You can chose to obey (Eccl 12:13 NIV) or disobey (heterosexual [Lev. 20:10–12]/homosexual [Lev. 20:10,13]) God.
Oregon Judge Refuses To Perform Same-Sex Marriages
- Thread starter serpentdove
- Start date
You can chose to obey (Eccl 12:13 NIV) or disobey (heterosexual [Lev. 20:10–12]/homosexual [Lev. 20:10,13]) God.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
You cannot choose if you are attracted to your married neighbor, does that mean adultery is ok?
Are we demonizing adulterers when we say its wrong?
Attraction doesn't make something OK. That is when self control needs to be practiced.
That's next. These same people believe we came from animals so it's only natural :freak: when man acts like an animal (Eccl 10:2, Jn 10:10). They argue that because through the process of natural selection some men became pedophiles, pedophilia must be beneficial somehow. If you disagree you are hater. :sozo2: This makes :CRASH: Mohammad a class act, too. :BRAVO:
:yawn: We hate evil (Ps 139:22). They do not (Eccl 10:2, Jn 10:10).
opcorn:
They (Eccl 10:2, Jn 10:10) want to be evil (Jn 3:19) :reals:--and :sozo2: claim the moral high ground.
See:
Tactics of the Left
Last edited:
Buzzword
New member
You've been living under a box, haven't you?
Clearly the phrase "ability to consent" has escaped your notice.
This judge will be trod under just like the rest of his fading species by the march of history, which marches toward a more enlightened society that has cast off government-enforced bigotry and prejudice in favor of protecting the rights of each citizen to equal treatment under the law, regardless of the personal feelings of any government official.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
the point that you missed, being, that queetzal's refrain of "but I can't help who I'm attracted to!" is without value
I can't help being attracted to 68 Camaros, but that doesn't mean I have to marry them
Quetzal
New member
The real point I was trying to make is that each of those things are different from the next. Many on this forum want to box everything up to make their lazy argument easier. Truth is, not all actions are morally equal and each action has it's own set of circumstances as well as it's own set of legal standards. Instead of lumping homosexuality and pedophilia together, I only wish to address that there are significant differences.
Not that any of this matters because you are simply going to dismiss it on the grounds that it goes against what you were raised to believe.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Right!
Heterosexual marriage? Moral
Homosexual "marriage"? Immoral
not morally equal at all :thumb:
I don't know why people expect Christians to honor legal standards that work contrary to God's Law :idunno:
Quetzal
New member
You are proving my point. You are separating and treating the two actions differently now because it supports you. But, when challenged, you have no problem lumping homosexuality and pedophilia together for the same reason.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
which two actions am i treating differently that i haven't before?
the similarity between homosexuality and pedophilia lies in the fact that they are both perversions of normal function
Interplanner
Well-known member
Evangelical pastors warned us 200 years ago against having the state be the authority about marriage--before homosexuality was even dreamed to be an alternative way of life.
Jose Fly
New member
Have fun. I'm curious though...what exactly are you going to do?
In Obergefell v. Hodges, states had passed laws banning marrying someone of the same sex. Same sex couples sued, arguing that the bans were a violation of their Constitutional rights to liberty and equal protection under the law. The Supreme Court agreed and ruled that the bans are unconstitutional, thereby clearing the way for same sex couples to have legal marriages.
In Loving v. Virginia, states had passed laws banning marrying someone of a different race. Interracial couples sued, arguing that the bans were a violation of their Constitutional rights to liberty and equal protection under the law. The Supreme Court agreed and ruled that the bans are unconstitutional, thereby clearing the way for interracial couples to have legal marriages.
Regarding Obergefell v. Hodges, you stated it was a "half baked law pushed upon the people by the personal bias' of a supreme court justice. The so-called rights are perceived if others do not recognize the authority of the SCOTUS to trample their rights to impose it."
Why aren't you making the same argument against Loving v. Virginia? As you can see, the legal and Constitutional issues are exactly the same.
Yes.
So I assume you have been making the same argument against Loving v. Virginia on the same grounds?
I don't recall interracial marriage being mentioned in the Constitution either.
You must be a special kind of stupid. In that case, the schools merely allowed Muslim students to pray. And guess what? Christian students can do the same. They do all the time.
Again, you must be a special kind of stupid....the kind that doesn't understand the difference between going into a bakery and asking for cake #4 from the catalog, and going in and asking for a unique cake with specific speech on it.
Your paranoia is noted.
If you believe marrying someone of the same sex is wrong, then don't do it. But no one else is beholden to your beliefs.
Jose Fly
New member
I am absolutely amazed at how little you know about our system of government. The only question is, are you just playing dumb to maintain your ignorant argument in this case, or are you truly this clueless.
Jose Fly
New member
Quetzal
New member
One is acceptable between consenting adults and the other isn't. Just because you can't get that through your own head doesn't mean we should draft laws to suit your bigoted state of mind.
Nope, you will need a Constitutional amendment. but try anyway.