Then the first sentence in my paragraph still applies. You are willfully ignorant of one of the most important influences on western culture. I also would be willing to bet that your choice of movies, television, literature, and perhaps video games would belie your professed disdain for "talk of killing and rape."

 

My point is how can a book with so much messed up stuff in it be used to justify to hate gay people and try to prevent them from getting married. It has no moral high ground to be pointing fingers as if it's above criticism.

My point is how can a book with so much messed up stuff in it be used to justify to hate gay people and try to prevent them from getting married. It has no moral high ground to be pointing fingers as if it's above criticism.

 

You think it is messed up because you don't take time to read it. The horrible battle you posted about earlier is about purging the land of evil. The enemy is MAtthew that we are to pay for really doesn't mean your enemy in battle but more a social person that you consider your enemy.

 

The Bible is like a perfect puzzle, if you just look at one single piece by itself, its like your looking at a middle piece and determining how the whole picture is supposed to look like without seeing the finished product. I just thought of that analogy!! Right here at Mcdonald's it just hit me. I may throw it in my sermon in a few hours.

Then the first sentence in my paragraph still applies. You are willfully ignorant of one of the most important influences on western culture. I also would be willing to bet that your choice of movies, television, literature, and perhaps video games would belie your professed disdain for "talk of killing and rape."

 

How can you so easily assume that jbird's taste in movies etc... belie his professed disdain for "talk of killing and rape". That's reaching.

 

I have no idea what jbird enjoys, but know for certain that although many in this world are attracted to what they deem to be excitement in watching violent horror, I for one can't change the channel quick enough to get that kind of crap off of my screen if I happen to stumble upon it.

 

I'm terribly irritated by it if I have to sit through loud overblown trailers at the movie theater promoting stuff like that.

 

I have to admit that I do find it disturbing that so many are attracted to it.

 

Last year I sat behind a couple and their small child who was wound up the for the entirety of a long international flight, and could see through the seat cracks that Daddy watched the most violent horrific movies on his screen the entire time while sitting next to his 3 year old child. Great input for your daughter there Dad. There's little wonder why she was such a hyperactive beast.

Scalia's dissent is a very insightful critique of the Supreme Court's decision and he says nothing about religion or morality. It is his contention that the SCOTUS, or rather just 5 members of it, creatively found a right for same-sex marriage that cannot be found in the constitution or any of the amendments. His concern is that SCOTUS has stepped beyond its judiciary role in the separation of powers and become legislators. He says in this decision it should not matter to the Court whether gay marriage is right or wrong but the court should only be concerned with whether the founding documents addressed it and what do they say about it. As he sees it, the decision has nothing to do with the constitution, since it no where gives legal status to gay marriage, and so the court overreached its role and legislated a new right that did not exist before. He says that the justices who found in favor did not present legal arguments for accepting it. He accuses those justices of quite muddled thinking and presents several instances of their incoherent speech. For him, the real danger is that it is not the role of the judiciary to create rights or enact legislature but only rule on whether laws are consistent with the constitution. If the country wanted to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples then there is a mechanism to do so--it's called the legislature. That could be done at the state level or at the national level. In this case, the SCOTUS by-passed the available means and wrote their own law, thwarting the will of 50 million people in the various states who already voted to define marriage according to its historical definition. This is no insignificant matter that Scalia brings up because it has implications far beyond the one issue of same-sex marriage.

 

The bottom line for Scalia is that if the SCOTUS can do that, it has taken the power of the people and placed it in the hands of 5 people. 330 million people can be ruled by 5 people with law degrees. This endangers the Republic and it affects all of us now and in the future of the US of A. I think Scalia's warning has merit and needs to be carefully considered.

 

I have not read any of the opinions and am not a legal scholar so.....

 

Is it a requirement that the actual issue be named in the Constitution as a named right?

 

What was the basis used by the 5? Just a broad interpretation of the 14th amendment?

 

For those that say the 5 were wrong what is your basis? (and I don't mean the Bible )

Many are saying allowing gays to marry will ruin this country.

 

I'm struggling with this one. How will having the govt recognize two gays as being officially married ruin the country?

99?

 

You?

 

Would never have guessed it.

 

You're being too modest.

 

Don't let any of us stop you, go for the gusto man and make it a full blown 100, I mean you're merely just a breath a way for crying out loud.

 

How about 99.9th percentile? I do have a Democrat family background so some of that keeps pulling me back - just a little.

 

99th percentile is extremist, just like 99th percentile on the liberal scale. People in the 50-70 is where good ideas happen. Anyone overly conservative or liberal don't get anything done.

 

On the contrary, I understand others viewpoints; however, I do not agree with most of them - nor do I act on the disagreement as an extremist would.

My point is how can a book with so much messed up stuff in it be used to justify to hate gay people and try to prevent them from getting married. It has no moral high ground to be pointing fingers as if it's above criticism.

 

Those of us against gay marriage do not hate gay people. Some of the most influential people in my life were, or are, gay.

Here's what I don't get about those who are opposed to this....If a man and a woman go to the JOP and get married, the Church does not recognize them as married. If a man and another man go the JOP and get married, the Church doesn't recognize them as married either. So why are so many so against one and not the other?

 

Is it just the use of the word "marriage" that upsets people? If we changed the word for homosexual couples to "joint venture" for example, and still provide them with the same financial, end of life, and benefit rights as heterosexual married couples would everyone still be so opposed to this?

You think it is messed up because you don't take time to read it. The horrible battle you posted about earlier is about purging the land of evil. The enemy is MAtthew that we are to pay for really doesn't mean your enemy in battle but more a social person that you consider your enemy.

 

The Bible is like a perfect puzzle, if you just look at one single piece by itself, its like your looking at a middle piece and determining how the whole picture is supposed to look like without seeing the finished product. I just thought of that analogy!! Right here at Mcdonald's it just hit me. I may throw it in my sermon in a few hours.

 

Those of us against gay marriage do not hate gay people. Some of the most influential people in my life were, or are, gay.

 

Don't hate them, just don't think they deserve the same basic human rights as straight people....Do I have the gist of it?

For those that say the 5 were wrong what is your basis? (and I don't mean the Bible )

 

Try this for starters.

 

10 Reasons Why Homosexual ?Marriage? is Harmful and Must be Opposed

Many are saying allowing gays to marry will ruin this country.

 

I'm struggling with this one. How will having the govt recognize two gays as being officially married ruin the country?

 

See my previous post for starters.

Don't hate them, just don't think they deserve the same basic human rights as straight people....Do I have the gist of it?

 

See post 267

Here's what I don't get about those who are opposed to this....If a man and a woman go to the JOP and get married, the Church does not recognize them as married. If a man and another man go the JOP and get married, the Church doesn't recognize them as married either. So why are so many so against one and not the other?

 

Is it just the use of the word "marriage" that upsets people? If we changed the word for homosexual couples to "joint venture" for example, and still provide them with the same financial, end of life, and benefit rights as heterosexual married couples would everyone still be so opposed to this?

 

See post 267