The passage doesn’t seem misunderstood but when you need to change the rules so you can say fudge packer and not want to associate yourself with those neighbors then it’s going to take some changing huh? Pretty typical believer move. Ah that doesn’t mean what it says it actually means this
Long odds indeed. Makes way more sense to assume someone made someone else from a rib. That a giant flood came and a dude built a boat for all animals. That frogs, boils, appeared out of nowhere. That people lived to be 900. That a wizard man floated on water, died and came back three days later.
That a higher power is all knowing all loving all powerful but if you don’t conform to his terrorists demands he will torture you forever. Ok maybe not all loving right?
All this makes WAY more sense than anything science has said
There is literally no scientific data to support any religion. Silly documentaries aren’t evidence. You can bury your head in the sand, or see god in everything like every other science denier out there. It makes zero difference what you believe. It doesn’t make it true. As for the attempt at arguing that a first cause (which you immediately presuppose is your Christian God) is necessary, that breaks down immediately up asking what caused your first cause. Put another way, if everything must have a cause then you can easily find yourself in an infinite chain of causes. The rational answer to this is an admission of ignorance not a stubborn insistence that this means your Christian God is real. You are playing at intro level philosophy here and, by all means, believe what you will. Just don’t expect the intellectually serious to take it seriously.
1 Like
Well your just gonna be on the wrong side of history… Just like dudes that wanted blacks not intagrate
Why your concerned with what strangers do with their genitals is beyond me… Just worry about your own junk… Pretty sure nobodys gonna come to your house and force you to gay marry them
To quote the amazing punk band Dillinger 4 “You wanna live life your way and not let others do the same.”
“I’m glad you found your answers in your parents fairy tales.”
1 Like
Excellent quote.
I’m by no means arguing that people shouldn’t have their beliefs or curiosities that delve into metaphysics, but it’s an area that is, by its very nature, beyond our knowledge. It’s best to approach something like that with a large dose of skepticism and humility. There’s a whole hell of a lot we don’t know, but that doesn’t prove the existence of God. It just means we don’t know.
Why the hell anyone cares what other adults do behind closed doors is beyond me. Unless it’s porn. Then I wanna watch. Well, things I like I wanna watch. Some of isn’t my game. It takes all kinds and whatnot.
Control over others lives is a dangerous drug.
K since I’m actually at a PC for a change, let’s just handle all this with one reply:
As with any text, words must be critiqued based on the context, i.e., who said to whom, when and why. No need to go into a dissertation on it, the material is widely available if one actually wishes to look, and I’m guessing you don’t.
Ya know, I appreciate science a lot, but it is not my religion. All it actually does is help me understand stuff.
“Silly documentaries” that contain input from folks who are highly qualified mean nothing right? So if Stephen Hawking up and gave a public speech saying that he believes in God you’d totally discount it then… Ok, we won’t listen to people who have things figured out better than us.
I understand the “infinite loop” issue you mention. However, for a string to be made a loop, someone has to fashion the loop.
“intellectually serious?” Ok, those are people who automatically discount what others say then I guess.
I realize we don’t know each other or have time to delve into the topic appropriately, and that you’re not gonna just up and agree with me because “I say so.” That’s all well and good. Have at it.
I’m not concerned with what strangers do with their genitals until I have to hear about it, at which point they’ve opened themselves up for comment.
And as I’ve stated previously, I do worry about my own junk to the nth degree usually. My missus can certainly attest to that 
“force me to ‘gay marry’” them - Oh ha, yeh, Unless I was in prison, I’d not be worried about an attack from a gay man, or a hard up straight man, or any man for that matter. You seem to think I am “phobic” of gay men - not the case, there is no fear, only observations that spur my opinions being stated.
Glad you don’t argue against others having their beliefs, cause if you did, that would pretty much nullify everything you say IMO.
“Metaphysics” - take Aristotle for example here. Try reading the huge ass “Summa Theologae” by St Thomas Aquinas that totally undoes Aristotle.
But wait, you may need to slow down on the port and actually read a book - you’ve seen those right?
As for what others do behind closed doors, that’s not the issue of this thread. It’s what they do outside of the bedroom, i.e. gay marriage. That takes at least one more than a couple to officiate last I checked.
That reminds me, the vows I said included, “What God has put together, let no man put asunder.” Therein lies part of my complaint because the God I know doesn’t put two opposite sex people together in the bond of Holy Matrimony, and any “clergyperson” who officiates is pretty much drinking damnation. Shame on all involved.
Now if our legal system wants to put non-church personnel in charge of doing those “unions” then my problem with it settles a bit because it’s no longer marriage, but a contract. I can see where two dudes who lived together forever and had no other family wanted to share financial stuff that they’d want a legal path to do that. But marriage isn’t the proper term.
We as Americans have laws. Those laws are made by the people. So we ALL have input on the laws that are made to govern us, hence my opposing views being stated. Besides, according to your logic, I’d think the Rainbow theme song would be “Highway to Hell.”
