Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

JerryNumbers

Prop 8 ruling: nothing 'wrong' with being gay

Recommended Posts


And I knew you would say this. :icon_mrgreen: As to your snarky comment on my being so educated in our legal system and all...you have absolutely no idea what I've learned in my 50 years, so cut out the disparagement (and, yes, I know your comment was meant to be disparaging). Funny, but you asked for one that said only. Of course, Strauder didn't say only, but it sure defined its purpose. But that's not acceptable, is it. Yep, it has been applied to gender, nationality, religion...but it does not apply to sexual orientation. *shrugs* Homosexuals are not a "minority" (another buzzword that appears often in the 14th cases). And shouldn't be treated as so, because it is an insult to true minorities.


It defined one of its purposes. And no it's not good enough because it doesn't support your contention. You are correct that the 14th Amend is yet to be applied to homosexuals. However, Prop 8 was struck down not because it violated the equal protection rights of a gay person, but because it didn't afford equal protection to a person period. As I tried to explain earlier, the Court didn't apply equal protection to a gay couple in striking down Prop 8, it merely applied it to an individual person that was being denied the same priviledge (the right to marry whom he chooses) that you and I enjoy.

This is the part where you admit you were wrong and leave the lawyering to the lawyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please explain to us what "legal matters" you think have been discussed. I merely quoted the 14th Amendment (no smoke in mirrors, just a simple word for word qoute) and explained the Court's interpretation thereof. I didn't tak an "approach" that is identified with any group. I merely stated things the way they are. Happy offered her opinion about they way things "should" be, which just so happens to line up with the way you think things should be (despite the fact that things are not that way, and never in fact have been with regards to the equal protection clause).

I have not read where Happy even suggested what we do with homosexuals. Please refer me to her post if I have overlooked it, or maybe she can tell us again.


I quoted LuAnne's response right in the post you responded to, are you really reading the posts? Here it is again: "What do we do to keep people from being homosexual? Christians need to get busy telling others about Christ. Not just homosexuals, but all lost. There have been large numbers of homosexuals saved and turned from that lifestyle."

The entire legal haggling angle is itself a smokescreen if you are a Christian. Christians are to live by the Word of God, not by the words of men as written in the Constitution,it's amendments or the dictates of judges if they be contrary to the Word of God or used as such.

LuAnne has explained well the history and original intent of the 14th Amendment, which if you study it out, the 14th Amendment is invalid because it was unconstitutionally (illegally) adopted, and yet you reject what she has put forth. Not only that, you do this in a very unchristian manner. You have been doing this in several threads. Taking an unbiblical position, addressing ladies, and sometimes others, in unchristian ways, and rejecting facts and reality that doesn't align with your position. Whatever you choose to call yourself, those are liberal trademarks and unchristian.

Scripture is very clear with regards to homosexuality. Scripture is also very clear that we are to OBey, follow and abide in the Word of God. We either choose to follow and serve God or we choose to follow the world and serve the devil. Which path do you choose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It defined one of its purposes. And no it's not good enough because it doesn't support your contention. You are correct that the 14th Amend is yet to be applied to homosexuals. However, Prop 8 was struck down not because it violated the equal protection rights of a gay person, but because it didn't afford equal protection to a person period. As I tried to explain earlier, the Court didn't apply equal protection to a gay couple in striking down Prop 8, it merely applied it to an individual person that was being denied the same priviledge (the right to marry whom he chooses) that you and I enjoy.

This is the part where you admit you were wrong and leave the lawyering to the lawyers.


So what do you do with lawyers that disagree with you? You can't tell them they are ignorant of the law, and that you have superior knowledge because of your education (which you have indicated in many posts, past and present). Do you think it would be okay for a 50 year old to marry a 15 year old? I mean it is equal rights after all. It amazes me that you can throw out your Christian morals so easily, and defend taking this country one step closer to Sodom and Gomorrah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It defined one of its purposes. And no it's not good enough because it doesn't support your contention. You are correct that the 14th Amend is yet to be applied to homosexuals. However, Prop 8 was struck down not because it violated the equal protection rights of a gay person, but because it didn't afford equal protection to a person period. As I tried to explain earlier, the Court didn't apply equal protection to a gay couple in striking down Prop 8, it merely applied it to an individual person that was being denied the same priviledge (the right to marry whom he chooses) that you and I enjoy.

