Surpeme Court Gay Marriage Cases....

[Ben Kenobi]

You don't believe that scripture is authoritative BK. That's just more crap that you're spewing.

Oh. How so?

[Ben Kenobi]

Have you seen anything on this line of thinking?

Yes. The Greek indicates that Paul refers to pitchers and catchers, "sodomites and catamites". Which is much stronger language then you'll find in most English bibles today. So I can't say that this avenue has any bearing on the truth.

[kentonio]

Yes, Jesus's teachings have a place in civil matters. This includes marriage.

Freedom of and from religion, commie.

[Kidlicious]

Oh. How so?

Because you don't obey the scriptures and you make no apologies. You've a hypocrite. You're the worst kind of person, according to the scriptures.

[Ben Kenobi]

Freedom of and from religion, commie.

Where does the constitution guarantee freedom FROM religion?

[Ben Kenobi]

Because you don't obey the scriptures and you make no apologies.

Oh, I see.

You've a hypocrite. You've the worst kind of person, according to the scriptures.

Yes, I already know this. Why does this have any bearing on the authority of Scripture? I didn't write it. I am not asking you to believe it because I am an awesome person. I am insisting it ought to be believed because it is congruent with what Jesus teaches.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

After all, it's not like Christians invented marriage.

[snoopy369]

I'm starting to change my mind on what I hole the outcome of the courts' decision is. While I think it would be a positive outcome to strike down DOMA and generally find Equal Protection to apply here, I think that it may well be better for the court to punt. I don't generally want the court to have a really strong role in deciding policy - while I feel they are there to support the downtrodden and defend their rights, if they don't have to do that I'd rather they not.

If they act, I think that will largely be the end of that - there won't be any more laws or whatnot on the matter, except maybe a few silly laws in southern states that are quickly struck down on precedent.

On the other hand, if they punt (neither agreeing nor disagreeing on Equal Protection), then I think there will be enough support for some law to be passed - either an anti-DOMA type law, or an amendment. The latter in particular would really be a superior solution all things considered. Amend the 14th amendment to include sexual orientation, and you end up with substantially better protections in other facets than just marriage.

[kentonio]

Where does the constitution guarantee freedom FROM religion?

Go read your Jefferson, idiot.

[kentonio]

I am not asking you to believe it because I am an awesome person.

This is fortunate, because you could have Jesus standing right beside you and you'd still turn half the people you meet into atheists.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What they are also saying is that unless the community adheres to the sacraments they are not a part of the community. Presumably this applies to changing the sacraments to fit modern day desires. I thought I smelled Orthodoxy in your earlier argument - because the argument you gave never comes from Protestants.

Anyways, yeah, we are wrong to elevate the Pope, etc. That's about it though. At present there is no theological division between us.

I admit being fascinated by Orthodoxy due to their strident insistence in not following the modernist trends that the Catholics and Protestants went down. Anyways the discussion started when it was disputed that one (ie, Kid) could be a Christian without thinking Scripture is authoritative. I think it can be shown that some Christian denominations do indeed believe it - for whatever reason.

Anyways, as I happen to fully identify as Protestant, I kind of have to believe in the authority of Scripture (though more in the inspired by God, not hand written by Him manner) .

As for 'no theological division', I'm not sure I'd say that. As Eastern Orthodox theologians would state that the Roman Catholic Church is too focused on kataphatic theology instead of apophatic theology (the preferred theology of Orthodoxy). Also there is a difference in how to be a theologian - Western scholarship vs. Eastern experience of God (theoria through hesychasm), which is also why Bishops and Metropolitans came from the monasteries historically. Its an entirely different way to approach theology. Also, Catholicism has never been all that pleased with Hesychasm.

In addition, Orthodoxy does not believe in original sin as taught in Catholicism (humans inherit the consequences, but not the guilt of original sin) nor the Immaculate Conception (Mary was cleansed of sin when Christ was formed within her). The Orthodox do not hold to Purgatory and have a different view of Hell than most Western Christians (Catholics included) - those who are "damned" are in the presence of God as well (Heaven and Hell exist in the same plane) but their spiritual condition makes them see it as a torment.

And then, of course, the filoque.

So, yeah... there are theological divisions aside from the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

[Ben Kenobi]

Go read your Jefferson, idiot.

You need to reread your Marx.

"From each according to his ability..." comes from Louis Blanc.

As for Jefferson, the "Wall of Separation" appears nowhere in the Constitution.

[Kidlicious]

Yes, I already know this. Why does this have any bearing on the authority of Scripture? I didn't write it. I am not asking you to believe it because I am an awesome person. I am insisting it ought to be believed because it is congruent with what Jesus teaches.

If you don't obey the scriptures you can't tell other people to obey them. That's in the scriptures moron. That's what Jesus said, according to the Bible. You just proved me right. Like I said, no one has to even argue with you. You consistently say stupid things.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm starting to change my mind on what I hole the outcome of the courts' decision is. While I think it would be a positive outcome to strike down DOMA and generally find Equal Protection to apply here, I think that it may well be better for the court to punt. I don't generally want the court to have a really strong role in deciding policy - while I feel they are there to support the downtrodden and defend their rights, if they don't have to do that I'd rather they not.

If they act, I think that will largely be the end of that - there won't be any more laws or whatnot on the matter, except maybe a few silly laws in southern states that are quickly struck down on precedent.

On the other hand, if they punt (neither agreeing nor disagreeing on Equal Protection), then I think there will be enough support for some law to be passed - either an anti-DOMA type law, or an amendment. The latter in particular would really be a superior solution all things considered. Amend the 14th amendment to include sexual orientation, and you end up with substantially better protections in other facets than just marriage.

Well, they could punt on Prop 8 (equal protection) and strike down DOMA on federalism grounds (that federal law on marriage benefits should accept what the state decides rather than dictating to the states on an issue that their purview - unless of course it is 14th Amendment discriminatory).

Go read your Jefferson, idiot.

Not a good argument. Jefferson wasn't really a fan of the Constitution and wasn't there when it was hashed out (he was Ambassador to France).

[kentonio]

You need to reread your Marx.

"From each according to his ability..." comes from Louis Blanc.

Yes, I also went and checked Wiki, but as it was popularized by Marx, it hardly matters. Commie.

As for Jefferson, the "Wall of Separation" appears nowhere in the Constitution.

The constitution doesn't explicitly give immigrants the freedom to be annoying ****wits, yet you seem to have no problem with enjoying that privilege.