PeterS

Fox wouldn't know god if he smacked them in the face and kicked them in the ass. The only 'knowing of god' they have is if the rhetoric can be used to feed the conservative masses...

Theo Loc: Within 1000 miles of Tampa, Florida

That demonstrates perfectly the limitation to your bible knowledge. God says about some things men do, "It never entered my mind" that you would do such things. God knows all things, but a potential evil concocted by the mind of an evil man is not a "Thing."

Jeremiah 19:4 Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents;5 They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:

Jeremiah 32:32 Because of all the evil of the children of Israel and of the children of Judah, which they have done to provoke me to anger, they, their kings, their princes, their priests, and their prophets, and the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. 33 And they have turned unto me the back, and not the face: though I taught them, rising up early and teaching them, yet they have not hearkened to receive instruction. 34 But they set their abominations in the house, which is called by my name, to defile it. 35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.



Stupid, self-serving, convoluted assessment of reality.



Tell that to the woman who, having lost control of her body to lust, gives herself uncontrolled by her "self" to a man in lust, and out of control, conceives an innocent babe. The time for a woman to "control her body" is before she loses control of her body. Not after losing control and claiming she has the right to control that over which she lost control.

Any woman has the God given right to say "NO!" to a man. THAT is how she control's her body. Not in passionate lust, and killing off the fruit of passion. THAT IS MURDER.

That is simply self-serving rhetoric. She lost control, and tries to control the rhetoric about losing control as being in control. Doesn't work that way.

Then, when you are finished with straightening out the out of control woman, try telling God is it not His business what she does, or the man who joined her in lust.

God has made nations responsible for the sins of its citizens.

PeterS

It doesn't take knowledge of the bible--unless you are looking for excuses--either he is omnipotent or he isn't. If he is then he would know the mind of man even though it out of his ability to imagine. If he isn't then he isn't much of a god...




It doesn't serve me at all. If our constitution is the inspiration of the one and only god--since he established one of the functions of god was to enforce the rights of man--and since that is what SCOTUS did in this case--the will of god has been followed by our government.

The only contortion I've done is the precept that our constitution was somehow inspired by god. If it isn't then the only transaction is due to the will of man. I'll let you make the choice as to who you want to point your finger at--either way the only thing SCOTUS did was to uphold the constitutional intent of our founders...



How does this rhetoric serve me? I'm not affected by abortion, women are. My only point is that a woman's body belongs to her, not government and certainly not you!! If she decides to get an abortion that is up to her and her doctor. If you are unhappy with that then work to get RvW overturned. As for what you think god made nations responsible for--who gives a fuck--our government isn't founded on religious precepts so I could personally give a crap what you think god made nations responsible for. What matters is what man makes nations responsible for especially because god seems helpless to alter the course of man...

Anigav6969

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

For a man with great intelligence you seem awfully stupid. You stated that the Supreme court upheld the constitutional intent of the founders, you are so wrong...... for same-sex marriage was not the intent of the founding fathers.

Same-sex marriage is unnatural and that is contrary to what the founders meant. There was three times in American history when the nation rebelled against nature and it had devastating effects on the country. First is slavery, second is abortion, and third is same-sex marriage.

These acts are all contrary to nature. The Dred Scott decision is one example, roe vs wade is another and now this one.

It was once sad to me that if I wanted to know how a city or a town is, don't ask the business man, ask a person on the street or a prostitute.

Therefore in close decisions like this, don't go according to the majority but rather minority. The dissension clearly states that the majority did not fairly judge in accordance with the interpretation of the Constition but through love and spirituality. In other words through felling and emotion instead of through reason. But hey, what can I say

PeterS

It didn't need to be. The great beauty of the constitution is that it allows for us to seek out our happiness without interference from others or government itself. In fact, the founders even established--as one of the principle functions of government--that it enforce our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As such, not only do we have rights but it was the duty of government to enforce them. This is what happened with the supreme court ruling and it had less to do with marriage and more to do with the right of individuals to pursue happiness without interference from you or from government.

As for what's natural and unnatural the most natural thing is the desire to commit to the one you love. What's unnatural is to stand in between that.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

Again you are being mislead, for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is guaranteed as long as it is in harmony with natural law.

Have you ever questioned where and how, the constitution was derived?