K that’s enough for my morning thinking about the stupid issue that shouldn’t exist. I have to wonder if these people took a 5gallon bucket and wore rubber boots on their first date, and had to learn how to say “I love you” instead of “I love ewe” when they encountered a willing human. If a dude will poke another dude in the rump, I have to think they’d poke about anything wherever they could is the point there in case you missed it.
K I’m outta here ladies 
Let’s start with the basics. You have repeatedly confused the status of a person with scientific evidence. If Stephen Hawking suddenly started claiming he had proof of the existence of a god, sure I’d listen. Then, most likely he would fail, and he’d join a long list of people who lost it as they got older. He clearly wouldn’t be the first respected scientist to be wrong or to have unscientific beliefs. Science isn’t a contest of credentials but a methodical examination of evidence. I’ve seen zero evidence produced even to support the mere existence of A god, let alone your homophobic, sinner smiting, son sacrificing, blood drinking, flesh consuming version.
As for whether I’ve read books, sure I might have read one or two.
As for US law, I have some familiarity. Have you read Kennedy’s opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges? Did you consider the dissent by Scalia? The funny thing is that even a short document like the US Constitution is open to reasonable interpretation. These were written by incredibly intelligent jurists and they strongly disagree with each other. Textual interpretation isn’t easy.
Have you actually read the Bible cover to cover? It’s a poorly written, highly contradictory document. Even the apostles don’t agree. And what of hell and Satan? Am I to believe that the serpent of Genesis is the beast of Revelation? Why? Please show me where hell is mentioned in the Tanakh. I guess only Christians can go there? What of Purgatory? Transubstantiation? Do you have proof of these? Where are they mentioned? I spent years growing up struggling with it and years following college continuing to struggle with it. My atheist-leaning agnosticism didn’t come easily.
As for the ladies comment. Whatever, Internet holy roller bro with a keyboard and lots of homo angst. Spend more time reading and studying and less ranting against homosexuals. No one really cares what you (or I) think. Love your life and hope to hell no one ever shows up and starts micromanaging your personal life like you seem to desire to do to others, and (fortunately) have zero ability to do. Something about do unto others as you would have done unto you and whatnot.
Just makes you wonder. The guy who is vehemently against gay people which evidence suggests may be something some homosexuals do practices the same faith with the massive problem of anti-gay people who are very pro gay with young men.
Wow, a little detesting of Christians there eh?
We are not condemned by God but by ourselves by the way.
- Homophobic God? No, no fear there. It’s against His design, and homosexuals simply choose to not play by the rules.
*Son sacrificing - The ultimate humility to come to us as a child, walk in our shoes, and clearly demonstrate how the spirit is stronger (and more than) the flesh
Blood drinking/flesh eating - The Romans tried that argument against the Eucharist, calling us cannibals. Not so, it is the Real Presence of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine. St Paul lines that out clearly in 1 Corinthians I think it is.
No but it just got put on my reading list, thanks.
Yes, multiple times. Actually it’s usually about once per year.
If you don’t trace it back to the original language, perhaps it is confusing. That’s where writing styles come into play.
Satan was the leader of the angels that decided he didn’t want to play by the rules, and chose his own fate. Hell, being forever separated from God (eternally blissful state being Heaven).
The serpent of Genesis and the beast of Revelation, yes the same. Satan being the leader of the fallen angels, them all being forever separated by a chasm from God, which is the same eternal fate we may choose.
That’d take some research to confirm or deny. But by my definition, the Jews’ eternal separation from God is the same thing.
Purgatory is shown in Maccabees where a general comes upon some slain men and tells his officers to pray for their souls…you want the exact reference?
*Transubstantiation: “This IS my body. This IS my blood.”
do a search on catholic dot com for the terms and you’ll find plenty.
Do you know where “holy roller” came from? I’ll tell ya: The people in the mountains who got all “Spirit filled”, acting goofy and fell down the side of the mountain where the church was. I assure you there’s no such thing as a Catholic Holy Roller. That phrase has come to be used by people to insult Christians who oppose their views, kind of like slurs against homosexuals. You wouldn’t be slurring me now would ya?
-
Micromanaging others lives - nope, not interested. Interested in them realizing they need to do it themselves.
-
Looks like with the rainbow crowd there was a typo in the memo, theirs read more like “Do unto others BEFORE they do unto you.”
Shalom,
I read it. As you’d expect, I disagree, and in the first section he’s clear about people seeking marriage for financial benefit, and I personally believe those to be perks rather than a proper motivating factor. But whatever. I can understand his opinion and ya all’s all day long but will never share it.
Ya all take care 
Did you read Scalia’s dissent?
I find both arguments compelling for different reasons, and they both have strengths and weaknesses. Perhaps you should read and consider them again before making such snap judgments and focusing on such an insignificant part of the majority opinion. There were three different sets of petitioners in the case. One simply wanted to be recognized as the surviving spouse on the death certificate, another wished to adopt a second disabled child, and the third simply wished that their marriage be recognized in the state in which they moved.
