- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 3/3/25 at 9:19 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
Based on what? Some slogan that appeared in a letter that people attribute to the constitution that was never in there? Remember, the federal government didn't give rise to the state government. It was the other way around. And every state charter/constitution at the time that they ratified the constitution acknowledged God as our supreme authority. And we're definitely talking about the God of the Bible; some of those states even named Jesus Christ in their official documents. So the idea that religious foundations for establishing norms and laws is against the spirit of this country is simply not factual nor is it based in anything but a growing desire to rebel against God. It's certainly not based in American history.
Well said.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 9:20 am to SOSFAN
quote:
I too believe in the gays should use the civil marriage
I like to find the shortest path to the correct answer. Nobody answered me when I asked why living wills, designation of medical power of attorney, etc., couldn't be used to solve all of the examples that were constantly used by the gay lobby 20 years ago (which I don't think is representative of most gays.) No religious institution is involved, and everyone can call it whatever it wants. Maybe just add the "domestic partner" form to benefits checklists, and then who cares?
Posted on 3/3/25 at 9:25 am to Stinger_1066
quote:
have been translated into multiple languages, and to where their believers can't even agree on what they actually say or mean.
I see you are also quite ignorant of the quality of manuscripts available for both the old and new testament.
The "It's been translated into multiple languages" nonsense implies that you think that the Bible came about like a game of "Telephone." The original manuscript was translated into, say, Latin, from Greek, and then someone took that translation and translated it into French, and then someone took the French translation and translated it to Spanish, and so on.
Surely you don't really believe that, though, do you?
We have (at last count) 5,800 manuscripts of the new Testament alone. The oldest one dates all the way back to the early 2nd century, if I remember correctly. The Ryland manuscript, part of the Gospel of John.
The Dead Sea Scrolls testified very strongly about the accuracy of the Old Testament and there is no ancient text in existence that even comes close to having an embarrassment of riches of confirmation as the New Testament (seems like someone's hand might have been on that, do you think?) in terms of the texts we have discovered.
No one re-translated the texts from some other language, they translated them directly from the oldest and most reliable Koine Greek texts they could find at the time. This one to French, that one to Spanish, this one to English, all from the same source texts.
And yes, there are some things from the Bible that we don't understand and have to formulate theories about. There are other things that are very clear.
You want to know what one of those very clear things happens to be?
Homosexual sex.
I'm not aware of any reputable Biblical scholar—secular/atheist or believer—who has concluded that there is simply a misunderstanding of translation when it comes to Jesus and Paul and the Old Testament's teachings about marriage and homosexuality.
They meant exactly what the modern translations say they meant.
This post was edited on 3/3/25 at 9:28 am
Posted on 3/3/25 at 9:26 am to Flats
quote:
Why not?
It's a simple fact that successful cultures incorporate moral norms into daily living. Sometimes just with peer pressure, sometimes they're codified. Legal restrictions on who can marry, WHICH WE STILL HAVE, are going to be based on those moral norms. Some states will probably et a 16 year old marry an 18 year old, some probably don't. If gay marriage was struck down tomorrow nothing really would have changed in how we run things, we'd just be drawing the line in a different place.
But we all want the line somewhere. There are some morals important enough to each of us that we want them enforced on others whether they agree with them or not. People who attempt to make this some black/white issue where "that other guy wants to legislate morality but I don't" are only fooling themselves.
I follow the Constitution, not some religious text.
The Constitution, to the best of my knowledge, does not put age limitations on much other than Representative, Senator, VP and President. And the voting age.
I don't recall anything in the Constitution about the age of consent.
I generally go by the rule that, if you are old enough to fight and die for your country, you are old enough to do pretty much whatever else you want to do.
Regarding marriage, maybe you missed my first post on this subject, but my belief is that the state should have no say so in whatever anyone wants to define "marriage" is, as long as all participants are consenting.
The state should be there only to enforce contracts between individuals (i.e. civil unions) and those civil unions and services they contract with, such as insurance agencies and healthcare providers.
The classic example is who is defined as "next of kin", for insurance and privacy purposes, in a homosexual relationship if the "marriage" is not sanctioned by the state.
What a church may or may not have sanctioned should not be a factor.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 9:27 am to LemmyLives
quote:COULD it be done that way? Sure.
Nobody answered me when I asked why living wills, designation of medical power of attorney, etc., couldn't be used to solve all of the examples that were constantly used by the gay lobby 20 years ago
But why should SOME citizens have to undertake all that effort and expense to obtain the same results that go automatically to other citizens?
Forcing them to do so, IMO, violates Equal Protection.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 9:31 am to Flats
quote:
What are they based on? Your own thoughts from 5 minutes ago?
Multiple thousands of years of history of what works and doesn't work.
The collective wisdom of mankind.
And as time marches on, it will evolve and adapt as needed.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 9:33 am to Houag80
quote:
Like yourself.
