Federal judge: Arguments against gay marriage 'are not those of serious people'

[Blessedj01]

Our you sure God didn't make other people, beside Adam and Eve? I wouldn't be surprised if Garden of Eden wasn't only place God was creating people at that time.

The only record we have is the creation of human beings on Earth.

It doesn't seem supported by the evidence of who God is, what He was trying to achieve, or why He made us, or for Jesus' sacrifice, for there to be other humans hanging around out there.

Just my opinion.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

The only record we have is the creation of human beings on Earth.

It doesn't seem supported by the evidence of who God is, what He was trying to achieve, or why He made us, or for Jesus' sacrifice, for there to be other humans hanging around out there.

Just my opinion.

Are you saying that he was encouraging brother and sister to have sex together, so the world would multiple, That that's who God is. Because that doesn't make since to me.

 

[Blessedj01]

Are you saying that he was encouraging brother and sister to have sex together, so the world would multiple, That that's who God is. Because that doesn't make since to me.

Not sure, but I'm pretty sure sex wouldn't have contained the exact same dynamics back then.

 

[KCfromNC]

Interestingly, there is no law against love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

So, what are Christians afraid of?

Loss of implicit government-supported privilege?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Loss of implicit government-supported privilege?

Persecution! Oe noes!

 

[Queller]

This is the basis for mine:

[FONT=&quot]Leviticus 18:22 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1 Corinthians 6:9-11 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Romans 1:26-28 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Leviticus 20:13 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1 Timothy 1:10 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Jude 1:7 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. [/FONT]

That's all well and good for you, but why should that be the basis for secular law here in America?

 

[Queller]

They did for a very long time; and the world has gone down hill very fast since atheism has been in the ascendant.

Indeed, man will surely destroy the planet one way or another quite soon, and then where will you be? I doubt if God will give you the chance to give him a good telling off.

Really? Does this mean you are not a believer in the "we will stand before God" doctrine?

 

[Skaloop]

They did for a very long time; and the world has gone down hill very fast since atheism has been in the ascendant.

Actually, the world is, overall, better for humans than any previous time in history on pretty much every metric.

 

[Aldebaran]

So it's settled. You don't want to answer the question.

It is settled. Your question has been answered with an answer you didn't like.

Our you sure God didn't make other people, beside Adam and Eve? I wouldn't be surprised if Garden of Eden wasn't only place God was creating people at that time.

You could assume that if you choose to, but since there's no evidence or written record of it, it can only be an assumption--just like evolution.

Are you saying that he was encouraging brother and sister to have sex together, so the world would multiple, That that's who God is. Because that doesn't make since to me.

If you want to know WHO God is, then read the bible and pray about what you read for God to reveal Himself to you.

That's all well and good for you, but why should that be the basis for secular law here in America?

I never said it should be. I stated my opinion as an opinion. You are reading way too much into what I say.

Really? Does this mean you are not a believer in the "we will stand before God" doctrine?

You can stand, but as Philippians 2:10 says: "so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth". I doubt you'll have long to "tell him off".

 

[mark kennedy]

District Judge John G. Heyburn II shredded the state's argument that a gay marriage ban was necessary from a biological standpoint because "traditional marriages contribute to a stable birth rate which, in turn, ensures the state's long-term economic stability." Heyburn pulled no punches in labeling that claim "disingenuous."

In the context he is making the ruling in, as much as I don't like it, he's right. Traditional marriage doesn't promote a more stable economic state. In fact, I think the case is borderline frivolous.

Don't get me wrong, I don't approve of same sex marriages. I just don't believe that the state can establish a marriage contract anymore then the state can establish any contract agreement between two parties. The state simply recognizes them based the statutory law and precedence.

More and more marriage contracts are going to be treated as any other binding agreement. It pains me to say this but it's becoming an unavoidable fact, moral and religious objections are no longer regarded as legitimate.

 

[Cute Tink]

It pains me to say this but it's becoming an unavoidable fact, moral and religious objections are no longer regarded as legitimate.

Moral and religious objections are legitimate. They are not enforceable under US law however.

 

[bhsmte]

Moral and religious objections are legitimate. They are not enforceable under US law however.