This is the part where you admit you were wrong and leave the lawyering to the lawyers.

No - it applied it to the referendum vote by the people - decided by a homosexual judge, regarding marriage - not individual protection. Marriage isn't just an individual. Have you read all of Harlan's dissent? He makes it quite clear that the 14th amendment regards governmental discrimination. This was not the state creating a law: it was a referendum by the people. States can have referendums. What this judge did was wrong.

Sorry, but not going to do it. Regardless of your elitist views that the "judicial class" (read Harlan...he made it clear there are no classes in America) should rule, we are still a government of the people. And, BTW - jurists can be taken down by Congress...the only court Congress doesn't control is the SCOTUS. Check it out. Congress can defund SCOTUS decisions, though. It's all part of the checks and balances system (hmmm, come to think of it, Harlan mentioned that, too - man, he said a mouthful in his dissent) that you would throw out. I will leave corporate lawyering to you, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I quoted LuAnne's response right in the post you responded to, are you really reading the posts? Here it is again: "What do we do to keep people from being homosexual? Christians need to get busy telling others about Christ. Not just homosexuals, but all lost. There have been large numbers of homosexuals saved and turned from that lifestyle."

The entire legal haggling angle is itself a smokescreen if you are a Christian. Christians are to live by the Word of God, not by the words of men as written in the Constitution,it's amendments or the dictates of judges if they be contrary to the Word of God or used as such.

LuAnne has explained well the history and original intent of the 14th Amendment, which if you study it out, the 14th Amendment is invalid because it was unconstitutionally (illegally) adopted, and yet you reject what she has put forth. Not only that, you do this in a very unchristian manner. You have been doing this in several threads. Taking an unbiblical position, addressing ladies, and sometimes others, in unchristian ways, and rejecting facts and reality that doesn't align with your position. Whatever you choose to call yourself, those are liberal trademarks and unchristian.

Scripture is very clear with regards to homosexuality. Scripture is also very clear that we are to OBey, follow and abide in the Word of God. We either choose to follow and serve God or we choose to follow the world and serve the devil. Which path do you choose?


I didn't know that particular quote was what you were talking about. We have been discussing denying homosexual's certain civil rights and you said we must "stand firm against thier sin" (post #19). That was the context in which I asked what we were to do with them. If I would have know that "stand firm" merely meant share the gospel with them and tell them they are wwrong, I wouldn't have asked the question. I was under the impression that by "standing firm against their sin" you meant something more than telling them that we think they are wrong. I thought you may have been suggesting that we outlaw homosexuality or that we take other rights away from them.

I'm sure someone has told you that the 14th Amend. was illegally adopted and that we therefore are not entitled to due process or equal protection from the states. However, I doubt that can offer you anything (such as case law - which decides whether or not something is illegal) other than some fanciful argument with "facts" which you have not, and have no way of, varifying.

I will tell every homosexual that ask that I believe their lifestyle is sinful, immoral, and simply unnatural. I will not treat them differently nor will I take part in denying them the same liberties that our laws guarantee.

Furthermore, stating what the law is and how it is applied has nothing to do with supporting the privileges the law protect. It's kind of like how you might not agree with what everyone says, but you support their freedom of speech. I don't know how to make it any more clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't know that particular quote was what you were talking about. We have been discussing denying homosexual's certain civil rights and you said we must "stand firm against thier sin" (post #19). That was the context in which I asked what we were to do with them. If I would have know that "stand firm" merely meant share the gospel with them and tell them they are wwrong, I wouldn't have asked the question. I was under the impression that by "standing firm against their sin" you meant something more than telling them that we think they are wrong. I thought you may have been suggesting that we outlaw homosexuality or that we take other rights away from them.

I'm sure someone has told you that the 14th Amend. was illegally adopted and that we therefore are not entitled to due process or equal protection from the states. However, I doubt that can offer you anything (such as case law - which decides whether or not something is illegal) other than some fanciful argument with "facts" which you have not, and have no way of, varifying.

I will tell every homosexual that ask that I believe their lifestyle is sinful, immoral, and simply unnatural. I will not treat them differently nor will I take part in denying them the same liberties that our laws guarantee.

Furthermore, stating what the law is and how it is applied has nothing to do with supporting the privileges the law protect. It's kind of like how you might not agree with what everyone says, but you support their freedom of speech. I don't know how to make it any more clear.


