- May 21, 2007
- 320
- 49
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Phinehas2:
Thank you very much for expounding on these biblical verses. It never ceases to amaze me, how some people tend to take the verses out of context, in order to invent their own things, which brings me to the issues of Mr. Pirate:
I can see clearly that you are not interested in learning and growing. I have given you resources, but you don't want to do your homework. It seems to me that whatever evidence I'll show you supporting my claims, you'll render it as biggotry. So, I guess it would be useless and unproductive to continue a discussion with you.
However, I suggest you familiarize yourself with Baker vs. Nelson case, the first gay marriage case in the US. In its legal decision to reject the claims for a same-sex couple to marry, the ruling judge has specifically indicated why Loving case that you've mentioned cannot be invoked in arguing for same-sex marriage:
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm
I noticed that you sound like Baker for invoking the Loving case, where you took that paragraph out of context. I have studied that case specifically and I even read the book called "Tell the court I love my wife," and I learned that the reason why it was ruled so, had to with having already anti-segregation laws in the state of Virginia, which logically stated that since people of different races are integrated in public sphere, it is a possibility for them to want to get married, therefore, there should be no reason to deny it. Once again, it had nothing to do with the 14th Amendment, but having a lack of legal precedent, which previously was upholding segregation. This was the reason why interracial marriages were banned, but now since the segregation was gone, it was no longer applicable.
BTW, did you notice that the paragraph you quote from Loving case, lists the phrase about marriage being a civil right in quotation marks? Have you ever wondered, why?
As for the Christian schools and their code of conduct dealing with homosexuality, here is the link from Soulforce website listing them:
http://www.soulforce.org/article/903
You will see, that NONE of those policies ever say anything degrading about sexual orientation, let alone about gays and lesbians. It only prohibits homosexual behavior.
From CBC:
I will be moving to PA, so I won't be posting here for 2 weeks but I hope to see this thread growing by the time I return. I'll catch up with ya'll later.
Sam
Thank you very much for expounding on these biblical verses. It never ceases to amaze me, how some people tend to take the verses out of context, in order to invent their own things, which brings me to the issues of Mr. Pirate:
I can see clearly that you are not interested in learning and growing. I have given you resources, but you don't want to do your homework. It seems to me that whatever evidence I'll show you supporting my claims, you'll render it as biggotry. So, I guess it would be useless and unproductive to continue a discussion with you.
However, I suggest you familiarize yourself with Baker vs. Nelson case, the first gay marriage case in the US. In its legal decision to reject the claims for a same-sex couple to marry, the ruling judge has specifically indicated why Loving case that you've mentioned cannot be invoked in arguing for same-sex marriage:
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm
I noticed that you sound like Baker for invoking the Loving case, where you took that paragraph out of context. I have studied that case specifically and I even read the book called "Tell the court I love my wife," and I learned that the reason why it was ruled so, had to with having already anti-segregation laws in the state of Virginia, which logically stated that since people of different races are integrated in public sphere, it is a possibility for them to want to get married, therefore, there should be no reason to deny it. Once again, it had nothing to do with the 14th Amendment, but having a lack of legal precedent, which previously was upholding segregation. This was the reason why interracial marriages were banned, but now since the segregation was gone, it was no longer applicable.
BTW, did you notice that the paragraph you quote from Loving case, lists the phrase about marriage being a civil right in quotation marks? Have you ever wondered, why?
As for the Christian schools and their code of conduct dealing with homosexuality, here is the link from Soulforce website listing them:
http://www.soulforce.org/article/903
You will see, that NONE of those policies ever say anything degrading about sexual orientation, let alone about gays and lesbians. It only prohibits homosexual behavior.
From CBC:
Nothing says that gays and lesbians are sick and sinful, because of their orientation, so the charges that Soulforce made were false.
I will be moving to PA, so I won't be posting here for 2 weeks but I hope to see this thread growing by the time I return. I'll catch up with ya'll later.
Sam
Upvote
0
