Jesus “tells us to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s”

[haissem123]

He doesn't accept the scriptures and hasn't studied them. I hope someday he will study them

He's the kind that calls something stupid not on it's merit, or lack thereof, but on whether or not he agrees with it.

All religions are stupid because all religions refuse to even try and offer up proof of their claims. If the only evidence you'd offer is your own religion's holy text, how is that reliable if I can show you other religious texts making similar claims post before and after your's? Why is your's suddenly the truth, but something odler isn't, or something newer isn't?

You guys resort to these petty insults because you know I'm right. And further you realize you don't have anything solid to stand on but a book. Well books say many things, not all of them are true. If we're supposed to accept the claims of a Bible about God, then why shouldn't we accept the claims of the Book of Mormon, Dianetics (or whatever Scientologists use,) or Qur'an?

Why is your book true, but no one else's is? Where's your proof?

Once again, you determine stupid because you disagree.

I would say evolution is stupid because it can't provide the type proof I need to believe it.

You insult yourself by claiming something is stupid because you disagree with it rather than by refuting it.

Notice you avoided the point for another silly insult.

I addressed your point. Your point is that you think religion is stupid because it doesn't provide proof to the level you need. I say evolution is stupid because it can't provide proof to the level I need. Difference between us is you think it's OK for you to do so then say I missed the point when I do exactly what you did.

Provide proof of evolution to my acceptance or it's stupid because it has none.

If push comes to shove, which it appears it may just come to quick, would it matter if I asked for your help in the name of my God or in my or your name alone?

 

[emilynghiem]

It isn't a matter of the evidence your provide. It's that Delta4 chooses not to accept it.

He doesn't accept the scriptures and hasn't studied them. I hope someday he will study them

He's the kind that calls something stupid not on it's merit, or lack thereof, but on whether or not he agrees with it.

All religions are stupid because all religions refuse to even try and offer up proof of their claims. If the only evidence you'd offer is your own religion's holy text, how is that reliable if I can show you other religious texts making similar claims post before and after your's? Why is your's suddenly the truth, but something odler isn't, or something newer isn't?

You guys resort to these petty insults because you know I'm right. And further you realize you don't have anything solid to stand on but a book. Well books say many things, not all of them are true. If we're supposed to accept the claims of a Bible about God, then why shouldn't we accept the claims of the Book of Mormon, Dianetics (or whatever Scientologists use,) or Qur'an?

Why is your book true, but no one else's is? Where's your proof?

Once again, you determine stupid because you disagree.

I would say evolution is stupid because it can't provide the type proof I need to believe it.

You insult yourself by claiming something is stupid because you disagree with it rather than by refuting it.

Notice you avoided the point for another silly insult.

Dear Delta4Embassy
Do you care to address the point that both beliefs for and against gay marriage equally constitute beliefs?
Do you avoid this point because it would treat both beliefs equally as creeds that cannot be discriminated against by law?

 

[emilynghiem]

He's the kind that calls something stupid not on it's merit, or lack thereof, but on whether or not he agrees with it.

All religions are stupid because all religions refuse to even try and offer up proof of their claims. If the only evidence you'd offer is your own religion's holy text, how is that reliable if I can show you other religious texts making similar claims post before and after your's? Why is your's suddenly the truth, but something odler isn't, or something newer isn't?

You guys resort to these petty insults because you know I'm right. And further you realize you don't have anything solid to stand on but a book. Well books say many things, not all of them are true. If we're supposed to accept the claims of a Bible about God, then why shouldn't we accept the claims of the Book of Mormon, Dianetics (or whatever Scientologists use,) or Qur'an?

Why is your book true, but no one else's is? Where's your proof?

Once again, you determine stupid because you disagree.

I would say evolution is stupid because it can't provide the type proof I need to believe it.

You insult yourself by claiming something is stupid because you disagree with it rather than by refuting it.

Notice you avoided the point for another silly insult.

I addressed your point. Your point is that you think religion is stupid because it doesn't provide proof to the level you need. I say evolution is stupid because it can't provide proof to the level I need. Difference between us is you think it's OK for you to do so then say I missed the point when I do exactly what you did.

Provide proof of evolution to my acceptance or it's stupid because it has none.

If push comes to shove, which it appears it may just come to quick, would it matter if I asked for your help in the name of my God or in my or your name alone?