True Christians don't "think" homosexuality is wrong, they know it is a sin.

There are no Constitutional rights for any sexual deviant to be afforded marriage rights or benefits.

Standing firm against homosexuality requires that we not support anything that gives any form of legitimacy to this sin.

Homosexuality isn't some "special sin", it's a sin that like all other sins Christians are to call sin, present the Gospel to the sinners, and to prevent sin from being viewed as acceptable, supported by law, or allowed in the public square.

As originally founded, and as the laws were written, applied and deemed lawful and Constitutional for over 150 years, various sins were indeed outlawed, including homosexuality, adultery, murder, rape, theft, lying under oath, etc.

In any event, there is no biblical excuse for a Christian to support any "rights" for homosexuals regardless of the country they live in or what system of government they live under.

Scripture is very clear that when the ungodly rule, homosexuality is accepted and the nation is punished. Scripture is equally clear that when godly rulers are in power homosexuality is not accepted and the nation is blessed.

So, what about you, are you going to stand with God or the world and the devil on this issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No - it applied it to the referendum vote by the people - decided by a homosexual judge, regarding marriage - not individual protection. Marriage isn't just an individual. Have you read all of Harlan's dissent? He makes it quite clear that the 14th amendment regards governmental discrimination. This was not the state creating a law: it was a referendum by the people. States can have referendums. What this judge did was wrong.

Sorry, but not going to do it. Regardless of your elitist views that the "judicial class" (read Harlan...he made it clear there are no classes in America) should rule, we are still a government of the people. And, BTW - jurists can be taken down by Congress...the only court Congress doesn't control is the SCOTUS. Check it out. Congress can defund SCOTUS decisions, though. It's all part of the checks and balances system (hmmm, come to think of it, Harlan mentioned that, too - man, he said a mouthful in his dissent) that you would throw out. I will leave corporate lawyering to you, though.


Wow. I mean, really? Really? Either you have a fundamental understanding of the way this thingsworks, or you are just saying stuff that you think will some how contradict what I have stated. I don't even know if I should take the time to explain that that little thing you call a "referendum" became what we call a "law" once it passed. Nor do I know if you can understand that per Section 1983 of the U.S. Code, no person (or peoples) can deprive any other person of their constitutional rights under the color of law. Or that a dissent, is just that, a dissent, carrying no weight whatsoever and having no application to the interpretation of law. And I (me, a single person, with no one else involved) have a right to get married. You had a right to get married before you ever met your husband or even started considering a mate. It is an individual right. Just because you need at least two people to take advantage of it, doesn't make it less of an individual right. A good analogy that my Con. Law professor used was that freedome of speech is an individual right even though it takes another person hearing what you say for it actually be speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. I mean, really? Really? Either you have a fundamental understanding of the way this thingsworks, or you are just saying stuff that you think will some how contradict what I have stated. I don't even know if I should take the time to explain that that little thing you call a "referendum" became what we call a "law" once it passed. Nor do I know if you can understand that per Section 1983 of the U.S. Code, no person (or peoples) can deprive any other person of their constitutional rights under the color of law. Or that a dissent, is just that, a dissent, carrying no weight whatsoever and having no application to the interpretation of law. And I (me, a single person, with no one else involved) have a right to get married. You had a right to get married before you ever met your husband or even started considering a mate. It is an individual right. Just because you need at least two people to take advantage of it, doesn't make it less of an individual right. A good analogy that my Con. Law professor used was that freedome of speech is an individual right even though it takes another person hearing what you say for it actually be speech.


Are you a biblical Christian? Why do you keep ignorning the Scriptural aspect which is to be the guide for all matters in a Christians life?

Legally speaking, no one has a "right" to marry. A government can at any time grant or restrict the legal ability to marry. Men and women have a biblical right to marry, but that has nothing to do with the legal system.

Again, nothing regarding the legal system takes precedence over the Word of God.

Since you continue to ignore the Word of God and questions regarding living by such and you continue to support that which God says is an abomination, it seems you have made your choice to stand with the world and the devil and reject God and His Word. :icon_sad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True Christians don't "think" homosexuality is wrong, they know it is a sin.

There are no Constitutional rights for any sexual deviant to be afforded marriage rights or benefits.

