Arizona Court of Appeals rules in favor of SS couple, based on SC Masterpiece ruling

Queller

I'm where?
May 25, 2012
6,446
681
✟45,092.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Others
No, not at all. There are liberal professors at major universities proposing that pedophilia is simply another gender, and that certain sexual acts performed with children aren't harmful.
Cite your source please.
 
Upvote 0

Queller

I'm where?
May 25, 2012
6,446
681
✟45,092.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Others
The anti establishment clause has been legally disabused to create the unenumerated rule of " strict separation of church and state" From it we get crosses being torn down, demands to have Stars of David and crosses, and assumed other religious symbols removed from tombstones in public cemeteries, Monuments to dead soldiers bastardized because they have religious symbols and all the other nonsense.

The anti establishment clause is about just that, an established state religion declared as such supported and funded by the government just like England had at the time of the revolution and still has.
Until the twentieth century, until much less than a hundred years ago, the anti establishment clause was NEVER interpreted to mean a wall between church and state, never.

If this was what the Founders meant, don't you think they as Presidents, Supreme Court members and Congressmen would have moved to establish this doctrine in their time ?
You mean like Jefferson did in his letter to the Danbury Baptists?

They didn't because it was't what they meant.
It's clearly what Jefferson meant.
 
Upvote 0

Queller

I'm where?
May 25, 2012
6,446
681
✟45,092.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Others
Oh no. You don't get to hijack the Civil Rights train.

Do whatever you want and everyone will leave you alone.
Rosa Parks just wanted to sit in her seat on the bus. Why couldn't people just leave her alone?
 
Upvote 0

Queller

I'm where?
May 25, 2012
6,446
681
✟45,092.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Others
What if a 17-year-old consents to the activity? Note that many states allow 17-year-olds to even marry.

Is minors' consent okay for marriage, but not for pedophilia?
Pedophilia: an ongoing sexual attraction to pre-pubertal children.

Someone over 17 engaging in sex with, or fantasizing about, a 17-year-old is not a pedophile.

Before you start screaming that I'm enabling or whatever, I'm not saying it is right or legal or should be allowed. I'm simply saying that it is not, by definition, pedophilia.

Note that the Bible considers homosexuality to be a sin (Romans 1:26-27), and so offensive to human dignity, just as pedophilia is a sin (Mark 9:42).
The Bible also considers eating shrimp an abomination (Leviticus 11:9-12)
 
  • Like
Reactions: SilverBear
Upvote 0

Queller

I'm where?
May 25, 2012
6,446
681
✟45,092.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Others
Note that homosexuality used to be illegal in all states, and for good reason (Romans 1:26-27). What was the compelling state interest at stake to change that?
What was the compelling state reason for it to be criminalized in the first place?

BTW, a Bible verse is not a good reason for something to be made legal or illegal. Remember; chattel slavery is approved of in the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

RestoreTheJoy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 13, 2018
5,087
1,642
Passing Through
✟449,721.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Rosa Parks just wanted to sit in her seat on the bus. Why couldn't people just leave her alone?
Not remotely relevant to this discussion. Race is inapplicable here. No, there is no correlation, despite the desperation to reach one.
 
Upvote 0

pat34lee

Messianic
Sep 13, 2011
11,293
2,637
59
Florida, USA
✟89,330.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
Daniel served a pagan king. He didn't refuse to serve him because he was a pagan. Yet many Christians refuse to serve gay couples- because they are gay.

God puts kings in power. Who put power in the hands of homosexuals? Leftists.
 
Upvote 0

creslaw

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 20, 2015
1,137
1,183
78
✟171,835.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The Bible also considers eating shrimp an abomination (Leviticus 11:9-12)
The questions you need to ask are whether the NT (which is the new covenant for Christians) agrees with the OT about (1) eating shrimp and (2) homosexuality.

And the answers are: (1) no (2) yes

A more interesting question is "why".
 
Upvote 0

Bible2+

Matthew 4:4
Sep 14, 2015
3,001
375
✟91,195.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Queller said in post #735:

You don't believe in the Old Testament?

The letter of its Mosaic law is no longer in effect (Hebrews 7:18).

Queller said in post #735:

And besides, marriage in the NT is relegated to secondary status behind singleness and celibacy.

But heterosexual marriage is not a sin (1 Corinthians 7:28), like homosexuality is a sin (Romans 1:26-27).

Queller said in post #735:

At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst.
Aristotle

Indeed, so we should not want anyone to be separated from the NT law.

