Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Congress passes the Sodom and Gomorrah act

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Only premised on your own rather narrow and bigoted opinions.



    I fail to see the distinction between a ranting pastor's view on mixed marriage and your own on SSM.

    In both instances the individuals are considered [by those condemning them] to be engaged in a sin that has been decreed to be so by God
    There is a rather selective enforcement of that paradigm as well. I have seen instances where men are given a pass for adultery because they 'repented' and the wife chastised because she pursued divorce, even though Christ himself recognized that as legitimate cause for divorce. Not to mention that adultery and divorce for reasons other than adultery are routinely sanctioned, or at least rationalized, despite scripture teaching quite differently. Indeed, adultery is right there in the same lists of sins as homosexuality, as is fornication, which is routinely ignored give its prevalence in both secular AND Christian circles.

    Grace is given to heterosexuals even if they persist. ponography use by Christian men is very high. Even ministers are caught in its web.

    I struggle with the theology of it. But I do not see recognizing civil unions as a bad thing. One of the reasons homosexuality is such a destructive and promiscuous lifestyle is that there effectively is no other way to have a real community if that is what you are. Providing a cultural and societal framework where long term, monogamous relationships are framed as desirable, and where there is acceptance in the broader society can go a long way to providing a framework where the historical promiscuity of the gay lifestyle can be rejected without either celibacy or some sort of feigned heterosexual union being the only options.
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 12-09-2022, 09:26 AM.
    My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

    If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

    This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

      It is dishonest to pretend that a danger doesn't exist that the current conservative court will not reverse that ruling. And there are options if there was ever an indication the court might try to invalidate the new law. The justices can be impeached. And the configuration of the court can be changed. But those are such draconian measures I don't know if there could ever be sufficient consensus to make such adjustments.

      However, the more this trend continues, the more the legitimacy of the court as an impartial legal arm is undermined. They need to stick to legal and constitutional reasoning, without goals or entanglements with political parties or issues.

      Arguments they've been on this road a while as counters are foolish. They need to be impartial. Ratcheting up the partiality administration to administration in a bid for petty revenge is putting party above country. We've had enough of that for one century.
      The federal government has no business sticking its nose into this. It should be left up to each state if they wish to recognize immoral homosexual civil unions or not. This is clearly a case of federal overreach, and the Supreme Court would be right to intervene.
      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
      Than a fool in the eyes of God


      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
        Have you read any works on human sexuality?

        Repressive societies repress.


        I never mentioned your sexual practises I asked if you knew anything about female sexuality. If her partner has no awareness of what gives her pleasure and gives her no opportunity to reach her own orgasm a woman will become sexually frustrated or even start to resent sex because she gets no pleasure from it.

        Perhaps you should contact Happy Valley Church and see what verses they are using.
        Please, not in my thread. I do not want you derailing this conversation with your sexual obsessions. Please stick with addressing the law that was passed by Congress.
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

          The federal government has no business sticking its nose into this. It should be left up to each state if they wish to recognize immoral homosexual civil unions or not. This is clearly a case of federal overreach, and the Supreme Court would be right to intervene.
          Whose jurisdiction it is to make such laws is outside my wheelhouse. I have no opinion on that aspect of it - except that having marriages only recognized state by state would be chaos and problematic wrt commerce as companies would not be able to easily move married gay persons into states that did not recognize their marriage
          Last edited by oxmixmudd; 12-09-2022, 10:02 AM.
          My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

          If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

          This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

            The Bible does not condemn mixed race marriages, but it does unambiguously condemn homosexuality.
            That was only put in there to shame anybody who opposed the same-sex issue --- "ah, so you're a BIGOT and are attacking interracial marriage!!!!".

            They are clearly not the same issue.
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

              The federal government has no business sticking its nose into this. It should be left up to each state if they wish to recognize immoral homosexual civil unions or not. This is clearly a case of federal overreach, and the Supreme Court would be right to intervene.
              Making sure that legal proceedings are maintained state to state is precisely the federal government's business. It's no different than a state forcing counties (or parishes) or counties forcing cities.
              P1) If , then I win.

              P2)

              C) I win.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                Making sure that legal proceedings are maintained state to state is precisely the federal government's business. It's no different than a state forcing counties (or parishes) or counties forcing cities.
                What civil unions a state chooses to recognize is no business of the federal government. A state forcing a county or city to follow state law is a different matter since counties and cities are not independent of the state in the same way that states are independent of the federal government.
                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
                  Making sure that legal proceedings are maintained state to state is precisely the federal government's business. It's no different than a state forcing counties (or parishes) or counties forcing cities.
                  Interesting you should bring that up, because one of the ways that local jurisdictions ignore state mandates is to, for example, write traffic citations under municipal codified ordinances rather than state. Or, if they're protesting their own jurisdiction's polices, to issue citations based on state law, rather than local.
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by seer View Post

                    Does Alfred Kinsey count? How about Marquis de Sade? I loved his stuff when I was younger...
                    de Sade was not someone dealing in a professional capacity with human sexuality.


                    Originally posted by seer View Post

                    Right, we should not repress the purely natural desire to rape...
                    The OTT response is noted. Or perhaps you think that in that glorious golden past to which you look back there was no rape because everyone was so much better behaved and respected women - who of course had to know their place.

                    Originally posted by seer View Post

                    Well a moral and obedient wife would not even bring up such unseemly things...
                    So this moral and obedient wife should not want some pleasure in bed but just lie back and accept the few brief thrusts of her husband before he rolls off and starts snoring?

                    Originally posted by seer View Post


                    If you have no idea if there is any biblical justification why would you make the comparison? Since you know I am working from a Biblical worldview.
                    Perhaps you should contact your brethren at Happy Valley and ask them to justify their position.