Standing firm against homosexuality requires that we not support anything that gives any form of legitimacy to this sin.

Homosexuality isn't some "special sin", it's a sin that like all other sins Christians are to call sin, present the Gospel to the sinners, and to prevent sin from being viewed as acceptable, supported by law, or allowed in the public square.

As originally founded, and as the laws were written, applied and deemed lawful and Constitutional for over 150 years, various sins were indeed outlawed, including homosexuality, adultery, murder, rape, theft, lying under oath, etc.

In any event, there is no biblical excuse for a Christian to support any "rights" for homosexuals regardless of the country they live in or what system of government they live under.

Scripture is very clear that when the ungodly rule, homosexuality is accepted and the nation is punished. Scripture is equally clear that when godly rulers are in power homosexuality is not accepted and the nation is blessed.

So, what about you, are you going to stand with God or the world and the devil on this issue?


I have already said that stand with God in regards to his position with homosexuality. But I disagree that such support entails treating them differently than others. We are to treat others as we wish to be treated and I don't believe I can do that and take your position. I don't believe that homosexuals can ever be married as defined by the Church. They may be able to have a civil marriage - a contract recognized by the state, but that will never have what I consider a Christian marriage - a joining together of two people by God.

And I don't believe homosexuality has ever been illegal. Sodomy may have been illegal, but that is a sexual act, not a sexual orientation, that applied to heterosexuals as much as it did homosexuals. Your above post suggest we shouldn't allow homosexuals in the public square - are you suggesting we criminalize it?

What about the states in which gay marriage is still illegal (it is still illegal in my state)? How are their citizens supporting homosexuality?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. I mean, really? Really? Either you have a fundamental understanding of the way this thingsworks, or you are just saying stuff that you think will some how contradict what I have stated. I don't even know if I should take the time to explain that that little thing you call a "referendum" became what we call a "law" once it passed. Nor do I know if you can understand that per Section 1983 of the U.S. Code, no person (or peoples) can deprive any other person of their constitutional rights under the color of law. Or that a dissent, is just that, a dissent, carrying no weight whatsoever and having no application to the interpretation of law. And I (me, a single person, with no one else involved) have a right to get married. You had a right to get married before you ever met your husband or even started considering a mate. It is an individual right. Just because you need at least two people to take advantage of it, doesn't make it less of an individual right. A good analogy that my Con. Law professor used was that freedome of speech is an individual right even though it takes another person hearing what you say for it actually be speech.

No, I don't know what a referendum is, nor that it becomes law if passed (it's still the PEOPLE who decide: it is societal, not governmental). Nor do I know that a dissent carries no weight, no matter how interesting it might be. I'm just one of the uneducated masses, duh. Excuse me as I go my way into the blindness of my ignorance...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have already said that stand with God in regards to his position with homosexuality. But I disagree that such support entails treating them differently than others. We are to treat others as we wish to be treated and I don't believe I can do that and take your position. I don't believe that homosexuals can ever be married as defined by the Church. They may be able to have a civil marriage - a contract recognized by the state, but that will never have what I consider a Christian marriage - a joining together of two people by God.

And I don't believe homosexuality has ever been illegal. Sodomy may have been illegal, but that is a sexual act, not a sexual orientation, that applied to heterosexuals as much as it did homosexuals. Your above post suggest we shouldn't allow homosexuals in the public square - are you suggesting we criminalize it?

What about the states in which gay marriage is still illegal (it is still illegal in my state)? How are their citizens supporting homosexuality?


I'm not saying we are to treat open, rebellious sinners differently, the Word of God says this.

Scripture is very clear we are to be in the world but not of the world. We are to expose sin, call sinners to repentance and never to support sin. It doesn't matter whether the sin is sexual in nature (homosexuality, adultery) or otherwise. Christians are to do nothing that would support, promote, encourage, legitimize, any sin.

Past laws or present laws don't matter, only the Word of God matters if one is a Christian. Scripture is clear as Jesus Himself stated that if we love Him we will keep His commandments. We are not keeping His commandments if we are going against His Word.

Your bizzare attempts at rationalizing, your legal twistings, your determination to avoid facts, and most especially your unwillingness to humble yourself before Christ and submit to His Lordship in this matter (and others) indicates the position you have chosen very clearly and it is not standing with Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I don't know what a referendum is, nor that it becomes law if passed (it's still the PEOPLE who decide: it is societal, not governmental). Nor do I know that a dissent carries no weight, no matter how interesting it might be. I'm just one of the uneducated masses, duh. Excuse me as I go my way into the blindness of my ignorance...


