|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jan 16, 2015 22:57:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 17, 2015 11:12:08 GMT -5
Neither am I. The politics around this issue will prevent them giving it to the states to decide.
|
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jan 17, 2015 14:11:46 GMT -5
Wait a second, redleg... I thought you didn't like it when governments could make decisions for people. Certainly you don't on the thread about the girl who wants to refuse chemotherapy. I guess you want governments to tell people how to live when you agree with what the government is saying, then?  |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 17, 2015 15:28:32 GMT -5
Wait a second, redleg... I thought you didn't like it when governments could make decisions for people. Certainly you don't on the thread about the girl who wants to refuse chemotherapy. I guess you want governments to tell people how to live when you agree with what the government is saying, then? Apples and oranges. Marriage is a state decision, not a Federal one, and not one to be decided by courts, as it has been in nearly every state that now 'allows' gay "marriage". As long as marriage is a 'state recognized' situation, then the states will decide. I still find it abhorrent that any state can simply kidnap someone to perform medical experiments on them, against their, and their parent's will. |
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jan 17, 2015 16:36:54 GMT -5
You use this phrase frequently. I think it's code for "hypocrisy is okay". Marriage is a state decision, not a Federal one, and not one to be decided by courts, as it has been in nearly every state that now 'allows' gay "marriage". As long as marriage is a 'state recognized' situation, then the states will decide. I don't care one way or the other - but states cannot decide to take away something the Federal government has decided is a civil right. Whether gay marriage is a civil right is, I guess, what the USSC will mull. I still find it abhorrent that any state can simply kidnap someone to perform medical experiments on them, against their, and their parent's will. Now, come on. We both know that's a sensationalistic view of what's going on in Connecticut. I believe what they're doing is wrong if the girl has no mental issues, but they are not conducting experiments on her. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 18, 2015 7:46:04 GMT -5
You use this phrase frequently. I think it's code for "hypocrisy is okay". Marriage is a state decision, not a Federal one, and not one to be decided by courts, as it has been in nearly every state that now 'allows' gay "marriage". As long as marriage is a 'state recognized' situation, then the states will decide. I don't care one way or the other - but states cannot decide to take away something the Federal government has decided is a civil right. Whether gay marriage is a civil right is, I guess, what the USSC will mull. I still find it abhorrent that any state can simply kidnap someone to perform medical experiments on them, against their, and their parent's will. Now, come on. We both know that's a sensationalistic view of what's going on in Connecticut. I believe what they're doing is wrong if the girl has no mental issues, but they are not conducting experiments on her. Actually, they are. Chemo is still an experimental treatment, since it works sometimes, and sometimes it kills the patient. It is the most effective treatment at this point, for some cancers, but it's still experimental, or they wouldn't be continually playing with different chemicals. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 18, 2015 7:46:43 GMT -5
You use this phrase frequently. I think it's code for "hypocrisy is okay". Marriage is a state decision, not a Federal one, and not one to be decided by courts, as it has been in nearly every state that now 'allows' gay "marriage". As long as marriage is a 'state recognized' situation, then the states will decide. I don't care one way or the other - but states cannot decide to take away something the Federal government has decided is a civil right. Whether gay marriage is a civil right is, I guess, what the USSC will mull. I still find it abhorrent that any state can simply kidnap someone to perform medical experiments on them, against their, and their parent's will. Now, come on. We both know that's a sensationalistic view of what's going on in Connecticut. I believe what they're doing is wrong if the girl has no mental issues, but they are not conducting experiments on her. The Feds can't decide something is a 'civil right'. |
|
|
|
Post by rentedmule on Jan 18, 2015 8:15:04 GMT -5
You use this phrase frequently. I think it's code for "hypocrisy is okay". I don't care one way or the other - but states cannot decide to take away something the Federal government has decided is a civil right. Whether gay marriage is a civil right is, I guess, what the USSC will mull. Now, come on. We both know that's a sensationalistic view of what's going on in Connecticut. I believe what they're doing is wrong if the girl has no mental issues, but they are not conducting experiments on her. The Feds can't decide something is a 'civil right'. As a non jurist I must agree. We started this Republic on the principle of Rights existing beyond the purvue of any sovereign. But...... the overwhelming sentiment of Americans is that anything either desirable or consumable can and should be declared a "right" by government decree. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 18, 2015 9:35:03 GMT -5
The Feds can't decide something is a 'civil right'. As a non jurist I must agree. We started this Republic on the principle of Rights existing beyond the purvue of any sovereign. But...... the overwhelming sentiment of Americans is that anything either desirable or consumable can and should be declared a "right" by government decree. But, it's not a right, it's a privilege. The government giveth, the government can taketh away. |
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jan 18, 2015 11:41:06 GMT -5
The Feds can't decide something is a 'civil right'. I'll bet you won't answer, but if not the Feds, who does? |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 18, 2015 20:33:38 GMT -5
The Feds can't decide something is a 'civil right'. I'll bet you won't answer, but if not the Feds, who does? Only God. Read the Preamble, and the Declaration of Independence. The government can grant privileges, and can take them away just as fast. But, what God creates, Man can't repeal. |
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jan 18, 2015 22:33:09 GMT -5
I'll bet you won't answer, but if not the Feds, who does? Only God. Read the Preamble, and the Declaration of Independence. The government can grant privileges, and can take them away just as fast. But, what God creates, Man can't repeal. So, no one - since a good (and growing) portion of the population have put down the things of cultural youth, among them belief in the supernatural. |
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jan 18, 2015 23:17:54 GMT -5
I'll bet you won't answer, but if not the Feds, who does? Only God. Read the Preamble, and the Declaration of Independence. The government can grant privileges, and can take them away just as fast. But, what God creates, Man can't repeal. Man repeals life every day... |
|
|
|
Post by rentedmule on Jan 19, 2015 7:51:43 GMT -5
Only God. Read the Preamble, and the Declaration of Independence. The government can grant privileges, and can take them away just as fast. But, what God creates, Man can't repeal. Man repeals life every day... Some men pretend to! Those that believe that physical law and natural law are within their power. And those men who accept and honor physical and natural laws produce the very means that enable those others to continue to pretend. |
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jan 19, 2015 9:21:08 GMT -5
You mean execution and murder are pretends?...