Hi haissem123
YES it makes a difference if you invoke the name of Justice
in terms of Retributive Justice or Restorative Justice.

Restorative Justice is the secular name of Christ Jesus
and includes all people to heal relations in the spirit of truth.

So it does make a difference which spirit of Justice you invoke,
one that rejects judges or punishes one side for the other (Antichrist),
or one that respects includes and reconciles all people equally under law (Christ).

 

[PratchettFan]

Yes, and the key difference is this is by FREE CHOICE and NOT imposed by the State.
THAT'S the point people seem to miss.

Even President Obama, when he finally CHOSE (by free will, not by force of law) to support gay marriage,
instead of protecting this equal choice for others to make FREELY as he did, he then made the political leap
that gay marriage should be endorsed by law. But that's NOT how HE made his choice by free will!

=========================
It is only fair to treat BOTH the beliefs for gay marriage and for traditional marriage only,
as equal beliefs. So it is NOT just a matter of the State "not imposing the traditional marriage through the State"
it is equally a matter of the State "not imposing gay marriage through the State."

I should be amazed by the number of people who can only see THEIR belief and can't respect the other.

But since this is so common, instead it amazes me when I actually find people who
treat BOTH beliefs equally as protected by law. For some reason, those people are rare,
which is sad, because that viewpoint is the one that is fair to both beliefs, and yet very few grasp that.

I'm not following your point. Are you saying that allowing gay marriage is imposing it? And if you don't allow it, how are you not imposing your own beliefs upon others?

Forcing to recognize a redefinition of marriage is imposing it. Especially when the state's have recognized they would not.

There were no laws preventing two people from creating whatever type of relationship they wanted in the first place.

You need recognize nothing. I could claim anyone who isn't married in a Catholic Church isn't married and refuse to recognize those marriages. Nothing stops me from doing that. However, if the state says the same thing, that is imposing.

The state not doing something is, by definition, a state not imposing itself in anyone's life.

The gay marriage movement is a movement to empower government into recognizing previously ungoverned relationships. As conservatives how can we encourage people to give the government more power?

All you are really saying is that you want the government to impose upon them but not upon you. Taking away your ability to force your beliefs upon others is forcing their beliefs upon you, and that is wrong. It is also why it is losing in the court system.

 

[PratchettFan]

Yes, and the key difference is this is by FREE CHOICE and NOT imposed by the State.
THAT'S the point people seem to miss.

Even President Obama, when he finally CHOSE (by free will, not by force of law) to support gay marriage,
instead of protecting this equal choice for others to make FREELY as he did, he then made the political leap
that gay marriage should be endorsed by law. But that's NOT how HE made his choice by free will!

=========================
It is only fair to treat BOTH the beliefs for gay marriage and for traditional marriage only,
as equal beliefs. So it is NOT just a matter of the State "not imposing the traditional marriage through the State"
it is equally a matter of the State "not imposing gay marriage through the State."

I should be amazed by the number of people who can only see THEIR belief and can't respect the other.

But since this is so common, instead it amazes me when I actually find people who
treat BOTH beliefs equally as protected by law. For some reason, those people are rare,
which is sad, because that viewpoint is the one that is fair to both beliefs, and yet very few grasp that.

I'm not following your point. Are you saying that allowing gay marriage is imposing it? And if you don't allow it, how are you not imposing your own beliefs upon others?

Forcing to recognize a redefinition of marriage is imposing it. Especially when the state's have recognized they would not.

There were no laws preventing two people from creating whatever type of relationship they wanted in the first place.

You need recognize nothing. I could claim anyone who isn't married in a Catholic Church isn't married and refuse to recognize those marriages. Nothing stops me from doing that. However, if the state says the same thing, that is imposing.

The state not doing something is, by definition, a state not imposing itself in anyone's life.

The gay marriage movement is a movement to empower government into recognizing previously ungoverned relationships. As conservatives how can we encourage people to give the government more power?

Not necessarily. I support gay rights and I am a Republican. I don't think the government has any business defining marriage at all. Marriage is between the individuals involved and their God, or lack thereof.

Exactly. I have been a conservative since the 60's and I have always held the prime factor of conservatism is to reduce governments control of our private lives. Laws denying SSM is government intrusion into private lives. One law applied to everyone equally, or get rid of the law entirely.

