Same-sex marriages are now legal in Florida

[kellhus]

and as a point of accuracy, there is no such thing as "Christian Sharia".

I don't see the slightest difference between advocates of Islamic Sharia law elsewhere in the world and Christians arguing their religious views should be imposed on the United States and justify suppressing my civil rights.

 

[hankroberts]

I don't see the slightest difference between advocates of Islamic Sharia law elsewhere in the world and Christians arguing their religious views should be imposed on the United States and justify suppressing my civil rights.

ibid.

And incidentally, if you do indeed have constitutionally recognized rights, where did they come from?

 

[kellhus]

ibid. And incidentally, if you do indeed have constitutionally recognized rights, where did they come from?

From the Constitution.

 

[hankroberts]

From the Constitution.

Really? Geez, son, you need to go back and read that thing.

The founding fathers were very clear on this issue. No government has the authority to grant or to refuse Rights.

Rights, by definition and by the clear and often statement of the Founders come from our Creator. "Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..."

Government and law merely recognize, identify or support those rights. And laws in those days were founded on the concept of Natural Law. You really should take the time to go back and read what the Founders had to say on this issue.

 

[kellhus]

Really? Geez, son, you need to go back and read that thing. The founding fathers were very clear on this issue. No government has the authority to grant or to refuse Rights. Rights, by definition and by the clear and often statement of the Founders come from our Creator. "Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..." Government and law merely recognize, identify or support those rights. And laws in those days were founded on the concept of Natural Law. You really should take the time to go back and read what the Founders had to say on this issue.

I don't believe our rights come from God. If the founding fathers want to believe that, that's their business, and one that seems super silly.

 

[hankroberts]

I don't believe our rights come from God. If the founding fathers want to believe that, that's their business, and one that seems super silly.

Well, if you choose to ignore history, critical thinking, logic and truth then I don't think there is any way for us to have any meaningful conversation. Have a nice day.

 

[kellhus]

Well, if you choose to ignore history, critical thinking, logic and truth

I'm not, I just happen to disagree with you.

then I don't think there is any way for us to have any meaningful conversation. Have a nice day.

Certainly no basis when your response to disagreement is petty, childish insults. I hope someday you learn to take disagreements in a more mature fashion. Bye!

 

[TheChristianSurvivalGuide]

Do you not understand that all laws exist to promote some ideological view;

Please articulate what you mean by idealogical view.

and most exist to promote some specifically religious view?

Not if you are referring to US legal constructs. The Preamble explains what legal modes have to achieve:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Nowhere does it outline the promotion of any religious belief.

As we talked about earlier in this thread, the founders use of the word "Creator" was not specific to any one entity.

The purpose of law is to promote Good, or to restrain Evil. That concept in itself presumes that Good and Evil exist.

Well, maybe criminal law does that. Even then we are being more philosopical than technical.

Every law promotes some ideological view: criminal law, contract law, traffic law, civil codes: all of them are grounded in a particular religious and moral view.[/QUOTE]

 

[Aldebaran]

I don't believe our rights come from God. If the founding fathers want to believe that, that's their business, and one that seems super silly.

So what is your view of Christianity? What position on it do you take?

 

[createdtoworship]

You're welcome to you opinion of course. My point of view that is that it is better to have a society where you have an option of either an opposite or same sex marriage than only opposite sex marriages. It is more fair and equitable to those in our society who aren't conservative Christians.

well is it fair to change existing laws for all of us, simply based only one one particular perspective LGBT community views?

or is it more fair to adhere to those traditional and constitutional definitions?

your opinion is welcomed of course.

I have previously posted on dictionary definitions as well as legal definitions in which conservative supreme court justices still honor regarding the definitions of marriage.

so you would have to do better than an opinion.

or we are simply washing out here.

 

[imind]

Only Section 3 [that pertaining to the Federal Government's recognition of SSM] was ruled unconstitutional. Section 2 [that pertaining to state-to-state recognition] was unaffected.

indeed, thank you for the clarification...


and hank, please learn to use the quote feature...very difficult to respond to you otherwise.