St. Thomas Aquinas stated: "Any law that does not abide by nature is no law at all."

before Aquinas, there was Cicero, who stated the same. Then there was Jesus who said something similar, and if we go further back in time Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates, and Solon all repeated this principle, even Moses acknowledged this principle.

What right does man have to change a belief that sets the foundation for human relations, 3000 years after its establishment?

Let's say it this way, why do you support changing a long established institution for light and transient reasons?

Because you are supporting a cause that is totally against the Declaration of Independence, the foundation of the Constitution. If the foundation of the Constitution is usurped then the Constitution is usurped and there is no Constitution. That is Common Sense.

Just like the Dred Scott case, Roe vs Wade, and this same-sex marriage thing, each ruling was against nature which divided the nation. Do you not see this?

straightUp Loc: California

Well said.

I know I've mentioned this angle on the Constitution several times myself and it's a shame that doing so only get's ignored by those who find convenience in ignorance.

There are those who actually think the Constitution is this powerful set of laws that basically says we can't do ANYTHING unless it's explicitly listed as a right. Can you imagine that? I don't know about you, but I sure as hell don't want to be under that kind of tyranny... especially one from the 18th century! If I want that kind of ancient restriction on my life, I'd join some religious fundamentalists or a S&M club - 'still have a hard time telling the difference.

I think what happens is that you often get lawyers referencing the enumerated powers in an effort to claim a specific law as being unconstitutional and before you know it you have all these armchair commentators applying the same rule to everyone. They don't seem to understand that the enumerated powers only apply to the federal government that the Constitution is a blue print for.

It doesn't help when bigots out there are looking for ANY excuse to interfere with same-sex marriage, regardless of accuracy or integrity. If a misrepresentation of the Constitution helps the cause, then by all means propagate it.

It doesn't help that some of these bigots are so caught up in this desperate need to STOP THEM from getting married that they get confused and loose track of what the court is actually judging. They actually think the court is judging the people and whether same-sex couples have a right to get married. I suppose the effect of judging the government's right to prohibit same-sex marriage does have very near the same net effect. But at least when you understand it this way you don't get confused about the Constitution.

straightUp Loc: California

Have you?


Almost every leader in history has done this Ranger. Politicians have always sought the endorsement of higher powers. Aquinas might have made his appeal to nature in relation to a specific circumstance where such endorsement suited his objective.

The problem with "nature" is that people can't actually see it in any objective way, leaving them to speculate, develop their own theories or subscribe to preexisting theories, which makes everything, including Aquinas's appeal to "nature", entirely subjective.


I guess the same right that Moses had when he did it. Maybe the same right the Council of Nicaea had when they did it. Maybe the same right that Martin Luther had when he did it, or any of the people involved with any of the numerous bifurcations and reformations that litter Christian history. I've actually heard that many Christians refuse to believe that Catholics are Christians. You folks are so fragmented and conflicted over what "nature" really says, it makes me wonder how you expect secularists to buy into any of it.

And we often DO have our own versions... I limit my view of nature to what we can objectively see. This makes the rules very easy to understand... things like how you have to eat or you die. Everything else is subject to our personal views.


First of all, telling people they can't marry the ones they love is not light, nor is it transient.

Secondly, you're comparing a somewhat common feature of the human race with a specific (albeit, popular) form of folklore. If anything, it's your folklore that is transient. Look around... not every country in the world has a Christian population, but they all have homosexuals. Homosexuals have also been around for a LOT longer than 3,000 years... That's because unlike "nature" (since that's what you're calling your folklore) homosexuality wasn't "thought up", it's been a reality as long as humans have existed. Your nature isn't the first version of The Truth ever conceived either and it probably won't be the last.

So, the chances are very high that in another 6,000 years (if we haven't killed ourselves off by then) Christians will only exist in text books and homosexuals will still be a reality.


I'd love to hear you explain that to the author of the Declaration of Independence, who refused to sign the Constitution. His name is Thomas Jefferson - go ahead and explain how the purpose of his Declaration of Independence from overbearing authority was really a call for creating an overbearing authority.


That depends on who is doing the usurping. If it's a judge setting a precedent, then yes - but in this case you are the one usurping the foundation of the Constitution through reckless misinterpretation but the effect is zero because all you're doing is making me shake my head.


No... Maybe I'm not using the same drugs as you.