 

[haissem123]

All religions are stupid because all religions refuse to even try and offer up proof of their claims. If the only evidence you'd offer is your own religion's holy text, how is that reliable if I can show you other religious texts making similar claims post before and after your's? Why is your's suddenly the truth, but something odler isn't, or something newer isn't?

You guys resort to these petty insults because you know I'm right. And further you realize you don't have anything solid to stand on but a book. Well books say many things, not all of them are true. If we're supposed to accept the claims of a Bible about God, then why shouldn't we accept the claims of the Book of Mormon, Dianetics (or whatever Scientologists use,) or Qur'an?

Why is your book true, but no one else's is? Where's your proof?

Once again, you determine stupid because you disagree.

I would say evolution is stupid because it can't provide the type proof I need to believe it.

You insult yourself by claiming something is stupid because you disagree with it rather than by refuting it.

Notice you avoided the point for another silly insult.

I addressed your point. Your point is that you think religion is stupid because it doesn't provide proof to the level you need. I say evolution is stupid because it can't provide proof to the level I need. Difference between us is you think it's OK for you to do so then say I missed the point when I do exactly what you did.

Provide proof of evolution to my acceptance or it's stupid because it has none.

If push comes to shove, which it appears it may just come to quick, would it matter if I asked for your help in the name of my God or in my or your name alone?

Hi haissem123
YES it makes a difference if you invoke the name of Justice
in terms of Retributive Justice or Restorative Justice.

Restorative Justice is the secular name of Christ Jesus
and includes all people to heal relations in the spirit of truth.

So it does make a difference which spirit of Justice you invoke,
one that rejects judges or punishes one side for the other (Antichrist),
or one that respects includes and reconciles all people equally under law (Christ).

wow. you took the words right out of my mouth. what if some one came confessing and judging? begging for mercy and condemning? Claiming to know it all and nothing at all? asking all the questions and giving but one simple answer to all of them? they who could just such a person claiming to be sent from God to receive our message/answer to his message and send it back to God? this is me the antichrist? I could show you the little book of revelations 10 but then I'd have to judge you and you I. but it's about time we got it over with. don't you think?

 

[tipofthespear]

If the Government legalizes same sex marriage, that is imposing it's will on those who do not support same sex marriage. If those who oppose same sex marriage should win the debate, then, yes, they are imposing their will on the supporters of same sex marriage. That's how Government works.

Now, why don't we allow each State to determine if they want to oppose or support same sex marriage, rather than the Federal Government? Each side has the right to petition for their beliefs, and the outcome will always be that one side wins, and one side does not. Either way, the will of one will be imposed on the will of the other.

In a way I would agree, at least in how it applies to society as a whole. But how it applies to the individual is far different. For opponents of gay marriage they will be imposing their will upon the individual by denying gay couples the right to marry. But supporters of gay marriage would not be imposing their will upon others because it's highly doubtful that an opponent of gay marriage would enter into one. Win or lose, opponents of gay marriage do not sacrifice individual rights. That is not the case for gay couples.

We clearly disagree, and that's ok, it appears to be the "norm." Reason being, the State of California had this issue on a State Ballot very recently, and the majority of citizens voted to deny same sex marriage rights. A Court, not the people, overturned the results of that election, thus forcing it's and same sex marriage proponents will upon the majority of the citizens of the State.

 

[tipofthespear]

I'm not following your point. Are you saying that allowing gay marriage is imposing it? And if you don't allow it, how are you not imposing your own beliefs upon others?

Forcing to recognize a redefinition of marriage is imposing it. Especially when the state's have recognized they would not.

There were no laws preventing two people from creating whatever type of relationship they wanted in the first place.

You need recognize nothing. I could claim anyone who isn't married in a Catholic Church isn't married and refuse to recognize those marriages. Nothing stops me from doing that. However, if the state says the same thing, that is imposing.

The state not doing something is, by definition, a state not imposing itself in anyone's life.

The gay marriage movement is a movement to empower government into recognizing previously ungoverned relationships. As conservatives how can we encourage people to give the government more power?

Not necessarily. I support gay rights and I am a Republican. I don't think the government has any business defining marriage at all. Marriage is between the individuals involved and their God, or lack thereof.

