Supreme Court extends same-sex marriage nationwide

originally posted by: JohnFisher
impossible? Not at all. Likely? I don't know, about as likely as the forceful internment of innocent American citizens I guess. About as likely as a president ignoring supreme court rulings on forced relocation. About as likely as forced sterilization programs or warrantless wiretapping. About as likely as McCarthyism a guess.

Most of those things aren't occurring or are even close to occurring. Things like McCarthyism don't start with the Supreme Court overturning unconstitutional laws.

You are creating a slippery slope fallacy here.

originally posted by: Jobeycool
Liberals who call themselves christians just told Jesus and God the Father off and said screw your laws.They bowed to the U.S. instead without realizing they just told God I don't believe in your laws.

They think the U.S. government is God for some bizarre reason.

you do mean "the theory of god" right?....god doesn't answer for me, neither does the devil...I take responsibility for my own actions, you know, like a modern, critical-thinking, adult should do.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: JohnFisher

TThe Old Testament is full of polygamy, yes, but it is also full of examples as to the hardships such a practice brings, ultimately because it goes against God's plan for marriage.

Why is that, because when men have multiple wives, they get jealous of each other?

TThe Old Testament is full of polygamy, yes, but it is also full of examples as to the hardships such a practice brings, ultimately because it goes against God's plan for marriage.

Right, Jesus clarified that a man can marry as many women as he can afford.

The bride and her attendees (the virgins) were to he ready because they knew not when the bridegroom would come with his guests to claim his bride.

Oh, so now you're going to change the scripture! There are no attendees to the bride mentioned in that parable! ALL the virgins were waiting for one and only one bridegroom! I the bridegroom was prepared to take all ten of them, but some of them were to immature to have oil in their lamps, and so the bridegroom would have nothing to do with them.

That's the example of traditional marriage that Jesus affirms, polygamy! The Bible nowhere affirms marriage in the sense that the church defines as marriage today, where to two people, one man and one woman, fall in love and choose to make a commitment to each other. That was unheard of and certainly not what Jesus affirmed as traditional marriage!

tthis is getting to be ridiculous. We're probably just talking about different parable, but in anycase, you can have this one. If you just really want to believe that, then go for it. Just note that I'm in strong disagreement. It's too difficult to do research on my phone and I'm getting out of my realm of knowledge regarding polygamy. I do trust my sources though.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: JohnFisher
impossible? Not at all. Likely? I don't know, about as likely as the forceful internment of innocent American citizens I guess. About as likely as a president ignoring supreme court rulings on forced relocation. About as likely as forced sterilization programs or warrantless wiretapping. About as likely as McCarthyism a guess.

Most of those things aren't occurring or are even close to occurring. Things like McCarthyism don't start with the Supreme Court overturning unconstitutional laws.

You are creating a slippery slope fallacy here.

ooccurring and historic example are two different things. We all know history repeats itself. The Cherokee won the right to keep their land and stay put. SCOTUS ruled in their favor. Andrew Jackson sent them on the trail of tears anyway. Why? Because who cares about SCOTUS; that's why (I guess). Sure that was a long time ago, but people are still the same as they were thousands of years ago. Even homosexuality being socially acceptable waxes and wanes throughout time. Internment camps have happened multiple times in or by the US.

Notable Old Testament Polygamists:

Esau (Gen 26:34; 28:6-9)
Moses (Ex 2:21;Num 12:1)
Jacob, later renamed "Israel" (as in the Children of) (Gen 29:15-28)
David (1 Samuel 25:39-44; 2 Samuel 3:2-5; 5:13-16)
Solomon (1 Kings 11:1-3)

Notable cases of OT Incest

Cain and sister
Seth and sister

All grandchildren of Noah, et. al.

well, here is this

www.rawstory.com...

Accidental double post

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Notable Old Testament Polygamists:

Esau (Gen 26:34; 28:6-9)
Moses (Ex 2:21;Num 12:1)
Jacob, later renamed "Israel" (as in the Children of) (Gen 29:15-28)
David (1 Samuel 25:39-44; 2 Samuel 3:2-5; 5:13-16)
Solomon (1 Kings 11:1-3)

Notable cases of OT Incest

Cain and sister
Seth and sister

All grandchildren of Noah, et. al.