*******

Queller said in post #736:

. . . if your statement is true, then evolution is proven.

Note that evolution per se in no way contradicts the Bible.

Queller said in post #736:

Unless of course you think that because there are people who thing that the earth flat means that a round (mostly) earth is unproven?

No, and nothing in the Bible requires a flat earth.

Queller said in post #736:

Proven facts or proven theories?

Note that the idea that homosexuality is genetic is neither.

And Christian Gay Conversion Therapy can help some gay Christians to become straight, or at least to no longer practice homosexuality.

For Jesus Christ has the power to deliver Christians from slavery to any sin (John 8:34-36).

Also, even if homosexuality could ever be proven to be genetic, so could alcoholism, criminal violence, and schizophrenia. Human genes in their current, fallen, corrupted state have nothing to do with proving what is moral, or what is good mental health.

But while homosexual acts are sinful (Romans 1:26-27), we too easily forget that homosexual acts (Genesis 19:4-5) were not the only sin of Sodom. For: "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy" (Ezekiel 16:49). How many of us Christians who love to rail against homosexuality are nonetheless "just like Sodom" with regard to our pride, our fullness of bread, our abundance of idleness, and our refusal to strengthen the hand of the poor and needy? How many of us love to place ourselves above homosexuals, forgetting that even if we were completely free from all sin ourselves, we would still be judged by God for our self-righteousness (Luke 18:9-14)?

But, at the same time, the truth must never be discounted that homosexual acts, if they are not repented of, will, like any other unrepentant sin, keep people from ultimate salvation (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

The list of sins which will ultimately keep even Christians out of the Kingdom of God (if they do not repent from them) is quite long (Galatians 5:19-21), and some of these sins are common in the Church today. So why is there such a focus by some Christians on homosexuality alone? Why does not the Church also focus on, for example, its own very-widespread practice of divorce and second-marriage adultery (Mark 10:11-12)?

*******

Queller said in post #738:

[Re: Homosexuality is a sin . . .]

So is wearing clothes of two different fibers (Leviticus 19:19).

Not under the New Covenant/New Testament (Romans 7:6).

Queller said in post #738:

There were denied the right to marry the single consenting adult of the gender to which they are attracted.

Not in the case of the OP.

Queller said in post #738:

[Re: Matthew 4:8]

The text reads as if it is a mountain here on earth.

Note that it doesn't say or require that.

Queller said in post #738:

[Re: Matthew 4:5]

Or do you believe the pinnacle of the tabernacle [sic, should be temple] was also not on earth?

It was. For the heavenly city has no temple (Revelation 21:22).

Queller said in post #738:

You really thing that Mark and Luke wouldn't have mentioned the second blind man that was healed?

Why would they have to?

Queller said in post #738:

Also, in one account Jesus is going to Jericho and in the other two He is leaving Jericho.

In Luke 18:35 the original Greek word (G1519) translated as "unto" can mean as Jesus came near "by" (Acts 27:2) a blind man next to Jericho, yet still on Jesus' way out of Jericho (Mark 10:46).

Queller said in post #738:

And, in one account Jesus heals the men by touching their eyes, but in the other two, the healing is done by faith alone.

Note that no account says or requires that Jesus did not touch their eyes.

Queller said in post #738:

Consent still has to be given, free from duress or coercion, by the intended target.

That's right. And just as minors are allowed to consent to marriage, so in the future they could be allowed to consent to pedophilia.

Indeed, homosexuals will eventually realize that they have to support pedophilia. For otherwise, pedophilia completely undermines all of their arguments regarding "love" and "sexual orientation".

Queller said in post #738:

So many other healing are attributed to Him that regrowing a finger should be a trivial matter. But it has never happened.

So what? He still miraculously heals people (Matthew 9:35).

Queller said in post #738:

We're talking about the here and now, when so many other people claim to have been healed by God.

Why can't they have been?

Queller said in post #738:

Forcing other people to adhere to Christian religious beliefs is protected in the First Amendment?

No, but forcing Biblical Christians to deny the "free exercise" of their religion is prohibited by the First Amendment.

Queller said in post #738:

Only school sponsored and/or mandated prayer has been deemed unconstitutional.

No, even if all students at a graduation wanted to say a voluntary prayer out loud at the start, they cannot.

For, since 1962, the government has illegally denied prayer at school events.

This must be overturned.

Queller said in post #738:

That's because when you have a captive audience it is no longer voluntary participation but forced.

