OK Supreme Court: 10 Commandments must come down

gcthomas

gcthomas

New member
Lon said:
The pole is about promoting sex for 2% of the population. That's it.
Click to expand...

The morality of the majority can be judged by how they treat the minority. It doesn't matter if they were only one in a million, common rights should be extended to them.
 
T

Truster

New member
Jose Fly said:
Oklahoma Supreme Court orders removal of Ten Commandments monument



Seems pretty straight forward.



Um.....what? What historical event are they talking about? But then, as is happening all across the country...



Yep. So once again we see the continued erosion of Christian privilege. They're all for religious displays, as long as...wink, wink...we all know only Christian displays will be allowed. As soon as other groups say "Hey, us too!" the whole charade crumbles.
Click to expand...

As the First Cause of all that takes place in time and eternity. When the Almighty removes His word it means He has done so in judgement.

You'll find proof of this in the Old Testament.
 
JosephR

JosephR

New member
Truster said:
As the First Cause of all that takes place in time and eternity. When the Almighty removes His word it means He has done so in judgement.

You'll find proof of this in the Old Testament.
Click to expand...

judge mens souls and gods judgement on governments do you ?

yet your own would damn you ..
 
Lon

Lon

Well-known member
gcthomas said:
The morality of the majority can be judged by how they treat the minority. It doesn't matter if they were only one in a million, common rights should be extended to them.
Click to expand...

One in a million is more like one in ten million though. All this stink and only 1% of 2% got married.

In this thread an adult sexual theme ( :dizzy: that he doesn't think this is a 'sexual' issue) is tossed up to supplant a monument to morality. Sad, but that's what the point is and none other.

It is rather about what you are willing to chuck away and some things (most things) are worth keeping. Jose and Quip, rather don't see 'baby' with bathwater (especially Quip but that's another abortion story).
So the bottom line is throwing away a good moral ethic for hedonism and self-centeredness. They'll ineptly deny it, but that is all that is left when the distractions are stripped away.
 
gcthomas

gcthomas

New member
Lon said:
So the bottom line is throwing away a good moral ethic for hedonism and self-centeredness. They'll ineptly deny it, but that is all that is left when the distractions are stripped away.
Click to expand...

It is not a good moral ethnic if it victimises good people just because the majority don't like them.
 
Lon

Lon

Well-known member
gcthomas said:
It is not a good moral ethnic if it victimises good people just because the majority don't like them.
Click to expand...
I agree with that. We don't do it to adulterers, or fornicators.

I think the 'born this way' is probably the basis for most contention. For instance, an adulterer doesn't excuse his adultery with 'born this way.'

At least Quip is right about this point: it is in no way a settled issue when such flux is yet all over the place.

I have family and friends who are gay but are they gay any longer if they are abstinent? The 'activity' seems to be the definer of the people group, and that activity regardless of partner, is seen as sin except in one particular instance, and even in that, Paul recommends celibacy. Such probably doesn't interest you, but also perhaps at least allows one to empathize with another's point of view as well as logic and empathy for how to proceed.
 
gcthomas

gcthomas

New member
Lon said:
I agree with that. We don't do it to adulterers, or fornicators.

I think the 'born this way' is probably the basis for most contention. For instance, an adulterer doesn't excuse his adultery with 'born this way.'
Click to expand...
Adulterers are breaking a contract, a solemn vow, and are harming someone in the process. A monogamous homosexual couple are just expressing honest love. How is it right to persecute such people?

Lon said:
Such probably doesn't interest you, but also perhaps at least allows one to empathize with another's point of view as well as logic and empathy for how to proceed.
Click to expand...
I'm sympathetic, as it must be difficult to be convinced that you must control and punish an innocent minority and at the same time tell yourself you are a good and upright person.
 
badp

badp

New member
Marriage isn't a contract.

A contract requires consideration to change hands. There's nothing like that in marriage.
 
Jose Fly

Jose Fly

New member
Lon said:
One in a million is more like one in ten million though. All this stink and only 1% of 2% got married.
Click to expand...

Probably could have said the same thing right after the Loving v. Virginia ruling. I mean, what percentage of couples were interracial in the 1960's? All that stink for just them? :rolleyes:
 
ok doser

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Jose Fly said:
Probably could have said the same thing right after the Loving v. Virginia ruling. I mean, what percentage of couples were interracial in the 1960's? All that stink for just them? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

you been taking lessons from traci? :freak:

or do you really think that negroes are perverts?
 
Jose Fly

Jose Fly

New member
Slowly this time...

Lon questioned "all the stink" that was raised over gay marriage, since "only 1-2%" got married after the SCOTUS ruling.

By the same logic, he must also wonder about "all the stink" that was raised over interracial marriage, since only a small percentage of married couples were interracial after the SCOTUS ruling.

So you see, the common thread between the two is the "Why bother, since [the group] only makes up a small percentage of the population" line of argument. No one was saying gays and blacks are the same.

If that doesn't make sense, read it again until it does.
 
gcthomas

gcthomas

New member
badp said:
Marriage isn't a contract.

A contract requires consideration to change hands. There's nothing like that in marriage.
Click to expand...

The Legal types at Cornell disagree with you:

Marriage

Definition

The legal union of a couple as spouses.* The basic elements of a marriage are:*(1)*the parties' legal ability to marry each other,*(2)*mutual consent of the parties, and*(3)*a marriage contract as required by law.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/marriage
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top