?
  7. #287  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    That's quite an ironic statement given the fact that for one to read that any modern non-Jewish government should govern by the laws of Leviticus is itself just paying attention to one section of the Bible.
    Translation....

    Yeah it said to kill gays,

    and it also said to have sex with your wife's sister

    but it also said

    don't kill gays, and dont have sex with your wife's sister.

    Stop paying attention to one part of the bible. Unless you are a Jew.
  8. #288  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    What have they voted on?
    You have zero chance of explaining the courts here as a constitutional protection of the minority from tyrrany of the majority. Just a warning.
  9. #289  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Sorry, you are making personal attacks and I will not respond in kind.
    Must have been the admonishment from the mod. Glad to see you've come around.
    Last edited by theBlaze74; 07/10/2006 at 09:41 PM.
  10. #290  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    So do you think we should let Sc handle it? And not, make an amendment to the constitution, thereby robbing a class of people of their day in court? Or would they be labeled 'activist' judges if they, the SC, ruled in favor of gay marriage?
    I wouldn't support and amendment to the Constitution because I don't think it should be handled at the federal level. If a state wants to hold a referendum and put it before the people then so be it. However, the outcome of that vote needs to pass state and federal constitutional muster.
  11. #291  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Translation....

    Yeah it said to kill gays,
    To whom?

    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    and it also said to have sex with your wife's sister
    To whom?

    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    but it also said

    don't kill gays, and dont have sex with your wife's sister.

    Stop paying attention to one part of the bible. Unless you are a Jew.
    Do you disagree that Jews don't pay attention to the whole Christian Bible?
  12. #292  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Must have been the admonishment from the mod. Glad to see you've come around.
    Gee, blaze, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Why should I have been admonished by a mod?
  13. #293  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    I wouldn't support and amendment to the Constitution because I don't think it should be handled at the federal level. If a state wants to hold a referendum and put it before the people then so be it.
    How would you handle (and I forget the exact name of the process) the fact that states must recognize married couples from other states?
  14. #294  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    How would you handle (and I forget the exact name of the process) the fact that states must recognize married couples from other states?
    I don't believe that's the case. As far as I know, states reserve the right to deny marriages from other states if they violate state laws. Age-of-consent laws I think would be an example.
  15. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #295  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    I don't believe that's the case. As far as I know, states reserve the right to deny marriages from other states if they violate state laws.
    You are correct.
  16. #296  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    The bible also says we should kill homosexuals. Why pay attention to just one section of it?
    He didn't ask about the other sections.

    In truth, I never introduced the Biblical context because, while it is a fitting source for historical reference, it does not have specific standing legally.
  17. #297  
    NRG: I don't have an aquapac, but am know thinking of getting something along those lines since I'm on a boat most weekends. Actually, I no longer have a treo (hehehe) I switched to the 6700 a couple months ago. The treo 650 was way faster and more stable (FACT), but I love the bigger screen and the multitasking of the 6700.

    Anyway, I understand your point of view for why two-partner marriage is in your nature and polygamy is not, but polygamists will argue:

    "Being a polygamist is a lifestyle choice"

    It is in their nature to not be monogamous. They believe that sharing love and affections is a good thing, so long as everyone is treated equally and is consensual. Also,
    ( and I'm sure you knew this was coming--> Many people believe that homosexuality is a “lifestyle” choice, but homosexuals beg to differ. The same can be said for polygamists. It's fine if you if distinguish in you own mind that there is a difference. But understand that I distinguish male-female marriage from homosexual marriage the same way. We both believe that the respective practice (polygamy for you and homosexuality for me) are not healthy or at least as healthy as a committed loving relationship between opposite-sex partners. We differ in that you draw the line after homosexual marriage, and I draw it before. We will probably never agree on where that "line" should be placed.

    “The two subjects have nothing to do with each other. They don't belong in the same argument. You can have monogamous gays, just as you can have monogamous straights. Being gay doesn't cause, lead to, open the door to, have anything to do with, in any form or fashion; polygamy. Just another silly sidetrack.”

    You view it as a side track, but there have been laws or policies enacted to ban certain practices that don’t hurt anyone, simply because lawmakers view it as “opening the flood gates” Kids reading bibles in certain public schools have been banned because other kid (probably just trying to start trouble) started bringing in satanic literature. There will always be an extremist group awaiting a court decision, so that they can get their piece of the pie. So, just because you view it as a sidetrack, doesn’t mean that it is not a legitimated concern to others.

    “If I were an activist liberal judge, how would I secure the constitutional rights of a black man to marry a white woman without opening the door to a black man marrying a white man, or an orange man, or a purple man marrying 3 yellow men, 4 green women and a goat?”

    Laws already allow a black man to marry a white woman or a woman of any color for that matter. We are talking about changing the widespread definition of marriage from man-woman to man-anything (or any number of things). I’m trying to follow you logic, but black men were not allowed to marry white women for a brief time in history simply because they had hardly any rights at all (as I recall, they were not even allowed to look a white woman in the eyes). The government didn’t prohibit black men from marring white women to protect marriage; they did it because they hardly viewed blacks as people at all. Our laws are no where near as horrible as this.
  18. #298  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    The bible also says we should kill homosexuals. Why pay attention to just one section of it?
    I did not explore this before, and in fact have avoided making biblical reference on the topic in the past, because such mention often serves as an invitation to the unlearned to rail against the text based on specific quotes most often evaluated out of context. However, to leave this contextless assertion standing as such is a disservice to those who may be interested in learning.

    I'll provide a summary, and offer to continue more in depth discussion in another thread.

    You will find text admonishing capital punishment for various deviations from the intended sexual order. Interestingly, several other mentioned variations are likewise shunned in our culture (most notably, incest). You will also find that death is not the goal. Rather the threat of death is--with the intent of serving as a deterrent. This is illustrated by Jesus addressing a mob who is prepared to execute a woman caught in the very act of adultery. Jesus acknowledges her guilt and authorizes the execution on the condition that the precedings be initiated by the one without his/her own sin. Finding no one eligible, the execution is stayed. He who was eligible--Jesus Himself-- opted to forgive her and admonish her not to sin again.
    Last edited by shopharim; 07/11/2006 at 07:02 AM.
  19. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #299  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    They are not being denied the right to marry. They are being denied the ability to do something the courts have declared against the law of the land. If they said that they could not get a drivers license because they prefer to live with a same sex partner, or were denied employment, or medical care then yes, they would be discriminated against.
    Come on now. They're not being denied the right to marry? This isn't about access to services. This is about a denial of rights. Plan and simple. It amazes me that some people seem to like walking around with wool over their eyes. Nope! No discrimination here folks, move along!
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  20. #300  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    I don't believe that's the case. As far as I know, states reserve the right to deny marriages from other states if they violate state laws. Age-of-consent laws I think would be an example.
    Oh. I thought it was like a drivers license (where if you happen to be driving through a state where the qualifications for a DL are different than home, you aren't breaking the law). But then again, maybe that's not the case either. As you can tell, I'm neither married nor a lawyer. :-)

Posting Permissions