No, it isn't. Non-religious people in the audience can simply play with their smartphones during the prayer.

Queller said in post #738:

That's when we lost our moral compass?

It wasn't when we forced millions of people off the land they had lived on for generations so we could have it?

Note that God allowed the Israelites to do that in Canaan.

Queller said in post #738:

It wasn't when we forced millions of Africans to come to this country to be our slaves?

Most of the U.S. populace was rightly against that. What do you think the Civil War was supposed to be about?

Queller said in post #738:

It wasn't when prevented millions of US citizens from exercising their right to vote because of their gender or the color of their skin?

Regarding gender, it is not immoral to discriminate. For in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, for example, the restrictions on women are the commandments of the Lord (1 Corinthians 14:36-37). And they are applicable in all congregations (1 Timothy 2:11-12). For they are based on the general principles of Eve being formed after Adam (1 Timothy 2:13), and Eve being deceived, and Adam not being deceived (1 Timothy 2:14).

While the Lord forbids women to speak anything from their own minds in church meetings, such as asking questions (1 Corinthians 14:34-37), or teaching (1 Timothy 2:11-14), nothing requires that He forbids them to operate in the Spiritual gifts which involve speaking by the miraculous inspiration of God's Holy Spirit, such as prophesying, or speaking in tongues (1 Corinthians 12:8-11). So women, like men, should be allowed to speak out loud in tongues in church meetings, one at a time, when a tongues-interpreter is present (1 Corinthians 14:27-28). And those women who are prophetesses (Acts 21:9; cf. Luke 2:36, Judges 4:4) should be allowed, like male prophets, to prophesy in church meetings (1 Corinthians 14:29).

Paul's writings are scriptures (2 Peter 3:16). And so they are infallible (2 Timothy 3:16). That some Christians might choose to ignore parts of them does not change this fact, just as some Christians choosing to ignore parts of what Jesus Christ taught in the Gospels (e.g. Matthew 5:39, Mark 10:11-12) does not change the fact that His teachings are infallible (2 Timothy 3:16).

Queller said in post #738:

It was when we stopped forcing people to participate in prayers to God regardless of what their personal beliefs might be.

No one is promoting force.
 
Upvote 0

Bible2+

Matthew 4:4
Sep 14, 2015
3,001
375
✟91,195.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Queller said in post #738:

I don't understand the common (among Fundamentalists) belief that if something is a choice, it doesn't deserve Constitutional protections.

Not if it is a sin. Murder is a choice.

Queller said in post #738:

Being a Christian is a choice and yet that gets multiple layers of protections.

Because it is not a sin.

Queller said in post #738:

Why should they get to put up things on other peoples lockers?

To preach the Gospel to everyone (Mark 16:15).

Queller said in post #738:

How do they know that all the other students are Christian and want to pray?

If they aren't or don't, they can do something else during the prayer.

Queller said in post #738:

Not providing someone with a platform for their prayer is not denying the free expression of religion.

Denying prayer at school events is denying the free exercise of religion.

Queller said in post #738:

Would you be OK with that teacher leading their class in a prayer to Diana?

Any prayer should be up to the students, not the teacher.

Queller said in post #738:

When you will make a cake for an opposite-sex couple's wedding abut won't make an identical cake for a same-sex couple's wedding, you are discriminating against the same-sex couple.

No, it is discriminating against a sinful activity, which discrimination is required for Biblical Christians (Ephesians 5:11).

*******

Queller said in post #740:

The desire to be like everyone else is one of the biggest pressures that kids are under.

That does not justify the illegal denial of the free exercise of religion at school events.

Queller said in post #740:

And feel like outcasts because they don't pray to the same God as everyone else.

It is Christians who are now the outcasts because they do not serve the current schools' religion of "political correctness".

But Christians are never to treat any non-Christians as outcasts (Mark 2:16).

Queller said in post #740:

Then why do you feel the need to have students forced to participate in Christian prayers or be considered outcasts??

Note that there is no need for any force or outcasting.

Queller said in post #740:

Do you really not understand the Establishment Clause or is the the Free Exercise Clause the only part you care about?

Voluntary school prayer is not establishment.

Queller said in post #740:

And when a teacher then leads students in a completely legal prayer to Allah, what will be your response then?

Any prayers should be up to the students.

*******

Queller said in post #743:

Rosa Parks just wanted to sit in her seat on the bus. Why couldn't people just leave her alone?