Exactly. I have been a conservative since the 60's and I have always held the prime factor of conservatism is to reduce governments control of our private lives. Laws denying SSM is government intrusion into private lives. One law applied to everyone equally, or get rid of the law entirely.

.....and forget the will of the people or States right to Govern, just impose your will which is based on political ideology and not protection of individual rights. High road here, you hold not...

 

[BluePhantom]

If the Government legalizes same sex marriage, that is imposing it's will on those who do not support same sex marriage. If those who oppose same sex marriage should win the debate, then, yes, they are imposing their will on the supporters of same sex marriage. That's how Government works.

Now, why don't we allow each State to determine if they want to oppose or support same sex marriage, rather than the Federal Government? Each side has the right to petition for their beliefs, and the outcome will always be that one side wins, and one side does not. Either way, the will of one will be imposed on the will of the other.

In a way I would agree, at least in how it applies to society as a whole. But how it applies to the individual is far different. For opponents of gay marriage they will be imposing their will upon the individual by denying gay couples the right to marry. But supporters of gay marriage would not be imposing their will upon others because it's highly doubtful that an opponent of gay marriage would enter into one. Win or lose, opponents of gay marriage do not sacrifice individual rights. That is not the case for gay couples.

We clearly disagree, and that's ok, it appears to be the "norm." Reason being, the State of California had this issue on a State Ballot very recently, and the majority of citizens voted to deny same sex marriage rights. A Court, not the people, overturned the results of that election, thus forcing it's and same sex marriage proponents will upon the majority of the citizens of the State.

I am ok with agreeing to disagree. No worries there. Personally, I don't see how allowing gay marriage results in any personal damages to opponents. It may create a state of society they disagree with, but it really has no impact on their personal lives. Disallowing it causes personal damage to the gay community by depriving them of constitutional rights.

At the end of the day it doesn't really matter. I think the writing is on the wall that gay marriage will become legal according to the SCOTUS. I simply can't see them upholding a ban on contstitutional merits

 

[PratchettFan]

Forcing to recognize a redefinition of marriage is imposing it. Especially when the state's have recognized they would not.

There were no laws preventing two people from creating whatever type of relationship they wanted in the first place.

You need recognize nothing. I could claim anyone who isn't married in a Catholic Church isn't married and refuse to recognize those marriages. Nothing stops me from doing that. However, if the state says the same thing, that is imposing.

The state not doing something is, by definition, a state not imposing itself in anyone's life.

The gay marriage movement is a movement to empower government into recognizing previously ungoverned relationships. As conservatives how can we encourage people to give the government more power?

Not necessarily. I support gay rights and I am a Republican. I don't think the government has any business defining marriage at all. Marriage is between the individuals involved and their God, or lack thereof.

Exactly. I have been a conservative since the 60's and I have always held the prime factor of conservatism is to reduce governments control of our private lives. Laws denying SSM is government intrusion into private lives. One law applied to everyone equally, or get rid of the law entirely.

.....and forget the will of the people or States right to Govern, just impose your will which is based on political ideology and not protection of individual rights. High road here, you hold not...

The individual right to prevent another individual from enjoyment of the same right you insist for yourself? The individual right to tell someone else how they may or may not live their lives? No, I think between us I definitely hold the high ground. Which, again, is why your position keeps losing in the court system.

 

[tipofthespear]

If the Government legalizes same sex marriage, that is imposing it's will on those who do not support same sex marriage. If those who oppose same sex marriage should win the debate, then, yes, they are imposing their will on the supporters of same sex marriage. That's how Government works.

Now, why don't we allow each State to determine if they want to oppose or support same sex marriage, rather than the Federal Government? Each side has the right to petition for their beliefs, and the outcome will always be that one side wins, and one side does not. Either way, the will of one will be imposed on the will of the other.

In a way I would agree, at least in how it applies to society as a whole. But how it applies to the individual is far different. For opponents of gay marriage they will be imposing their will upon the individual by denying gay couples the right to marry. But supporters of gay marriage would not be imposing their will upon others because it's highly doubtful that an opponent of gay marriage would enter into one. Win or lose, opponents of gay marriage do not sacrifice individual rights. That is not the case for gay couples.