"It is notable that every instance of polygamy in the Bible produces some ill effect. When Abraham took Hagar as a concubine and produced Ishmael, Ishmael became the father of Arab peoples, who have been the enemies of the Jewish people throughout history, even until this day. When Jacob took Leah, Rachel, and two others, the sons of the different wives quarreled and had strife among themselves-- since Rachel was the favorite wife and received special treatment, he was sold by his brothers into Egypt, where of course the rest of the family followed and eventually were enslaved. David's sons by different wives also fought amongst themselves, Absalom even waging war against his siblings and his father. The Old Testament, far from condoning polygamy, shows us the natural ill effects. Interestingly, the Mosaic law says that a king must not multiply gold, wives, and horses-- all of which Solomon did and ended his reign as a tyrant. It would appear that polygamy was a custom of the day, not condoned by God."

- quote by a sister of mine.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Notable Old Testament Polygamists:

Esau (Gen 26:34; 28:6-9)
Moses (Ex 2:21;Num 12:1)
Jacob, later renamed "Israel" (as in the Children of) (Gen 29:15-28)
David (1 Samuel 25:39-44; 2 Samuel 3:2-5; 5:13-16)
Solomon (1 Kings 11:1-3)

Notable cases of OT Incest

Cain and sister
Seth and sister

All grandchildren of Noah, et. al.

www.openbible.info...

In reference to incest.

a reply to: JohnFisher

Yeah, I didn't want to rub noses in it.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: JohnFisher

Yeah, I didn't want to rub noses in it.

SSorry if I took it too far.

a reply to: Seamrog

I thank all that is good in the world that most people will never believe that cementing your love and commitment to support another human being is 'wicked'.
You are deluded.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

Brussels sprouts though, come on - they are WONDERFUL!

Let me clarify: I may think gay sex is yucky (for me), but no way do I think gays are yucky. They're AWESOME!

I'm a Brussels Sprout fan too.

Do we really look at hetero couples and immediately focus on how they have sex? Anyone seen "50 Shades of Gray"?

I'm not for overt public displays of affection by anyone that would lead me to speculate about their sex life.

Guess what? LGBT are just people. ALL varieties and personalities --- with only one common denominator in their specific group.

Actually this is all great whether you are for or against this ruling. What the SCOTUS used in their ruling has opened the door for many other situations where states have not been agreeing on.

As example, their ruling has now made all concealed weapons permits legal in all 50 states. I can't wait to see what else is affected...hehe

a reply to: Annee

People seem to go to extremes... like Gays are just going to start having Sex in public.. talking about our Sexuality and Gender identity is far different than talking about our Sex lives

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: vethumanbeing

But this is not a "dictate."

A case worked it's way through the American judicial system.

The Supreme Court heard the argument brought, and agreed that, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees to all Americans (regardless of their sex) the right to enter into a state-ordained contract and then have that contract recognized in all of the US states. This was already the law in 37 states.

Truly, go read it. Links are provided above.

You really need to be slapped by an injustice of the Federal Government to understand this; the process takes YEARS of legal wrangling and MONEY to defend the right to bear arms legally. I am thrilled Congress is pushing for a vote to have SCOTUS transfer immediately to the ObamaCare Health plan; (no dental care) this is the funniest Bill EVER to have happened in history introduced on the floor. Its about time our Congress had the guts to have a sense of humor and force SCOTUS to live by its own enforced laws (live as the people have to; after your false judgment INFLICTED upon them). BE US as your minions and experience first hand your own motions.

a reply to: JohnFisher

people are still the same as they were thousands of years ago. Even homosexuality being socially acceptable waxes and wanes throughout time.

Yes! They are! and....Yes! It sure does.

Yet even after all this, "Jesus" hasn't returned even ONCE to set things "right".
You say you 'trust your sources' - and that would be (correct me if I'm mistaken), the by-lined 'authors' of the Bible...right?

a reply to: vethumanbeing

I would guess, no offense intended per se, that there's more to the story than you're relating.

So you're okay with one branch of government using it's power to "punish" another branch for fulfilling it's function?

Not surprised.

I guess the Constitution has become a meaningless rag for many.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Indeed.. I read legal a Op-Ed today which said that both the ObamaCare and the Same-Sex Marriage rulings last week were so broad, that the ripple effects will have far-reaching effects on non-related laws, for decades to come.

The author labeled them as "booby-traps", and "unintended consequences".

a reply to: JohnFisher

You are correct in that history repeats itself. I just don't see it as likely these days with the way the media scrutinizes politics. It would be VERY hard for a President to get away with doing something these days that violates the Constitution. Look how often the Republicans tried to bring up impeachment hearings on Obama.