9th Circuit Overturns Prop 8 In California

[byco42]

The point is that rights are inalienable and government has not the power to confer them on anyone. Or remove them, either.

while in some philosophical "declaration of the rights of man" sense you are correct, for all practical purposes, the government, i.e. the ruling political power, decides what rights you have.

What? If the government "decides" what right I am entitled to, then I have none.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Didn't anyone learn the lesson of 1854 of the futility of voting on people's rights? Especially on a right that does not exist, like the "right to marry?" I contend that government has no power to dictate the definition of marriage to religious instutions and it's already far too involved in the practice as it is.

The government has the power, it's just we should take that right away from the government, not just to dictate the definition of marriage to religious institutions but to dictate the definition of marriage to anyone.

 

[Michchamp]

the majority can vote however they want... what they can't do is vote to remove constitutional protections of some minority group. the laws must provide equal protection of all people.

Under our political system, the courts have the final say on whether a law does or not. In this case, after much review, they considered that the law did.

There is just no way allowing everyone to marry regarding sexual orientation affects anyone else's rights. The people who voted for Prop 8, are just plain wrong here, and are being huge hypocrites and drama queens by making this an issue regarding morality and religion. they are not being forced to recognize any marriages they don't approve of, and neither are their churches.

 

[byco42]

TinselWolverine[/color]]

Didn't anyone learn the lesson of 1854 of the futility of voting on people's rights? Especially on a right that does not exist, like the "right to marry?" I contend that government has no power to dictate the definition of marriage to religious instutions and it's already far too involved in the practice as it is.

The government has the power, it's just we should take that right away from the government, not just to dictate the definition of marriage to religious institutions but to dictate the definition of marriage to anyone.

The government usurped the power, which is its nature.

 

[Michchamp]

TinselWolverine[/color]]

The government has the power, it's just we should take that right away from the government, not just to dictate the definition of marriage to religious institutions but to dictate the definition of marriage to anyone.

The government usurped the power, which is its nature.

well, when god comes down, tells us who can get married and who cannot, and then enforces this will, we can maybe change things up to reflect that. until then...

 

[byco42]

There is just no way allowing everyone to marry regarding sexual orientation affects anyone else's rights. The people who voted for Prop 8, are just plain wrong here, and are being huge hypocrites and drama queens by making this an issue regarding morality and religion. they are not being forced to recognize any marriages they don't approve of, and neither are their churches.

The employer who will extend health insurance benefits to a partner is forced to recognize the marriage whether he/she approves or not.

 

[byco42]

The government usurped the power, which is its nature.

well, when god comes down, tells us who can get married and who cannot, and then enforces this will, we can maybe change things up to reflect that. until then...

God's point of view on marriage and sexuality is abundantly clear. We are left to accept or reject his will freely; that's His nature.

 

[tinselwolverine]

well, when god comes down, tells us who can get married and who cannot, and then enforces this will, we can maybe change things up to reflect that. until then...

God's point of view on marriage and sexuality is abundantly clear. We are left to accept or reject his will freely; that's His nature.

So give unto Caesar, eh?

 

[Thumb]

well, when god comes down, tells us who can get married and who cannot, and then enforces this will, we can maybe change things up to reflect that. until then...

God's point of view on marriage and sexuality is abundantly clear. We are left to accept or reject his will freely; that's His nature.

Really, did you have a video or a transcript of when he made his views clear?

Because if you;re just saying it's what's in the Bible than I might argue that MAN not GOD wrote the Bible, and man further translated said book about 100 times, and even re-wrote parts of it to suit themselves.

I don't think anyone can be arrogant enough to think they know exactly what God's views are (assuming he exists).

 

[byco42]

TinselWolverine[/color]]

God's point of view on marriage and sexuality is abundantly clear. We are left to accept or reject his will freely; that's His nature.

So give unto Caesar, eh?

You know, some of the Gospel actually did only apply to the times it was written, and context is important. And so is quoting with accuracy. Jesus said: "Repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar's and to God what belongs to God." That's why they walked away baffled: Jesus gave them a response that could offend neither the Jews, the Romans, or God.

This is why to lift passages out is misleading. The Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus in a "gotcha" moment, and he is simply challenging the Pharisees to "choose your God."

President Obama made that same error recently, ascribing Luke 12:48 to justifying higher taxation of the "rich."