We clearly disagree, and that's ok, it appears to be the "norm." Reason being, the State of California had this issue on a State Ballot very recently, and the majority of citizens voted to deny same sex marriage rights. A Court, not the people, overturned the results of that election, thus forcing it's and same sex marriage proponents will upon the majority of the citizens of the State.

I am ok with agreeing to disagree. No worries there. Personally, I don't see how allowing gay marriage results in any personal damages to opponents. It may create a state of society they disagree with, but it really has no impact on their personal lives. Disallowing it causes personal damage to the gay community by depriving them of constitutional rights.

At the end of the day it doesn't really matter. I think the writing is on the wall that gay marriage will become legal according to the SCOTUS. I simply can't see them upholding a ban on contstitutional merits

You must not be well informed of the damage such a National Law would do to citizens who oppose same sex marriage. Google and find out what happened to a Florist in Fla who opposed same sex marriage. Google and see if Preachers, Pastors are being sued for refusing to conduct marriage ceremonies for same sex couples.....do some research and get back to me.

 

[tipofthespear]

You need recognize nothing. I could claim anyone who isn't married in a Catholic Church isn't married and refuse to recognize those marriages. Nothing stops me from doing that. However, if the state says the same thing, that is imposing.

The state not doing something is, by definition, a state not imposing itself in anyone's life.

The gay marriage movement is a movement to empower government into recognizing previously ungoverned relationships. As conservatives how can we encourage people to give the government more power?

Not necessarily. I support gay rights and I am a Republican. I don't think the government has any business defining marriage at all. Marriage is between the individuals involved and their God, or lack thereof.

Exactly. I have been a conservative since the 60's and I have always held the prime factor of conservatism is to reduce governments control of our private lives. Laws denying SSM is government intrusion into private lives. One law applied to everyone equally, or get rid of the law entirely.

.....and forget the will of the people or States right to Govern, just impose your will which is based on political ideology and not protection of individual rights. High road here, you hold not...

The individual right to prevent another individual from enjoyment of the same right you insist for yourself? The individual right to tell someone else how they may or may not live their lives? No, I think between us I definitely hold the high ground. Which, again, is why your position keeps losing in the court system.

No, you hold the "carnal" ground........and if you believe the Courts are a barometer of what is or is not "high ground" in this country, then I suggest you do some research on what exactly the Courts have approved of since our Founding. You also are quite content to have the Federal Government absolve the results of the will of the people in a State election. Only ground there is the ground up right of a system "Of, For, and By the People." Judges are not given the power to Legislate from the Bench. This is in clear violation of the Separation of Powers. But, hey, as long as they are grinding up the Constitution and will of the people in YOUR FAVOR, it's all just fine...... right?

 

[tipofthespear]

Just in the last few days a lady in NYC went to a fitness center, and while in the woman's dressing/bath room, a man walked in and began to do whatever he was doing. The woman asked the management what was going on and the management informed her that they approved of transgender rights. This man believes he is a woman. The lady did not pitch a fit, she simply spoke to a few other members she knew and informed them of what had happened to her. Because of this, the Center canceled her membership and escorted her off the property. Were her rights violated/imposed upon in order to cow toe to the rights of a transgender person? Sure. Was it legal? Actually, yes. However, to state that the rights of those who oppose same sex marriage, or such as this will not be violated or imposes upon is beyond naïve.

 

[BluePhantom]

You must not be well informed of the damage such a National Law would do to citizens who oppose same sex marriage. Google and find out what happened to a Florist in Fla who opposed same sex marriage. Google and see if Preachers, Pastors are being sued for refusing to conduct marriage ceremonies for same sex couples.....do some research and get back to me.

I am aware of these things. Your examples refer to two different things. The florist is in regard to business and discrimination laws. I don't think that a business should be able to discriminate in such a way unless they can provide a constitutional argument as to why their personal rights would be violated. I am not sure providing a service necessarily results in a personal damage. Furthermore, if you choose to go into business you are choosing to abide by the business environment. Personally, I would have preferred to have the market punish or not punish the florist based upon their willingness to do future business.

As far as clergy being forced to perform same sex marriages...I agree that is bullshit. My guess is that a law forcing clergy to perform same sex marriages would not pass the Lemon Test and will eventually be thrown out by the SCOTUS

 

[PratchettFan]

The state not doing something is, by definition, a state not imposing itself in anyone's life.