Don't go getting all sensitive on us now. If you are going to say things with some sense of authority and to the affect of an "I'm right and your wrong" argument, you better be ready to face the music once you realize that you are in fact the one that is wrong. You attacked my professional credibility with what amounts to nothing more than an opinion of the way things should be. You should have expected that I would defend myself with something more than opinion. The business of law isn't a place for the weary kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't go getting all sensitive on us now. If you are going to say things with some sense of authority and to the affect of an "I'm right and your wrong" argument, you better be ready to face the music once you realize that you are in fact the one that is wrong. You attacked my professional credibility with what amounts to nothing more than an opinion of the way things should be. You should have expected that I would defend myself with something more than opinion. The business of law isn't a place for the weary kind.

:nuts: I didn't attack your professional credibility at all (unless disagreeing with you is that - and it prOBably is in your mind). And I'm not getting all sensitive on anyone (claiming that I attacked your professional credibility sounds kinda senstive to me...). I was just playing into your elitist attitude, that's all. And really, no business is a place for the weary.

I'm sorry that you feel you had to defend yourself. Truly, you personally never entered my mind as I was commenting (until the last one :uhhh: ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying we are to treat open, rebellious sinners differently, the Word of God says this.

Scripture is very clear we are to be in the world but not of the world. We are to expose sin, call sinners to repentance and never to support sin. It doesn't matter whether the sin is sexual in nature (homosexuality, adultery) or otherwise. Christians are to do nothing that would support, promote, encourage, legitimize, any sin.

Past laws or present laws don't matter, only the Word of God matters if one is a Christian. Scripture is clear as Jesus Himself stated that if we love Him we will keep His commandments. We are not keeping His commandments if we are going against His Word.

Your bizzare attempts at rationalizing, your legal twistings, your determination to avoid facts, and most especially your unwillingness to humble yourself before Christ and submit to His Lordship in this matter (and others) indicates the position you have chosen very clearly and it is not standing with Christ.


Again John, I am confused as to what exactly you are suggesting we as Christians do with homosexuals. Let's say I don't agree that they should be afforded equal protection. Homosexual marriage is still against the law in my state, so the ruling in CA really has no affect on me and the homosexuals that live here. What am I supposed to do to them? I already said that I would stand right in their face and tell them they are wrong and attempt to share the gospel with them. What else should we do? Other than that, what does the Bible say we should do?

And I am afraid you are badly mistaken. I have not twisted anything unless you consider stating exactly what something says to be twisting. Even if I didn't agree with the judge in CA's opinion, that is still the law. Me thinking it shouldn't be the law doesn't have any affect on it. You can disagree with where the stop sign is on your street but that doesn't mean that it doesn't still say STOP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:nuts: I didn't attack your professional credibility at all (unless disagreeing with you is that - and it prOBably is in your mind). And I'm not getting all sensitive on anyone (claiming that I attacked your professional credibility sounds kinda senstive to me...). I was just playing into your elitist attitude, that's all. And really, no business is a place for the weary.

I'm sorry that you feel you had to defend yourself. Truly, you personally never entered my mind as I was commenting (until the last one :uhhh: ).


Oh, I'm sorry, was it someone else who made a comment about my education in the history of the law being "lacking" in the context of my application of the law and the discussion of its history (you know, my profession)? When someone with no education tells a professional (someone with a doctorate in a field, no less) that they are wrong about a matter which their profession involves, that is an attack on the professional's professional credibility. You didn't disagree with me. You said I was wrong. Then you embarrassed yourself and when got offended when I exposed you. It's time to call it what it is and to stop hiding behind cute little emoticons and quibs. You were wrong - now admit it and apologize. Or lock the thread, I'll consider it one in the same.

John, we can consider our discussion in private.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again John, I am confused as to what exactly you are suggesting we as Christians do with homosexuals. Let's say I don't agree that they should be afforded equal protection. Homosexual marriage is still against the law in my state, so the ruling in CA really has no affect on me and the homosexuals that live here. What am I supposed to do to them? I already said that I would stand right in their face and tell them they are wrong and attempt to share the gospel with them. What else should we do? Other than that, what does the Bible say we should do?