Indeed, why can't homosexuals just leave Biblical Christians alone?

*******

Queller said in post #744:

Pedophilia: an ongoing sexual attraction to pre-pubertal children.

Note that Webster's doesn't say "pre-pubertal" in its definition for pedophilia, which can refer to children generally, as in minors.

Queller said in post #744:

Someone over 17 engaging in sex with, or fantasizing about, a 17-year-old is not a pedophile.

He is, in the sense of statutory rape of a minor, or possessing minor inappropriate contentography, which is illegal.

Queller said in post #744:

I'm simply saying that it is not, by definition, pedophilia.

By whose definition? Someone who wants to prey on post-pubertal minors, who can be as young as 12 or 13?

Queller said in post #744:

The Bible also considers eating shrimp an abomination (Leviticus 11:9-12)

Not under the New Testament/New Covenant.

For under the New Covenant, all foods are in themselves okay for all Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, to eat (1 Timothy 4:4-5, Romans 14:14,20, Mark 7:18-19; 1 Corinthians 10:25-30, Colossians 2:16-17, Hebrews 9:10). For under the New Covenant, no meat is defiled in itself (Romans 14:14). All meats are pure (Romans 14:20). Every meat is good, and no meat is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving to God, for it is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer (1 Timothy 4:4-5). Let no one therefore judge you regarding what meat you eat (Colossians 2:16-17, Hebrews 9:10). For the Kingdom of God does not consist of what meat we eat, or do not eat, but consists of righteousness, peace, and joy in God's Holy Spirit (Romans 14:17). Happy are those Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, who do not condemn themselves over what meat they eat (Romans 14:22). For no meat can defile them (Mark 7:18-19).

*******

Queller said in post #745:

[Re: Homosexuality]

What was the compelling state reason for it to be criminalized in the first place?

Because it is against nature, and can lead to horrible diseases.

Homosexuality is "against nature" (Romans 1:26-27) in the sense of how God created nature to work:

Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

God never intended for males to become sexually joined or married to other males, just as God never intended for females to become sexually joined or married to other females.

-

Romans 1:26 is referring to lesbians, who have unnatural, sexual affections for each other:

Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature . . .

And Romans 1:27 is referring to male homosexuals, "gays", who have unnatural, sexual lust for each other:

Romans 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Here the "recompence of their error" at the time that Romans 1:27 was written in the first century AD could have been hepatitis-type infections, but it would also include, in principle, the horrible AIDS plague in our own time.

Queller said in post #745:

BTW, a Bible verse is not a good reason for something to be made legal or illegal.

Of course it is (2 Timothy 3:15 to 4:4).

Queller said in post #745:

Remember; chattel slavery is approved of in the Bible.

Also remember that at the time that the Bible was written, thousands of years ago, slavery was not at all based on race. For back then there were many more white slaves than black. And no doubt some of the white slaves had black masters. The Bible is not racist (Acts 17:26, Revelation 5:9).

Also, the Old Testament forbade the cruel treatment of slaves (Leviticus 25:43, Exodus 21:26-27), of whatever race, and forbade the return of escaped slaves to their masters (Deuteronomy 23:15-16). Similarly, the New Testament commands the right treatment of slaves (Colossians 4:1), and says that slaves should obtain freedom from mortal masters if they are able to (1 Corinthians 7:21). But Christians are to remain the voluntary slaves/servants of Jesus Christ (Romans 1:1, Romans 6:22, Revelation 1:1), who has freed them from slavery to sin (John 8:34-36), and offers them eternal life (Romans 6:22-23).

Also, the world today takes pride in its outlawing of slavery. Yet the world overlooks the billions of "wage slaves" today who are not paid a living wage, while their corporate masters grow rich off of their labor. So slaves today are cared for less by their masters than slaves in Bible times were to be cared for (Colossians 4:1, Exodus 21:5).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SilverBear

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2016
7,359
3,297
57
Michigan
✟166,106.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
The questions you need to ask are whether the NT (which is the new covenant for Christians) agrees with the OT about (1) eating shrimp and (2) homosexuality.

And the answers are: (1) no (2) yes

A more interesting question is "why".
because most of the horrible abominations the bible lists are things Christians want to do so they magically are no long sins of any sort
 
  • Agree
Reactions: kiwimac
Upvote 0

SilverBear

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2016
7,359
3,297
57
Michigan
✟166,106.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
The letter of its Mosaic law is no longer in effect (Hebrews 7:18).




