Proposition 8 in California must pass!

[Texas Lynn]

Christians know. So do non-Christian natural law theorists.

Plenty of Christians disagree with you.

 

[Texas Lynn]

No, it is not. We are a constitutional republic and the extent of the coercive powers of government is laid out in that document. Also, it is not the will of the people in this case. It is the will of an activist judiciary.

No Massachusetts or California legislator who supported same gender marriage (nor any in Oregon, New Jersey, and Connecticut where same gender marriage was proposed but not yet passed) lost a bid for re-election. Nor did any federal Member of Congress who voted against the Federal marriage amendment. Nor has any judge who ruled for human rights been removed. Thus the evidence is clear the 'will of the people' is for marriage equality. Polls indicate this already. The old heterosexist order is over and human progress marches on.

 

[Texas Lynn]

I also heard Jesus say go and sin no more.

Do you suppose that means to go out and justify gay sex at Christian Fourms?

No "justification" of love is required.

No justification of hatred and discrimination is possible.

 

[Brennin]

No Massachusetts or California legislator who supported same gender marriage (nor any in Oregon, New Jersey, and Connecticut where same gender marriage was proposed but not yet passed) lost a bid for re-election. Nor did any federal Member of Congress who voted against the Federal marriage amendment. Nor has any judge who ruled for human rights been removed. Thus the evidence is clear the 'will of the people' is for marriage equality. Polls indicate this already. The old heterosexist order is over and human progress marches on.

You are welcome to that fantasy, but it is a fact that attitudes toward gay "marriage" are no more uniform in my state than they are in the country as a whole.

 

[Brennin]

Plenty of Christians disagree with you.

Plenty of people who claim to be Christian, anyway.

 

[KCKID]

No, I've no idea on your practice, your icon states "Faith: Christian-Seeker"

But I'm guessin you stated that to the selection of OT verses I used, so I'll go with the NT


2 Corinthians 6:14-15: "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?" (KJV)

Mark 10:11-12 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.


Matthew 19:8-9 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

So given that one isn't supposed to marry outside the faith (2nd Corinthians) or remarry (unless unfaithfulness / death) (Mark 10, Luke 16, Matthew 19) Should these also be outlawed ?

I've alluded to the question of divorce and remarriage a couple of times previously. Would someone point out to me the scriptures that approve of remarriage under ANY circumstances other than death? I'm not talking about the conditions for divorce but the conditions for remarriage. It's my understanding that remarriage (scripturally speaking) is a 'no-no' in ALL circumstances other than the death of one of the spouses which THEN, of course, frees up the other party to remarry. Unfaithfulness IS certainly grounds for divorce; however, as long as both original partners are living remarriage would still be considered to be adultery.

Would someone point me to where I'm going wrong on this issue?

 

[Brennin]

No, I've no idea on your practice, your icon states "Faith: Christian-Seeker"

But I'm guessin you stated that to the selection of OT verses I used, so I'll go with the NT


2 Corinthians 6:14-15: "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?" (KJV)

Mark 10:11-12 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.


Matthew 19:8-9 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."


So given that one isn't supposed to marry outside the faith (2nd Corinthians) or remarry (unless unfaithfulness / death) (Mark 10, Luke 16, Matthew 19) Should these also be outlawed ?

Paul's teaching is more nuanced than you suggest. He did not, for example, teach that Christians must divorce their non-Christian spouses.

In any event, I do not think second marriages or marriages to non-Christians should be legislated against. But that is immaterial to this discussion since I do not base my political/governmental/legal opposition to gay "marriage" on the Bible. In fact, not even my moral opposition to gay "marriage" rests solely on the Bible.

 

[Caylin]

Or on anything else. You remind me of my dad.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Thank you for introducing the audience to the bandwagon fallacy. As for the particulars of your vapid argument, public/government facilities cannot legitimately discriminate against blacks or Jews but it is illegitimate for government to coerce private establishments into accepting people they do not want, even if you or I find their discrimination repellent.

Illegitimate appeal to an idea being correct because it is popular? "30 million Americans can't be wrong"?

Frankly I don't see how I have used a bandwagon fallacy. But we most of us are blind to our own illogic. I'm sure that you don't recognize the fallacy of your appeals to authority and arguments from silence. So, I'll leave it to the judges to decide if I have fallen into the bandwagon fallacy.

In the meantime I submit that it is indeed a legitimate function of agovernment to protect the rights of the minorities living under its authority. This includes the right to equal treatment in institutions that are open to the public. Hang a "No blacks" sign on the door of your restaurant and see how you fair in court.