And I am afraid you are badly mistaken. I have not twisted anything unless you consider stating exactly what something says to be twisting. Even if I didn't agree with the judge in CA's opinion, that is still the law. Me thinking it shouldn't be the law doesn't have any affect on it. You can disagree with where the stop sign is on your street but that doesn't mean that it doesn't still say STOP.


You have proclaimed that homoseuxals have a "right" to marriage because of the 14th Amendment, et. al. You say you support such. This goes against the Word of God. Christians are in no way to give support to any sin. Proclaiming a sinner has a right to sin is giving support to the sin.

I've never said you have do anything with homosexuals. Homosexuals are sinners in need of the Gospel and prayer as are other sinners.

If homosexuals attempt to force their sin upon society by having homosexual "marriage" made law, by demanding the law be changed to support their sin, then Christians should voice their opposition to such and work against such.

With regards to your constitutional and legal wranglings, they have been much more emotion and opinion based than others. You deny the historical facts that have been presented, you ignore original intent, and this is a pattern you have shown in other threads as well.

Forget the legal stuff and spend time reading and studying the Word of God with the guidance of the Holy Ghost and you will profit not only for this lifetime but for eternity as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I'm sorry, was it someone else who made a comment about my education in the history of the law being "lacking" in the context of my application of the law and the discussion of its history (you know, my profession)? When someone with no education tells a professional (someone with a doctorate in a field, no less) that they are wrong about a matter which their profession involves, that is an attack on the professional's professional credibility. You didn't disagree with me. You said I was wrong. Then you embarrassed yourself and when got offended when I exposed you. It's time to call it what it is and to stop hiding behind cute little emoticons and quibs. You were wrong - now admit it and apologize. Or lock the thread, I'll consider it one in the same.

John, we can consider our discussion in private.


Ever heard of the biblical concepts of humility and humbleness?

What does a doctorate in the field of education or law or political science, etc., prove? It proves one managed to do what was necessary to achieve one. It doesn't prove they are experts, it doesn't prove they were rightly taught, it doesn't prove they know more than others about various topics or issues.

I've not commented upon all the posts here but I've read them and your views and positions are heavily biased by liberalism.

I'm an educated man but I can honestly say I've learned far more from personal study over the years than I ever did in university. Thanks to Christ in my life I'm not going to proclaim that my education or my degrees set me above others.

You have posted wrongly towards LuAnne in many posts and they have shown your pride is something you should take before the Lord. If you would like prayer, post a request in the prayer forum and many of us will pray for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I'm sorry, was it someone else who made a comment about my education in the history of the law being "lacking" in the context of my application of the law and the discussion of its history (you know, my profession)? When someone with no education tells a professional (someone with a doctorate in a field, no less) that they are wrong about a matter which their profession involves, that is an attack on the professional's professional credibility. You didn't disagree with me. You said I was wrong. Then you embarrassed yourself and when got offended when I exposed you. It's time to call it what it is and to stop hiding behind cute little emoticons and quibs. You were wrong - now admit it and apologize. Or lock the thread, I'll consider it one in the same.

John, we can consider our discussion in private.

Uh, excuse me - the comment I made about history was regarding HISTORY. There is more to history than the history of law, my friend. Just to let you know, I am not uneducated. I might not have a degree in law, but I do have a degree. I might not have a doctorate, but I do have further education. Thank you. I'm truly not one of the uneducated masses - but I'm not a liberal, either.

Poor guy - got your feelings hurt and now the fangs come out. I'm not embarrassed, nor did I get offended. But you OBviously did. I don't hide behind anything, either. I use the emoticons and (I believe you meant) quips to lighten the mood - because it was OBvious that you are offended (although,I would venture to say you weren't in a real good mood today, anyway, because you've been snarky in more than one thread all day long...). I admit nothing and owe no apology. And I'm not locking the thread. I don't take orders from you (BTW - that's "one and the same" not "one in the same" - see, MY education is in the educator field :wink ).