                    "It ain't necessarily so
                    The things that you're liable
                    To read in the Bible
                    It ain't necessarily so
                    ."

                    Sportin' Life
                    Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                      Please, not in my thread. I do not want you derailing this conversation with your sexual obsessions. Please stick with addressing the law that was passed by Congress.
                      Apologies. I made my last post before I picked up this reply.
                      "It ain't necessarily so
                      The things that you're liable
                      To read in the Bible
                      It ain't necessarily so
                      ."

                      Sportin' Life
                      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                        There is a rather selective enforcement of that paradigm as well. I have seen instances where men are given a pass for adultery because they 'repented' and the wife chastised because she pursued divorce, even though Christ himself recognized that as legitimate cause for divorce. Not to mention that adultery and divorce for reasons other than adultery are routinely sanctioned, or at least rationalized, despite scripture teaching quite differently. Indeed, adultery is right there in the same lists of sins as homosexuality, as is fornication, which is routinely ignored give its prevalence in both secular AND Christian circles.

                        Grace is given to heterosexuals even if they persist. ponography use by Christian men is very high. Even ministers are caught in its web.

                        I struggle with the theology of it. But I do not see recognizing civil unions as a bad thing. One of the reasons homosexuality is such a destructive and promiscuous lifestyle is that there effectively is no other way to have a real community if that is what you are. Providing a cultural and societal framework where long term, monogamous relationships are framed as desirable, and where there is acceptance in the broader society can go a long way to providing a framework where the historical promiscuity of the gay lifestyle can be rejected without either celibacy or some sort of feigned heterosexual union being the only options.
                        An interesting reply but we must abide by Mountain Man's request.
                        "It ain't necessarily so
                        The things that you're liable
                        To read in the Bible
                        It ain't necessarily so
                        ."

                        Sportin' Life
                        Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                          There is a rather selective enforcement of that paradigm as well. I have seen instances where men are given a pass for adultery because they 'repented' and the wife chastised because she pursued divorce, even though Christ himself recognized that as legitimate cause for divorce. Not to mention that adultery and divorce for reasons other than adultery are routinely sanctioned, or at least rationalized, despite scripture teaching quite differently. Indeed, adultery is right there in the same lists of sins as homosexuality, as is fornication, which is routinely ignored give its prevalence in both secular AND Christian circles.

                          Grace is given to heterosexuals even if they persist. ponography use by Christian men is very high. Even ministers are caught in its web.

                          I struggle with the theology of it. But I do not see recognizing civil unions as a bad thing. One of the reasons homosexuality is such a destructive and promiscuous lifestyle is that there effectively is no other way to have a real community if that is what you are. Providing a cultural and societal framework where long term, monogamous relationships are framed as desirable, and where there is acceptance in the broader society can go a long way to providing a framework where the historical promiscuity of the gay lifestyle can be rejected without either celibacy or some sort of feigned heterosexual union being the only options.
                          Homosexuality is destructive for the same reason adultery and pornography are destructive: it's a sin. If you as a Christian are struggling with the theology of this then I strongly encourage you to do some soul searching and figure out why, but I can assure you of at least this much: the Bible is not wrong to unambiguously condemn homosexuality. There is no spiritually and physically healthy way to practice homosexuality no matter how many laws are passed to validate it, and it will inevitably destroy both body and soul.

                          As for your claim that grace is extended to those who persist in sin, you need to read your Bible:

                          Scripture Verse: Acts 17

                          The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.

                          © Copyright Original Source

                          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                          Than a fool in the eyes of God


                          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                            de Sade was not someone dealing in a professional capacity with human sexuality.
                            But his argument for libertine sexual activity, including torture, rape, homosexuality and bondage were well reasoned - from an Atheist worldview. As a matter of fact, I don't see how an Atheist could argue against it... And Alfred Kinsey was someone dealing in a professional capacity with human sexuality.


                            The OTT response is noted. Or perhaps you think that in that glorious golden past to which you look back there was no rape because everyone was so much better behaved and respected women - who of course had to know their place.

                            Wait, I thought you did not like sexual repression? That was your point. So I guess it is OK to repress some sexual desires...


                            So this moral and obedient wife should not want some pleasure in bed but just lie back and accept the few brief thrusts of her husband before he rolls off and starts snoring?
                            Well of course, that is her wifely duty... Along with keeping house.


                            Perhaps you should contact your brethren at Happy Valley and ask them to justify their position.
                            So you had no biblical justification before spouting your ignorance. Got it...
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                              In the text of the SCOTUS ruling that said abortion was no longer a constitutionally-guaranteed right, was a statement of intent do the same for same sex marriage.
                              No, that was not found in "the text of the SCOTUS ruling that said abortion was no longer a constitutionally-guaranteed right". That was in a concurring opinion written by one justice that was joined by no other.

                              Still, I can see how it could cause some alarm. Makes one wonder if this law would be passed had that concurring opinion not existed. Still, to claim it was in the SCOTUS ruling itself (indicating it is actually in the majority opinion) is not exactly accurate.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                                No, that was not found in "the text of the SCOTUS ruling that said abortion was no longer a constitutionally-guaranteed right". That was in a concurring opinion written by one justice that was joined by no other.

                                Still, I can see how it could cause some alarm. Makes one wonder if this law would be passed had that concurring opinion not existed. Still, to claim it was in the SCOTUS ruling itself (indicating it is actually in the majority opinion) is not exactly accurate.
                                Another great conspiracy torpedoed by fact.
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                81 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                276 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Stoic
                                by Stoic
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                109 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                195 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                353 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X