Exactly
Posted on 3/3/25 at 9:35 am to LemmyLives
quote:
I like to find the shortest path to the correct answer. Nobody answered me when I asked why living wills, designation of medical power of attorney, etc., couldn't be used to solve all of the examples that were constantly used by the gay lobby 20 years ago (which I don't think is representative of most gays.) No religious institution is involved, and everyone can call it whatever it wants. Maybe just add the "domestic partner" form to benefits checklists, and then who cares?
I must have missed it. Yes, that is the correct answer.
It is the people who want to put a religious connotation on it, on both sides of the argument, who keep stringing this thing out.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 9:35 am to Stinger_1066
quote:
The Constitution, to the best of my knowledge, does not put age limitations on much other than Representative, Senator, VP and President. And the voting age.
I don't recall anything in the Constitution about the age of consent.
You a NAMBLA member? Children can consent to sex just because the Constitution doesn't say anything about it?
There's a whole lot of details like that that the Constitution doesn't specifically cover, you know.
All of those details are simply personal choice?
Or did the Constitution give Congress the power to make decisions about those things? And does the Constitution specifically prohibit members of Congress from deciding to codify (or not) based on their religious faith, other than establishing a state religion?
I don't think it does.
So do you REALLY follow the Constitution, or only when you think it suits your 'druthers?
quote:
I follow the Constitution, not some religious text.
We'll see about that, depending upon your answer to the above.
As for not following "some religious text," no, you just pull your "morals" out of your behind, with no way to substantiate them or justify them but personal opinions.
I'm sure everyone can see the inherent superiority of that method.
This post was edited on 3/3/25 at 9:38 am
Posted on 3/3/25 at 9:38 am to Stinger_1066
quote:
Multiple thousands of years of history of what works and doesn't work.
That points squarely at Judeo-Christian values, which you claim you want no part of.
Your problem is you have no concrete objective source for your beliefs, they're just whatever the neurons in your brain decide they are. Absolute worst case, if God is man's creation then the beliefs of you and your average Christian are of equal validity.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 9:38 am to SOSFAN
quote:
Marriage is government controlled so all citizens should have the right to Marriage. If you disagree then explain who issues Marriage licenses...
You need a license to exercise a right?
What a strange concept.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 9:39 am to Lake08
Its a distraction. Dont get caught up in it.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 9:39 am to AggieHank86
quote:
But why should SOME citizens have to undertake all that effort and expense to obtain the same results that go automatically to other citizens?
Forcing them to do so, IMO, violates Equal Protection.
No more than we violate the "Equal Protection" of polygamists or the gypsy who wants to marry his 13 year old niece.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 9:41 am to wackatimesthree
quote:Oh, FFS.
I don't recall anything in the Constitution about the age of consent.quote:
You a NAMBLA member? Children can consent to sex just because the Constitution doesn't say anything about it?
Just because the US Constitution does not address an issue does not mean that States cannot do so. An entire Amendment was ratified to clarify this point.
Congress needs to stay out of it, because the Constitution does not give Congress the authority to involve itself. Any State CAN (and should) set its own standards. Within Constitutional limits, of course.
This post was edited on 3/3/25 at 9:45 am
Posted on 3/3/25 at 9:44 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Any State CAN (and should) set its own standards.
Until 5 people decide that they can't.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 9:47 am to Stinger_1066
quote:
Multiple thousands of years of history of what works and doesn't work.
"Works" or "doesn't work" according to whom?
Here's a real life example.
I could make a very strong case—if we're going to abandon any criteria other than "what works"—that the best, most efficient, most successful type of government is a benevolent dictatorship. That's the one that "works" the best. That provides for the greatest good for the most people. I don't think you'd be able to successfully argue against that argument.
A democracy would be way down on the list of governments in terms of how well it works. In fact, that's exactly why democracies historically only last 2-3 hundred years and then they fall apart.
Now, that seems like an anathema to most because we value the inherent worth of each individual. And we do so because our Founding Fathers recognized the inherent worth of each individual based on our origin from a Creator. (Not that they followed their own realization of that truth as applied to all people...we had to arrive at that over time. But we wouldn't have had to arrive at it over hundreds of years had we had a benevolent dictatorship...one person realizing that truth would have led to an instantaneous freeing of the slaves, etc.).
You, however, have no basis for the conclusion that they came to on that point.
At best, "what works" is a subjective opinion subject to as many differing opinions as theology is.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 9:47 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Just because the US Constitution does not address an issue does not mean that States cannot do so. An entire Amendment was ratified to clarify this point.
That's my point to him, Hank.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 9:49 am to AggieHank86
quote:
the Constitution does not give Congress the authority to involve itself.
The Constitution doesn't give Congress the authority to make laws?
Not that it changes the point I was making...you could just as easily substitute the word "State Legislators" for "Congress" in my post and the point would remain, but just for curiosity's sake.
This post was edited on 3/3/25 at 9:51 am
Posted on 3/3/25 at 9:50 am to ole man
quote:
I label them as fricked up! It is not part of gods plan
Marriage is a good social tool and these people arent stopping having sex just because they cant get married.
Marriage is stabilizing for society. We need more of it, not less. Youre not stopping gays from having sex. I dont understand why people would rather they not marry.
Page 5 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News