 

[cheeno]

The government usurped the power, which is its nature.

well, when god comes down, tells us who can get married and who cannot, and then enforces this will, we can maybe change things up to reflect that. until then...

ANCIENT ALIENS

 

[byco42]

God's point of view on marriage and sexuality is abundantly clear. We are left to accept or reject his will freely; that's His nature.

Really, did you have a video or a transcript of when he made his views clear?

Because if you;re just saying it's what's in the Bible than I might argue that MAN not GOD wrote the Bible, and man further translated said book about 100 times, and even re-wrote parts of it to suit themselves.

I don't think anyone can be arrogant enough to think they know exactly what God's views are (assuming he exists).

Just a consideration of the mechanics of building and writing all the books that went into the Bible demonstrates that this was no whimsical enterprise performed by man. Let's start with that. That precludes an a priori reason to chronicle all these events for posterity. That, and the clear types that connect the Old and New Testaments also demonstrate the divine influences of not only the content, but the intent.

 

[tinselwolverine]

TinselWolverine[/color]]

So give unto Caesar, eh?

You know, some of the Gospel actually did only apply to the times it was written, and context is important. And so is quoting with accuracy. Jesus said: "Repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar's and to God what belongs to God." That's why they walked away baffled: Jesus gave them a response that could offend neither the Jews, the Romans, or God.

Well, that just sounds like the same bullshit non-answer we hear out of presidential candidates today.

So maybe it really didn't only apply to the time when it was written.

 

[byco42]

Well, that just sounds like the same bullshit non-answer we hear out of presidential candidates today.

So maybe it really didn't only apply to the time when it was written.

It's precisely the answer the Pharisees deserved, because they were intent on turning Jesus over to the Roman authorities if He said it was lawful to not pay Roman taxes, or denounce him to the Jews if he said that they were lawbreakers by refusing to pay taxes to the Romans.

And He pointedly reminded them of the larger issue how they were failing miserably at their role as religious leaders. It's basically what got Him killed.

 

[martmay]

the original decision by the lower court was tainted to begin with. The judge, after his ruling, came out of the closest and said he was gay.

 

[tinselwolverine]

And He pointedly reminded them of the larger issue how they were failing miserably at their role as religious leaders. It's basically what got Him killed.

I thought the whole thing was kinda supposed to have had something to do with predetermination.

 

[byco42]

TinselWolverine[/color]]

And He pointedly reminded them of the larger issue how they were failing miserably at their role as religious leaders. It's basically what got Him killed.

I thought the whole thing was kinda supposed to have had something to do with predetermination.

Not at all; Jesus had the opportunity to not participate in the purpose of his presence on Earth. He chose to do His Father's will. He even asked that He not be subjected to His Passion, but He would not opt out of it.

 

[tinselwolverine]

TinselWolverine[/color]]

I thought the whole thing was kinda supposed to have had something to do with predetermination.

Not at all; Jesus had the opportunity to not participate in the purpose of his presence on Earth. He chose to do His Father's will. He even asked that He not be subjected to His Passion, but He would not opt out of it.

That's just predeternination with a pragmatically unexercisable right of refusal.

What else would he have done, kept on making tables and chairs, and feeding the poor and healing the sick free-lance on the side?

 

[byco42]

TinselWolverine[/color]]

Not at all; Jesus had the opportunity to not participate in the purpose of his presence on Earth. He chose to do His Father's will. He even asked that He not be subjected to His Passion, but He would not opt out of it.

That's just predeternination with a pragmatically unexercisable right of refusal.

What else would he have done, kept on making tables and chairs, and feeding the poor and healing the sick free-lance on the side?

We'll never know. It's not a refusal. It was a request to "if possible, let this cup pass from me." Your cavalier approach to His mission is mildly offensive to me, by the way.

 

[tinselwolverine]

TinselWolverine[/color]]

That's just predeternination with a pragmatically unexercisable right of refusal.

What else would he have done, kept on making tables and chairs, and feeding the poor and healing the sick free-lance on the side?

We'll never know. It's not a refusal. It was a request to "if possible, let this cup pass from me." Your cavalier approach to His mission is mildly offensive to me, by the way.

Thanks.

I always try to keep my offensiveness on the mild side.

Good to know I'm having success at it.