One of the things our constitutional scholars have been dealing with since the very beginning is the how to address the incredibly aspirational language of our Constitution and Bill of Rights with the reality of our societal norms, laws and governmental behavior. For example, the country was able to tolerate the cognitive dissonance necessary to use the words of the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” and yet maintain the institution of slavery. It took the Civil War and the 13th Amendment to fix that. The 14th Amendment was also added as a result of slavery, and it makes it clear that the government (no “State”) may deprive any “person” (interesting use of language where “male” is used a few sentences below in regard to voting rights) of the equal protections of the laws. Are homosexuals not entitled to such protection? That’s not really a question for you to answer. SCOTUS ruled that they do and while you can argue about it until you are blue in the face it is the reality.
1 Like
It’s the “current ‘reality’” yes, and if SCOTUS so decided in the future, just like the other things, it can be changed. That’s y the legislation mentioned earlier in this thread - keeps being introduced. There are citizens with dissenting opinions, and citizens are the thread of the society that the “system” is in place to serve.
I’m obviously not an attorney though, and beyond voicing my thoughts to my Reps and fellow citizens, am not likely going to have any effect on laws.
Not all that interested in reading the other opinions. It’s currently the law of the land, so it is what it is for now. I don’t have to like it or be quiet about it, but am not interested in burning more brainpower in the issue by reading SCOTUS documents now.
This is very correct. You’re a member of a dying breed.
Main reason you’re part of a dying breed. Anti gay people will be missed about as much as racial segregation people.
Two words: stare decisis
It’s not something that conservative jurists usually take lightly, so it is incredibly unlikely that this opinion will eventually be overturned by future courts.
If you want to understand and discuss law then actually reading it is a necesary first step. I happen to be an attorney, but you would be amazed at how few law students actually read and outline their cases. Of course that just makes it easier for those of us who did and continue to do so many years after graduation. I found the same in undergrad when it came to reading Wittgenstein and others. It’s just too hard for some. Funny how that never sees to stop anyone from voicing strong opinions about the material.
The argument against using the 14th amendment as a justification for homosexual marriage rarely hinges on whether or not the 14th amendment guarantees homesexuals equal rights, since it almost certainly does. The real question is whether or not heterosexual and homosexual marriage are two things that can be legally distinguished. If they can, then it’s perfectly reasonable to outlaw one while allowing the other. The law is not discriminatory because it applies to all. Homosexuals and heterosexuals would both be allowed to marry members of the opposite sex, but not the same sex.
A law doesn’t automatically single out certain people just because other people had no desire to break it in the first place. If heroine were legal, I still wouldn’t use it. That doesn’t mean heroine laws are discriminating against attics. The law applies to everyone but only gets enforced against those that break it.
If one views heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage as so fundamentally distinct as to protect one and not protect the other then that needs to be squared against the decisions in Loving (interracial marriage), Griswold (the right of married couples to use contraception - which seems to fly in the face of the marriage is for procreation argument), Pierce (safeguarding children (but see Zablock in which the court invalidated a law that barred fathers who were delinquent in child support from marrying)), and Maynard (marriage as a keystone to social order). In other words, it’s difficult to view them as constitutionally different.
Interestingly enough, it is in regard to that last decision (Maynard) that I heard the most concern from gay acquaintances and friends. The decision, for some, marks the end of a sort of counter-cultural lifestyle that will be lost in wedding registries and general conformity. I think the NYTimes also published a piece on this. I thought that was an interesting response, and one I’m still pondering.
Of course I also think Scalia’s concern that SCOTUS was acting as a super-legislature is not without merit, but it depends on one’s world view. To some extent, by weighing constitutional rights against laws that’s exactly what the court is doing, and by giving itself that role in Marbury v. Madison it set the precedent to do so. I still have a hell of a lot of respect for Scalia, and I think his brilliant ability to cut through BS is going to be sorely missed.
Save yourself the time is wise. It isn’t changing. We just had a Presidential election where it wasn’t even an issue and public opinion polls show it isn’t really close now and that is rapidly growing. 15 years from now or less they won’t even poll the question
Do you know how the terms heterosexual and homosexual came about? Both were initially used to describe a morbid attraction in the behaviors, not in a “kill” sense but otherwise. Both were initially considered to be about sex minus procreational ordered intercourse by psychiatrists and therefore deemed disordered, with what now is considered opposite sex marriage with a core base of procreation being normal = not disordered.
I happen to agree with the original terms in this case.
Whether procreation is possible or not between an opposite sex couple, the marital act is still ordered towards it and therefore the norm of sexual behavior with all others like butt sex with someone of the opposite sex, in addition to any other act being disordered.
Thought that was of interest when I saw it in an article unrelated to this marriage thread…
You can’t be serious with this question followed by the nonsense you typed after.
The prefix heter = different. prefix homo = same. You can find those prefixes used in science to define things quite frequently.
And then you get into the whole procreation argument again. It’s almost like that’s been discussed already…