The gay marriage movement is a movement to empower government into recognizing previously ungoverned relationships. As conservatives how can we encourage people to give the government more power?

Not necessarily. I support gay rights and I am a Republican. I don't think the government has any business defining marriage at all. Marriage is between the individuals involved and their God, or lack thereof.

Exactly. I have been a conservative since the 60's and I have always held the prime factor of conservatism is to reduce governments control of our private lives. Laws denying SSM is government intrusion into private lives. One law applied to everyone equally, or get rid of the law entirely.

.....and forget the will of the people or States right to Govern, just impose your will which is based on political ideology and not protection of individual rights. High road here, you hold not...

The individual right to prevent another individual from enjoyment of the same right you insist for yourself? The individual right to tell someone else how they may or may not live their lives? No, I think between us I definitely hold the high ground. Which, again, is why your position keeps losing in the court system.

No, you hold the "carnal" ground........and if you believe the Courts are a barometer of what is or is not "high ground" in this country, then I suggest you do some research on what exactly the Courts have approved of since our Founding. You also are quite content to have the Federal Government absolve the results of the will of the people in a State election. Only ground there is the ground up right of a system "Of, For, and By the People." Judges are not given the power to Legislate from the Bench. This is in clear violation of the Separation of Powers. But, hey, as long as they are grinding up the Constitution and will of the people in YOUR FAVOR, it's all just fine...... right?

No. I hold the moral high ground, and the ethical high ground and the legal high ground. Your position is you want the right to impose your beliefs on others, to tell them how to live their lives. They just want to live their lives the way they wish, not tell you how to live yours. But you claim to be the victim. The hypocrisy of that position is indefensible. Which is why it keeps losing in the courts.

If you think our legal system is not to your liking, there are airports aplenty. There have been many decisions I have not liked, but that is the nature of law. One side is always going to lose and I don't claim foul just because I happen to be on the losing side. This is because, unlike you, I actually do believe in our system as set up under the Constitution.

 

[PratchettFan]

You must not be well informed of the damage such a National Law would do to citizens who oppose same sex marriage. Google and find out what happened to a Florist in Fla who opposed same sex marriage. Google and see if Preachers, Pastors are being sued for refusing to conduct marriage ceremonies for same sex couples.....do some research and get back to me.

I am aware of these things. Your examples refer to two different things. The florist is in regard to business and discrimination laws. I don't think that a business should be able to discriminate in such a way unless they can provide a constitutional argument as to why their personal rights would be violated. I am not sure providing a service necessarily results in a personal damage. Furthermore, if you choose to go into business you are choosing to abide by the business environment. Personally, I would have preferred to have the market punish or not punish the florist based upon their willingness to do future business.

As far as clergy being forced to perform same sex marriages...I agree that is bullshit. My guess is that a law forcing clergy to perform same sex marriages would not pass the Lemon Test and will eventually be thrown out by the SCOTUS

I'm not aware of any such suits, but they certainly won't stand up. PA laws says you cannot discriminate based upon religion, but that doesn't mean a Catholic priest can be forced to conduct a Hindu marriage.

 

[Avatar4321]

So you discount the source because you disagree with it? Interesting.

Pay attention Nimrod. I asked for chapter and verse where God marries Adam and Eve. There isn't one (being a Jew I already knew that.)

And yet here it is:

And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, andflesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall beone flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

We have Adams marriage vows and a teaching on marriage in the garden before the fall.

I'm confident if you ask any rabbi they will agreen that this is a reference to Adam and eves marriage.

You should study the scriptures sometime if you've missed this in the very first chapters

It isn't a matter of the evidence your provide. It's that Delta4 chooses not to accept it.

He doesn't accept the scriptures and hasn't studied them. I hope someday he will study them

(glances over his shoulder checking to see if Avatar's there)

Nope.

I actually have studied the Scriptures. It's why I don't believe them. If I hadn't actually studied them I might be more inclined to believe them, but once you read them, read other faiths' texts you begin to notice how your's isn't exactly original or unique.

Yet you are unfamiliar with an event that happened literally immediately after creation ended. If you've studied and don't know that, I wonder what else you've missed

 

[Avatar4321]

Forcing to recognize a redefinition of marriage is imposing it. Especially when the state's have recognized they would not.