|
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 19, 2015 10:09:56 GMT -5
Only God. Read the Preamble, and the Declaration of Independence. The government can grant privileges, and can take them away just as fast. But, what God creates, Man can't repeal. So, no one - since a good (and growing) portion of the population have put down the things of cultural youth, among them belief in the supernatural. Yet you believe in the infallibility of government, which is Man, to decide who gets what "rights"? And you claim to not believe in the "supernatural"? Really? |
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jan 19, 2015 10:12:19 GMT -5
So, no one - since a good (and growing) portion of the population have put down the things of cultural youth, among them belief in the supernatural. Yet you believe in the infallibility of government, which is Man, to decide who gets what "rights"? And you claim to not believe in the "supernatural"? Really? God left it to us to govern... told us to obey the laws of the land... and to pray for our elected officials... whether wee liked 'em or not... and not pray that they would get sick and die... like some have... |
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jan 19, 2015 10:25:01 GMT -5
So, no one - since a good (and growing) portion of the population have put down the things of cultural youth, among them belief in the supernatural. Yet you believe in the infallibility of government, which is Man, to decide who gets what "rights"? And you claim to not believe in the "supernatural"? Really? Why must you tell untruths about my positions simply so you can make controversial statements? |
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jan 19, 2015 10:56:35 GMT -5
Personally, I disagree with same-sex marriage... although I agree with domestic partnerships... my daughter-in-law agrees with same-sex marriage because of businesses like Hobby Lobby... who, she says there's no doubt, won't treat their same-sex domestic partners with the same respect and rights with regard to benefits as they do traditional opposite-sex marriages/partners... and she's probably right...
|
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Jan 24, 2015 14:11:10 GMT -5
allow it and get it over with.
|
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 24, 2015 16:07:19 GMT -5
Yet you believe in the infallibility of government, which is Man, to decide who gets what "rights"? And you claim to not believe in the "supernatural"? Really? Why must you tell untruths about my positions simply so you can make controversial statements? It's an exercise in logic. If you don't believe in God, then you have to believe in Man. There are no other choices. And if you believe in Man, then you accept that Man must know what's "best" for all of us. |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 24, 2015 17:49:01 GMT -5
The only constitutional solution to this problem is to end civil marriage. Marriage licenses are rooted in racism, and the government should not be treating people differently based on who they sleep with.
|
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jan 24, 2015 17:52:48 GMT -5
Why must you tell untruths about my positions simply so you can make controversial statements? It's an exercise in logic. If you don't believe in God, then you have to believe in Man. There are no other choices. And if you believe in Man, then you accept that Man must know what's "best" for all of us. It depends what you mean by "believe in Man". I do not believe that man is infallible. I do not believe infallible exists *anywhere*. Man makes a good try at it, but often fails and must constantly improve. Thus, new civil rights are from time to time discovered and acted upon. If we stuck by what the Bible says to do, there would be a lot of oppressed people - we'd still own slaves, for one example. Religious types assure me the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Either that's true, and God's okay with mistreating certain classes of people, or it's not, leading me to wonder what else the religious are wrong about. Choose. |
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jan 25, 2015 12:45:39 GMT -5
The only constitutional solution to this problem is to end civil marriage. Marriage licenses are rooted in racism, and the government should not be treating people differently based on who they sleep with. Marriage licenses are not rooted in racism... marriage licenses are rooted in biology... the ability to reproduce... and complicated by laws with regard to taxation... IMHO... marriage within one's own gender... and race... is always the better thing to do for all involved... and yes, it is Scriptural... |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 25, 2015 12:51:24 GMT -5
The only constitutional solution to this problem is to end civil marriage. Marriage licenses are rooted in racism, and the government should not be treating people differently based on who they sleep with. Marriage licenses are not rooted in racism... marriage licenses are rooted in biology... the ability to reproduce... and complicated by laws with regard to taxation... IMHO... marriage within one's own gender... and race... is always the better thing to do for all involved... and yes, it is Scriptural... Ah. One more for the staggeringly long list of things aboutwell thinks he knows, but doesn't. You do not need a license to reproduce. Nor do we need tax laws that treat people differently based on their marital status. Up until about 150 years ago, it was none of the government's business who people married or had children with. Marriage licenses came about to keep blacks from marrying whites, and Jews from marrying Christians. They are fundamentally, and irreconcilably rooted in racist ideas about the wrong people marrying each other. |
|