The thing is, I really like you. You are an uber liberal in many ways, and we disagree in a lot of areas. But I like you. And your attitude today has disappointed me greatly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what do you do with lawyers that disagree with you? You can't tell them they are ignorant of the law, and that you have superior knowledge because of your education (which you have indicated in many posts, past and present). Do you think it would be okay for a 50 year old to marry a 15 year old? I mean it is equal rights after all. It amazes me that you can throw out your Christian morals so easily, and defend taking this country one step closer to Sodom and Gomorrah.


i would love to hear him tell the judge, your ignorant on this subject, just accept what I say about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why in the world would a child of God help someone in any manner sin against God? They would be sinning against God their self. It take no doctorate, no degree, no letters before or after ones name, or diploma, to understand that.

Of course, I fully understand that there be many people who think that only people who have a doctorate, a degree, letters before or after their name, or diploma, are the only ones who knows anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now come on guys, don't you think you are being to hard on PT. He is the expert after all. And I even read on a church sign a few days ago how we cannot legislate morality. We cannot let one group do something and forbid another group. If ANYONE wants to get married to ANYONE else we as a nation have no right to say anything against it. We all are equally protected and all have the same rights. That is why you see so many 15 year old boys marrying 12 year old girls. Wait a minute, you have not noticed that? HMMM maybe that is because even if their parents allowed it the LAW says they cannot. Why???? Because it is considered immoral. Now they can live together, and people may say it is not a good idea, but they cannot MARRY. Now 3 years later they cannot marry, but if they live together the boy can be arrested (funny to me that for two years it is not a good idea, and then the third it is illegal). Then one year later in some states with parental permission, they can get married. Now either miners are not people or we have another case of not being equally protected. I believe another example would be driving. In order to drive (and yes I know they call driving a privilage but what makes it such more than marriage) you must pass a test and drive in accordance to what a instructor expects. If you do not do everything the way you are supposed to, you do not get to drive. Now am I saying that I think 15 and 12 year olds should marry (even though many a 14-15 year old girl has made good wives through the years more than likely in each of our family trees)? No, I am saying that even under equal protection, there are still rules. Oh and BTW if prop. 8 is struck down it will no longer be illegal for sodomites to marry in ANY state. Equal protection will be applied with a heavy hand!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now come on guys, don't you think you are being to hard on PT. He is the expert after all. And I even read on a church sign a few days ago how we cannot legislate morality. We cannot let one group do something and forbid another group. If ANYONE wants to get married to ANYONE else we as a nation have no right to say anything against it. We all are equally protected and all have the same rights. That is why you see so many 15 year old boys marrying 12 year old girls. Wait a minute, you have not noticed that? HMMM maybe that is because even if their parents allowed it the LAW says they cannot. Why???? Because it is considered immoral. Now they can live together, and people may say it is not a good idea, but they cannot MARRY. Now 3 years later they cannot marry, but if they live together the boy can be arrested (funny to me that for two years it is not a good idea, and then the third it is illegal). Then one year later in some states with parental permission, they can get married. Now either miners are not people or we have another case of not being equally protected. I believe another example would be driving. In order to drive (and yes I know they call driving a privilage but what makes it such more than marriage) you must pass a test and drive in accordance to what a instructor expects. If you do not do everything the way you are supposed to, you do not get to drive. Now am I saying that I think 15 and 12 year olds should marry (even though many a 14-15 year old girl has made good wives through the years more than likely in each of our family trees)? No, I am saying that even under equal protection, there are still rules. Oh and BTW if prop. 8 is struck down it will no longer be illegal for sodomites to marry in ANY state. Equal protection will be applied with a heavy hand!!!!!


I'm pretty sure that miners are people and have equal protection under the law. They can even unionize in most states.

As for minors, they have a different status under the law. Saying that you can't marry a 12 year old if you want to is really an absurd comparison and I'm pretty sure you know it. In the case of minors, the law is applied equally to everyone under the age of 18. It has to do with age of consent for legal purposes. You are correct that driving is a privilege and requires passage of a test and following a set of rules in order to OBtain and maintain said privilege. We could make marriage a privilege. In that case, we would have to set forth certain conditions or a test without regard to race, gender or sexual orientation and apply it equally across all people.

Yes, equal protection still comes with rules and laws. However, those rules and laws cannot deny equal protection in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So again we are hearing that "equal protection" means anyone older than a minor has a right to legal sanction for their sexual perversions.

If homosexuals are found to have a "right" to what has never been theirs then so do polygamists and so do pedophiles. Sexual and marriage "rights" for minors are changed often. In some States minors can marry with the consent of parents. In some places the age minors can consent to sex with adults has been lowered to 15 or 16. So there is no reason to think pedophiles can't get the courts to change such laws to accomodate their perversion as well.