 

[MercyBurst]

Plenty of people who claim to be Christian, anyway.

They can't vote somebody to heaven.

 

[MercyBurst]

In the meantime I submit that it is indeed a legitimate function of agovernment to protect the rights of the minorities living under its authority. This includes the right to equal treatment in institutions that are open to the public. Hang a "No blacks" sign on the door of your restaurant and see how you fair in court.

Minority rights are supposed to be decided in court -- so maybe that's not the main issue here. California has a vote initiative along the lines of DOMA (defense of marriage act). Bill Clinton proposed DOMA. Sounds more like a morality issue than a minority issue.

The emancipation proclamation freed slaves -- not a popular vote.

 

[Brennin]

In the meantime I submit that it is indeed a legitimate function of a government to protect the rights of the minorities living under its authority. This includes the right to equal treatment in institutions that are open to the public.

And you are wrong.

Hang a "No blacks" sign on the door of your restaurant and see how you fair in court.

I would not do so, since I oppose discrimination against blacks. That does not mean I think abuse of the commerce clause is legitimate, though.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Minority rights are supposed to be decided in court -- so maybe that's not the main issue here. California has a vote initiative along the lines of DOMA (defense of marriage act). Bill Clinton proposed DOMA. Sounds more like a morality issue than a minority issue.

The emancipation proclamation freed slaves -- not a popular vote.

This takes the discussion in quite another direction. Minority rights are, indeed, to be decided in the courts, not by a popular vote. I feel quite sure that Prop 8, if passed, will be subjected quickly to a challenge in the courts.

The Defense of Marriage Act was one of Bill Clinton's many mistakes, but note that DoMA was not decided by a popular vote either.

I have very real concerns about the idea of morality by consensus. I have further concerns about legislating morality. It has never worked well.

And while you may define gay marriage as an issue of morality, it seems to many of us to be an issue of civil rights, never more so than when it is used to deny inheritance rights, insurance, and even country club memberships to domestic partners.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

And you are wrong.

You are entitled to that opinion, but I note that it is only an opinion. Just as it is only my opinion that you are wrong.

I would not do so, since I oppose discrimination against blacks. That does not mean I think abuse of the commerce clause is legitimate, though.

So, is it a legitimate use of the commerce clause for a privately owned restaurant to deny service to persons of African descent?

Or, for the owner of that restaurant to deny the same insurance benefits, say, to the same-sex domestic partner of an employee that another employee's opposite-sex partner receives?

Or, for a country club to deny the same priveleges to a same-sex couple that they extend to a mixed-sex couple?

The best understanding available to us today indicates that homosexuality is an innate orientation that occurs naturally in a minority of the population of every culture and society. Granting equal legal protections and priveleges to homosexuals is a matter of simple justice.

 

[BigBadWlf]

No, it is not. We are a constitutional republic and the extent of the coercive powers of government is laid out in that document. Also, it is not the will of the people in this case. It is the will of an activist judiciary.

And the constitution that governs this country says that EVERYONE is equal. Even members of minorities you don’t like.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Katie, bar the door!

Next thing they'll make us let Jews in the swimming pool and bus black children into our schools!

Heavens NO! Anything but THAT!

 

[BigBadWlf]

No "justification" of love is required.

No justification of hatred and discrimination is possible.

Reposted for truth


So very well said Lynn

 

[BigBadWlf]

Minority rights are supposed to be decided in court -- so maybe that's not the main issue here. California has a vote initiative along the lines of DOMA (defense of marriage act). Bill Clinton proposed DOMA. Sounds more like a morality issue than a minority issue.

The emancipation proclamation freed slaves -- not a popular vote.

You should try reading up on the subject before commenting.

The emancipation proclamation declared the freedom of all slaves in any of the states of the Confederate State of America that did not return to the union by January 1st 1863. It is important to note that technically Lincoln had no authority over the confederate states when he made the order. Also note the fact that if one of the confederate states were to return to the Union prior to the deadline set, no slave in that state would be freed.

All the proclamation did was it committed the Union to ending slavery, which was a controversial decision in the North.

The proclamation did not free any slaves of the border states (Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia, Maryland and Delaware or in any southern state or part of a southern state already under Union control.

After the war slavery persisited in the south until the passing of the 13th amendment to the constitution on December 18, 1865

 

[Texas Lynn]

You are welcome to that fantasy, but it is a fact that attitudes toward gay "marriage" are no more uniform in my state than they are in the country as a whole.

We'll see how prop. 8 does. Right now it's heading toward defeat.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Plenty of people who claim to be Christian, anyway.

That's their business. No one else is qualified to judge them.