The burden of proof is on the reconstructionist.
its actually not...that marriage has traditionally been one man and one woman only is disputable

Actually, yes, it is. As already noted several times here we have a clearly established and longstanding meaning of the term as a man/woman union, which is being substantially changed by the promoters of homosexual marriage. Now, if you think that is not the case, then by all means present the evidence disputing it. Let's take a look.

whether its changing it or not is irrelevant. you are the one making the claim that "we have a clearly established and longstanding meaning of the term as a man/woman union"...you support it. and who cares if we do? where in the law does it state that clearly established things cannot change?

to argue that something must remain the same only because "its always been that way" is an appeal to tradition, a logical fallacy

Um, no. Every reference to tradition is not a logical fallacy. If a person assumes that something must be correct or true simply because it has persisted a long time, then he has committed an Appeal to Tradition. However, if a person argues that the claim or thing in question has successfully stood up to challenges and tests for a long period of time then they would not be committing a fallacy. In such cases the claim would be backed by evidence. That is the case here, so no fallacy exists.

what challenges and tests are you referring to? and i don't see the relevance...as Posner noted in his ruling linked below...

If no social benefit is conferred by a tradition and it is written
into law and it discriminates against a number of people and
does them harm beyond just offending them, it is not just a
harmless anachronism; it is a violation of the equal protection
clause, as in Loving. See 388 U.S. at 8–12.

link

those wanting the law to limit marriage to mean one man and one woman must show that the law's purpose is not simply to discriminate against a group.

Really? Why? Has anyone offered any evidence (or even the mere unsubstantiated assertion) that such is the case? Not that I've seen.

the equal protection clause of the constitution
rover v evans - colorado wanted to amend its constitution to prohibit homosexuals/bisexuals from gaining protected status akin to religion, race, creed, etc...

from the majority opionion...

The search for the link between classification and objective gives substance to the Equal Protection Clause; it provides guidance and discipline for the legislature, which is entitled to know what sorts of laws it can pass; and it marks the limits of our own authority. In the ordinary case, a law will be sustained if it can be said to advance a legitimate government interest, even if the law seems unwise or works to the disadvantage of a particular group, or if the rationale for it seems tenuous...

By requiring that the classification bear a rational relationship to an independent and legitimate legislative end, we ensure that classifications are not drawn for the purpose of disadvantaging the group burdened by the law...

... a law must bear a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose...

as noted previously, they must show a legitimate reason for excluding gays from marrying.

Except that miscegenation laws were declared unlawful on the basis of discrimination against someone with an inherent, heritable and immutable aspect: race (or sex). In order for legitimate discrimination to apply, one of the three criteria established by the Courts is that the issue must be immutable (sex, race, etc.). Homosexuality fails.

no, loving doesn't touch 'legitimate' discrimination as applied to marriage and makes no mention that its ruling applies solely to discrimination based on immutable traits.

equal protection and due process are not limited merely to discrimination. as noted in the majority opinions above, one not need to claim a protected status to apply for equal protection and is granted even to homosexuals, and because marriage has been ruled a fundamental human right, it cannot be denied to them.

gays are not seeking special rights

Yes, they are seeking the right to redefine marriage to something it is not, and we've already covered this ground, several times.

they are not seeking the right to redefine marriage AS THERE IS NO 'RIGHT' TO DEFINE MARRIAGE. there IS a right TO marry, which is what they are trying to gain legally.

if this was a 'special right' it would apply ONLY to them...

 

[StephanieSomer]

Ok, let's make this simple. Where in Scripture does God change His mind on homosexuality and marriage? Knowing full well I can point to Matthew 19 and we can all see Jesus affirming that marriage is between one man and one woman, where does He change His mind? There is zero argument as to what the Lord says in Matthew 19. It's as plain as speech gets: Matthew 19:1-9
When Jesus had finished these words, He departed from Galilee and came into the region of Judea beyond the Jordan;[bless and do not curse]and[bless and do not curse]large crowds followed Him, and[bless and do not curse]He healed them there.

Some[bless and do not curse]Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful[bless and do not curse]for a man[bless and do not curse]to[bless and do not curse]divorce his wife for any reason at all?”[bless and do not curse]And He answered and said,[bless and do not curse]“Have you not read that He who created[bless and do not curse]themfrom the beginning[bless and do not curse]made them male and female,[bless and do not curse]and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and[bless and do not curse]the two shall become one flesh’?[bless and do not curse]So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to[bless and do not curse]give her a certificate of divorce and send[bless and do not curse]her[bless and do not curse]away?”[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]He said to them,[bless and do not curse]“Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to[bless and do not curse]divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.[bless and do not curse]And I say to you,[bless and do not curse]whoever[bless and do not curse]divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman[bless and do not curse]commits adultery.”