There were no laws preventing two people from creating whatever type of relationship they wanted in the first place.

You need recognize nothing. I could claim anyone who isn't married in a Catholic Church isn't married and refuse to recognize those marriages. Nothing stops me from doing that. However, if the state says the same thing, that is imposing.

The state not doing something is, by definition, a state not imposing itself in anyone's life.

The gay marriage movement is a movement to empower government into recognizing previously ungoverned relationships. As conservatives how can we encourage people to give the government more power?

Not necessarily. I support gay rights and I am a Republican. I don't think the government has any business defining marriage at all. Marriage is between the individuals involved and their God, or lack thereof.

So you support government intervention in gay relationships but you oppose government intervention in relationships. Seems inconsistent to me

No I oppose government intervention in any relationships

Then how can you support empowering government to regulate gay marriage and oppose intervening in any relationships?

 

[Avatar4321]

Pay attention Nimrod. I asked for chapter and verse where God marries Adam and Eve. There isn't one (being a Jew I already knew that.)

And yet here it is:

And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, andflesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall beone flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

We have Adams marriage vows and a teaching on marriage in the garden before the fall.

I'm confident if you ask any rabbi they will agreen that this is a reference to Adam and eves marriage.

You should study the scriptures sometime if you've missed this in the very first chapters

It isn't a matter of the evidence your provide. It's that Delta4 chooses not to accept it.

He doesn't accept the scriptures and hasn't studied them. I hope someday he will study them

He's the kind that calls something stupid not on it's merit, or lack thereof, but on whether or not he agrees with it.

All religions are stupid because all religions refuse to even try and offer up proof of their claims. If the only evidence you'd offer is your own religion's holy text, how is that reliable if I can show you other religious texts making similar claims post before and after your's? Why is your's suddenly the truth, but something odler isn't, or something newer isn't?

You guys resort to these petty insults because you know I'm right. And further you realize you don't have anything solid to stand on but a book. Well books say many things, not all of them are true. If we're supposed to accept the claims of a Bible about God, then why shouldn't we accept the claims of the Book of Mormon, Dianetics (or whatever Scientologists use,) or Qur'an?

Why is your book true, but no one else's is? Where's your proof?

Why don't you apply the message and find out for yourself like God continually invites you to do?

 

[Avatar4321]

Yes, and the key difference is this is by FREE CHOICE and NOT imposed by the State.
THAT'S the point people seem to miss.

Even President Obama, when he finally CHOSE (by free will, not by force of law) to support gay marriage,
instead of protecting this equal choice for others to make FREELY as he did, he then made the political leap
that gay marriage should be endorsed by law. But that's NOT how HE made his choice by free will!

=========================
It is only fair to treat BOTH the beliefs for gay marriage and for traditional marriage only,
as equal beliefs. So it is NOT just a matter of the State "not imposing the traditional marriage through the State"
it is equally a matter of the State "not imposing gay marriage through the State."

I should be amazed by the number of people who can only see THEIR belief and can't respect the other.

But since this is so common, instead it amazes me when I actually find people who
treat BOTH beliefs equally as protected by law. For some reason, those people are rare,
which is sad, because that viewpoint is the one that is fair to both beliefs, and yet very few grasp that.

I'm not following your point. Are you saying that allowing gay marriage is imposing it? And if you don't allow it, how are you not imposing your own beliefs upon others?

Forcing to recognize a redefinition of marriage is imposing it. Especially when the state's have recognized they would not.

There were no laws preventing two people from creating whatever type of relationship they wanted in the first place.

You need recognize nothing. I could claim anyone who isn't married in a Catholic Church isn't married and refuse to recognize those marriages. Nothing stops me from doing that. However, if the state says the same thing, that is imposing.

The state not doing something is, by definition, a state not imposing itself in anyone's life.

The gay marriage movement is a movement to empower government into recognizing previously ungoverned relationships. As conservatives how can we encourage people to give the government more power?

All you are really saying is that you want the government to impose upon them but not upon you. Taking away your ability to force your beliefs upon others is forcing their beliefs upon you, and that is wrong. It is also why it is losing in the court system.

How do I force them to do anything by denying the government power to regulate their relationships?

By the very act of denying government power to act I am preventing government from forcing them