Along with the polygamy will come the demand to allow several men and women to marry one another so we have a "family" with several husbands and wives all married to each other.

Marriage is a sacred union between man and woman as established by God Himself. Marriage isn't some legal "right" guaranteed to any two or more people (or even animals...yes, there is a growing call for people to be allowed to marry animals) who want to have their sexual perversion sanctiond by the law.

Scripture is so clear on this that no professing Christian should even consider giving the least bit of support to such an abomination. Rather, as Scripture commands, Christians should be working against the spread of this (and other) sins.

Will you support the ungodly world system or God?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that miners are people and have equal protection under the law. They can even unionize in most states.

As for minors, they have a different status under the law. Saying that you can't marry a 12 year old if you want to is really an absurd comparison and I'm pretty sure you know it. In the case of minors, the law is applied equally to everyone under the age of 18. It has to do with age of consent for legal purposes. You are correct that driving is a privilege and requires passage of a test and following a set of rules in order to OBtain and maintain said privilege. We could make marriage a privilege. In that case, we would have to set forth certain conditions or a test without regard to race, gender or sexual orientation and apply it equally across all people.

Yes, equal protection still comes with rules and laws. However, those rules and laws cannot deny equal protection in the first place.


Sorry for the typo, it was late and I was tired. No actually I do not see it as an absurd comparison to point out that the law of the land makes a moral law about age a person can marry. It fits to show that getting married in the eyes of the state does require that you meet certain rules. One of which should be and in most states is a man and a woman. It is no more taking away equal protection to say two sodomites cannot claim "marriage" than it is to say two early teens cannot. If you do not like the 12 year old example move it to a 15 year old girl and a 18 year old boy. In most if not every state today this is not legal to be married. Yet at one time, even in recent history it was legal in some if not all states. So we have a law saying it is not moral for a 15 year old to get married. The law says that people who are MINORS cannot share in the benefits of MARRIAGE, which takes away THERE equal protection.
As for if we made marriage a privilege we would set forth certain conditions, most states at one time required a blood test to get a marriage license. There are other laws that must be met in order to get married. For instance in the state of Oklahoma it is a felony for a minister to conduct a marriage ceremony without the couple first having got a marriage license. For the couple to have the ceremony done is a misdemeanor. If you want to look at Gods law on marriage, go to the book of Ruth and you will find that Boaz says that he cannot marry her because the law says she is to marry someone else. What am I saying? There are laws even those who want to push that it is a privilege for all want to have to regulate who can get married (minors, polygamists, "pedifiles"). And for saying that "In the case of minors, the law is applied equally to everyone under the age of 18. It has to do with age of consent for legal purposes." You are still not applying the law equally to all. Oh and BTW it is not equally applied to everyone under 18 as that with parental consent a 16 year old girl can marry in oklahoma but not a 16 year old boy. So here we have a extra partition of age and sex!!! Not equal. It is setting a partition between two sets of people. Saying you have a right and you do not. In this case the law can be equally applied to everyone who meets the definition of the word married. Until the last ten years or so the dictionaries including legal dictionaries did not include "same sex" as a part of the meaning of the word. They made it clear that it was one man and one women. So we are having to change the meaning of a word so to include a group, but another group (minors, polygamists, "pedifiles") are not included.

As to this statement "In that case, we would have to set forth certain conditions or a test without regard to race, gender or sexual orientation and apply it equally across all people." It is funny you left out the normal clause of disability. We are not to discriminate for that either right?? But of course that would kind of be hard to push through that we cannot discriminate against a blind man by not allowing him to drive. He just does not have what it takes, no offence to the blind. But a sodomite "couple" do not meet the meaning of the word married.

As an explanation, I put the "pedifiles" as I did because this can carry different definitions according to who you are talking to. For example my Grandparents were married when my Grandad was 19 and my Granny 15. To some this makes my Grandad a pedifile. But they did it through legal channels as Texas allowed 15 year old girls to marry at that time. I do not feel for one moment my Grandad was a pedifile but today they would not be ALLOWED to marry and he would be looked upon as a pedifile for even considering such. You see, they have taken the equal protection away from girls like my granny!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 37 Guests (See full list)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...