Also, even if homosexuality could ever be proven to be genetic, so could alcoholism, criminal violence, and schizophrenia.
only if you lied.


but since Mosaic law is no longer in effect....there is nothing wrong with lying.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: kiwimac
Upvote 0

RestoreTheJoy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 13, 2018
5,087
1,642
Passing Through
✟449,721.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
because most of the horrible abominations the bible lists are things Christians want to do so they magically are no long sins of any sort
Like kill their babies (offer their children to Molech?).

Not sure of any other scriptural sins that are now considered good and right other than sexual sin. Murder, theft, stealing...all still wrong. We don't honor the Sabbath or put the Lord and His commands first much as a society, which is wrong, but I hope Christians aren't the ones saying that this is not wrong anymore.
 
Upvote 0

creslaw

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 20, 2015
1,137
1,183
78
✟171,835.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Not under the New Testament/New Covenant.
For under the New Covenant, all foods are in themselves okay for all Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, to eat (1 Timothy 4:4-5, Romans 14:14,20, Mark 7:18-19; 1 Corinthians 10:25-30, Colossians 2:16-17, Hebrews 9:10). For under the New Covenant, no meat is defiled in itself (Romans 14:14). All meats are pure (Romans 14:20). Every meat is good, and no meat is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving to God, for it is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer (1 Timothy 4:4-5). Let no one therefore judge you regarding what meat you eat (Colossians 2:16-17, Hebrews 9:10). For the Kingdom of God does not consist of what meat we eat, or do not eat, but consists of righteousness, peace, and joy in God's Holy Spirit (Romans 14:17). Happy are those Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, who do not condemn themselves over what meat they eat (Romans 14:22). For no meat can defile them (Mark 7:18-19).
That is a helpful analysis for those who value the Scriptural perspective. Those who ridicule are actually ridiculing the words of God, the words whereby we will all one day be judged.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

kiwimac

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian
Supporter
May 14, 2002
14,985
1,519
63
New Zealand
Visit site
✟590,115.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Utrecht
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Like kill their babies (offer their children to Molech?).

Not sure of any other scriptural sins that are now considered good and right other than sexual sin. Murder, theft, stealing...all still wrong. We don't honor the Sabbath or put the Lord and His commands first much as a society, which is wrong, but I hope Christians aren't the ones saying that this is not wrong anymore.

No one is offering children to Molech.
 
Upvote 0

SilverBear

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2016
7,359
3,297
57
Michigan
✟166,106.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Like kill their babies (offer their children to Molech?).

You shall not put off the skimming of the first yield of your vats. You shall give Me the firstborn among your sons. You shall do the same with your cattle and your flocks: seven days it shall remain with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to Me. Exodus 22:28-29
 
Upvote 0

RestoreTheJoy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 13, 2018
5,087
1,642
Passing Through
✟449,721.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You shall not put off the skimming of the first yield of your vats. You shall give Me the firstborn among your sons. You shall do the same with your cattle and your flocks: seven days it shall remain with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to Me. Exodus 22:28-29
That does not refer to killing them! Have you never read about Samuel (In 1 Samuel), the child given to Hannah after she prayed to receive one?

We still "give" them to the Lord today, dedicating ourselves to raise them in the faith.

You did not bother to answer the question asked, neither this one nor any of the previous questions regarding your sources.
 
Upvote 0

RestoreTheJoy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 13, 2018
5,087
1,642
Passing Through
✟449,721.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
No one is offering children to Molech.
Well, not knowingly, and by name.

Jesus said if you aren't with Him, you are against Him. He also said that if anyone harms one of the little ones, it would be better for that man if he hadn't been born.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bible2+

Matthew 4:4
Sep 14, 2015
3,001
375
✟91,195.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
SilverBear said in post #753:

but since Mosaic law is no longer in effect....there is nothing wrong with lying.

There is (Revelation 21:8).

But note that it is not lying to say that homosexuality is sinful (Romans 1:26-27), and that Biblical Christians must not support sinful activities (Ephesians 5:11).

*******

SilverBear said in post #757:

You shall not put off the skimming of the first yield of your vats. You shall give Me the firstborn among your sons. You shall do the same with your cattle and your flocks: seven days it shall remain with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to Me. Exodus 22:28-29

The sons in Exodus 22:29 were not to be killed, but sanctified (Exodus 13:2) and redeemed (Exodus 34:19-20) by money offerings (Numbers 3:50-51, Numbers 18:15-16).
 
Upvote 0