Supreme Court Says Marriage is Hateful
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
WizardofOz
New member
Either you supported the DOMA or you didn't. It's really that simple. No, the DOMA said nothing about criminalizing homosexual behavior but I'm not sure why you think it would have :idunno:
That's another issue altogether; you're unnecessarily conflating the two.
Having not read it I can't say if I would have supported such a thing.
Did it state: "No homos can't get married; homosexuality is criminally insane"?
Charity
New member
An after that step down, Very soon, the law will suggest its socially injustice for a person to have more assets than another!
Where they pose to remove land titles an even the poverty scale
Are you suggesting that Christian theology should be to hate both the sin and the sinner? Or are you suggesting that there is a Bible verse for every single issue that comes up in life?
Psalm 5:4-6, 139:19-22
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
Ugh. the "Necessary and proper" clause. The liberal wet dream.
I'll admit, this abused clause is one reason that I prefer the Articles of Confederation. Nonetheless, it doesn't matter since the 10th amendment trumps it if it means anything near what you think it means. Since "Necessary and Proper" says that the Feds have powers (And ill defined ones at that) that do not specifically appear in the constitution, and the 10th amendment trumps this view.
Of course, you'd have to also say that if they ruled the punishment to be anything less than death, they are also not "ruling in your favor".
I'd nonetheless assume that you'd prefer a ruling that prohibits SSM, however much more you might want them to do, to one that allows it.
You have to explain why, but besides, I never said that. I said that marriage was not something that required a Federal mandate. I don't think it even needs a mandate from any government, but that goes further than we can go with the constitution alone.
The states aren't provinces either, and the terms are not interchangeable. I suspect you're an "indivisible" kind of guy based on your comment, which I find odd considering you are also a theonomist.
http://www.forerunner.com/theonomy/theofaq.html
See #2 under "Common questions."
I will note, although you probably already know this, that I am not a theonomist, although I do believe there are some principles in Old Testament Jewish Law that make far, far more sense than modern principles which humanistic man has come up with in their place. Nonetheless, it seems like theonomists, according to this link anyway, support local government primarily by families and churches. So while we may disagree on what laws should be enforced by local government, and in what manner, it seems that you should agree with me that the Federal government needs to be drastically put back into place.
No, it doesn't. And that would go beyond anythin the constitution allows the Federal government to do.
Oh, thanks. Guess my understanding of Christ's message was totally flawed---we are to hate both the sin and the sinner. OK, got it---but no thanks you can keep your religion---you could use your analysis to justify jihad
The punishment for what? Make sure you're not assuming.
That is a puzzle box issue.
If something is wrong it is wrong, period. This means that if any law exists regarding it it must necessarily be a prohibition of the act. Just as no entity has the right to pass laws permitting acts of murder, no entity has the right to pass laws permitting any immoral act.
Though there are certain immoral acts against which there should be no laws; this does not mean there should be laws permitting these acts either.
What do you mean by "indivisible" in this context? And please explain why that is odd in light of my theonomy beliefs.
Must a theonomist necessarily be a reconstructionist?
See above.
I can't say that I disagree with you there.
Your inability to reason and think critically is your largest failing.
Hate does not preclude love; the two are not mutually exclusive. I can love those I hate. Can you say the same?
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
Thus the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" of the U.S. Constitution.
Letsargue
New member
Just what do you expect?? - I expect much, much more, before the ( “N – word” ) is completed. – If you knew who that man of sin is ( Today ), you would never think on such things, but God’s Things!!
Paul – 072213