So as we can see, Jesus quotes the old testament (Genesis) and gives us the interpretation. (Bolded portion)
We have the family as God intended. (Father, Mother, children) and the institution of marriage as God intended. (A man shall leave his parents....the two shall become one flesh...). There is no leeway here. That is God's intended structure. To go any other way is to claim that either God was wrong, or that man no longer needs this part of God's word.
Which is more loving, to allow people to remain ignorant of their sin for fear of hurting their feelings, or to explain to them that they (we all) are sinners in need of God's grace? The first path leads to hell, and I can't think of anything more hateful than to let someone go to hell for the sake of convenience and "feelings". The best part is, remember in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Paul gives us that list of sinners who won't enter heaven? The best part is verse 11! Such were some of you; but you were[bless and do not curse]washed, but you were[bless and do not curse]sanctified, but you were[bless and do not curse]justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

If that isn't "Good News", I don't know what is!

Your post is entirely unreadable. Try using the preview button, please.

 

[Aldebaran]

Does God in His Word instruct us to accuse others?

There's a very simple reason why Christ told the Pharisees and other legalists of His time that they were children of the devil. The devil's name is Satan, which means accuser. The Pharisees were very adept at accusing people of sin. So, they were behaving just like their father.

The Jewish religion isn't the sole owner of Pharisaical attitudes.

So what's your solution when you see what's going on? When you see sin taking place, do you just look the other way? If we as Christians aren't going to confront sin and call it out for what it is, then we may as well be endorsing it.

Paul addressed this type of attitude in 1 COR 5:

1It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. 2And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this? 3For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this. 4So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

 

[StephanieSomer]

Do you not understand that all laws exist to promote some ideological view; and most exist to promote some specifically religious view? The purpose of law is to promote Good, or to restrain Evil. That concept in itself presumes that Good and Evil exist.

Every law promotes some ideological view: criminal law, contract law, traffic law, civil codes: all of them are grounded in a particular religious and moral view.

But that grounding doesn't extend to enforcement of the religious belief. Is the denial of free will Good, or Evil?

 

[StephanieSomer]

I don't see the slightest difference between advocates of Islamic Sharia law elsewhere in the world and Christians arguing their religious views should be imposed on the United States and justify suppressing my civil rights.

Neither do I.

 

[StephanieSomer]

From the Constitution.

Actually, no. The Constitution does not grant rights. If it did, then a simple amendment could also take them away. Rights are recognized by the founders as being endowed on each individual by their Creator. In so doing, they have denied the government the power or authority to remove rights.

 

[imind]

Every law promotes some ideological view: criminal law, contract law, traffic law, civil codes: all of them are grounded in a particular religious and moral view.

lol, no...i have no religious or moral obligation to use my blinker when turning...

 

[StephanieSomer]

I don't believe our rights come from God. If the founding fathers want to believe that, that's their business, and one that seems super silly.

Many hold your same view. But, the entire government is founded on just that idea, that government has no authority to deny rights to an individual unless it is in response to law being broken.

 

[imind]

and i forgot to mention lawrence v texas...

“[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

 

[StephanieSomer]

Aldebaran said, "So what's your solution when you see what's going on? When you see sin taking place, do you just look the other way? If we as Christians aren't going to confront sin and call it out for what it is, then we may as well be endorsing it.

Paul addressed this type of attitude in 1 COR 5:

1It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. 2And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this? 3For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this. 4So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord."

Yes, you look the other way if you find it offensive, UNLESS it does actual harm to another individual. Nowhere in Scripture are we told to confront sin in society. And, none of the apostles did so, including Paul. We ARE told to confront sin within the Church. His statements to the Corinthians were to denounce the actions of the CHURCH, not the society.

And nowhere did Christ ever tell anyone to condemn sin in society. He instructed them to preach the Gospel. Condemning sin in individuals outside the Church is the sole prerogative of the Holy Spirit, not the members of the Body.