Exactly. One is free to have their own personal moral and religious objections, but they are not to be imposed on other people.

In this case, equal protection, trumps personal religious beliefs.

 

[Aldebaran]

More and more marriage contracts are going to be treated as any other binding agreement. It pains me to say this but it's becoming an unavoidable fact, moral and religious objections are no longer regarded as legitimate.

That's what happens when our freedom and values are handed over to the government for enforcement. Just another example why smaller and less intrusive government is better. Under the current regime, that will never be possible.

 

[TLK Valentine]

That's what happens when our freedom and values are handed over to the government for enforcement. Just another example why smaller and less intrusive government is better. Under the current regime, that will never be possible.

If the government isn't supposed to enforce our freedom, then who is?

 

[poolerboy0077]

It is settled. Your question has been answered with an answer you didn't like.

This is how you look like to other people:


[The following is a hypothetical]


Judge: Defendants in the present case argue that the state should outlaw religious worship on the belief that such a practice is false. Our federal and state constitutions provide protections for people to practice their religion freely irrespective of its truthfulness. Truth or falsehood is simply irrelevant to whether or not we should ban a practice that emanates from free expression and religious conscience.

Me: Any atheist here have any objections to this specific argument?

Atheist Bob: I do! I disagree with his reasoning.

Me: How so?

Atheist Bob: RELIGION IS FALSE AND EVIL! IT SHOULD BE ERADICATED!

Me: Well, that doesn't really answer my question. I asked what specifically about his response to the defendants of this case is irrational or lacking in evidence.

Atheist Bob: I answered your question!

Me: You didn't address it. I am an atheist too and agree generally with your sentiments. This has nothing to do with whether or not you want religion to go away. This is about whether his response was adequate given the law.

Atheist Bob: You just don't like my response.

Me: ...



I even made the atheist here look foolish so that you don't have a reflexive reaction against it. I'm not holding out much hope that this will "click" however.

 

[Aldebaran]

This is how you look like to other people:


[The following is a hypothetical]


Judge: Defendants in the present case argue that the state should outlaw religious worship on the belief that such a practice is false. Our federal and state constitutions provide protections for people to practice their religion freely irrespective of its truthfulness. Truth or falsehood is simply irrelevant to whether or not we should ban a practice that emanates from free expression and religious conscience.

Me: Any atheist here have any objections to this specific argument?

Atheist Bob: I do! I disagree with his reasoning.

Me: How so?

Atheist Bob: RELIGION IS FALSE AND EVIL! IT SHOULD BE ERADICATED!

Me: Well, that doesn't really answer my question. I asked what specifically about his response to the defendants of this case is irrational or lacking in evidence.

Atheist Bob: I answered your question!

Me: You didn't address it. I am an atheist too and agree generally with your sentiments. This has nothing to do with whether or not you want religion to go away. This is about whether his response was adequate given the law.

Atheist Bob: You just don't like my response.

Me: ...



I even made the atheist here look foolish so that you don't have a reflexive reaction against it. I'm not holding out much hope that this will "click" however.

Funny. But I also still think that you sound like a 5 year old who never hears the answer he wants, so he keeps asking, and asking, and asking.....

Mommy, can I have some candy? Please Mommy? Can I? Mommy can I?

But hey, if I can keep someone with a 5 year-old mentality busy by keeping him writing to me, then it's less time he'll be bothering someone else. It's my service to the members on this forum who actually understand what it means to have an actual discussion on an adult level.

 

[poolerboy0077]

Yep, I was right.

 

[bhsmte]

Yep, I was right.

Was there ever any question?

 

[Aldebaran]

I even made the atheist here look foolish so that you don't have a reflexive reaction against it. I'm not holding out much hope that this will "click" however.

Are you sure you didn't make the atheist look foolish because you subconsciously understand that the atheist IS foolish? After all, Psalm 14:1 says, "The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds".

 

[TLK Valentine]

Are you sure you didn't make the atheist look foolish because you subconsciously understand that the atheist IS foolish? After all, Psalm 14:1 says, "The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds".

On a related note, all poodles are dogs, but not all dogs are poodles.