Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well in a way, It is a quote from a justice who I am convinced would disagree with the opinion, and which fits closer to the reasoning of the dissents.....so it's use shows lack of logic on the part of the writer. Which is in part why I can bash the opinion as absurd.
Not 'in a way'. You straight up ignored Romer and its very clear language on discrimination against gays.
Ignoring binding legal precedent isn't a legal argument. Especially when we're talking about lower court rulings that neither know of your arbitrary dismissal of all binding precedent that you don't like.......and care even less.
The lower courts are required to use precedent of the Supreme Court. And the court made its position on same sex marriage bans ludicrously clear in Windsor. With the foundation for those findings in Romer and Lawrence.
That you ignore all such rulings changes nothing.
I showed you other prominent law professors who disagree and are also confounded by the opinion...but you are so so much smarter then them on legal stuff.
And I showed you numerous lower court rulings who found Romer to be immediately relevant. Including the Supreme Court itself which cited Romer in the Windsor decision. Emphasizing its importance and its findings.
Which makes your abitrary dismissal of all lower court rulings citing it, all USSC rulings citing it, and the ruling itself all the more useless.
As your dismissal has no relevance to its legal validity. That you don't like Romer is meaningless in terms of it being binding precedent. And is even more meaningless in the lower court's citation of it.
Your personal opinion v. binding legal precedent has the same winner every time. Not you.
They ARE required to abide by Romer, and Lawrence, and Windsor, I agree .....which does not conflict with abiding by Baker,......which dealt directly with the question at hand in these cases that led to obergefell.
Baker was a one sentence denial of cert from 40 years ago. None of the legal precedent laid out in Romer, Lawrence or Windsor existed when that one sentence was written. And the precedent on the matter that has come since changed the legal landscape dramatically.
You ignored them all in favor of a denial of cert. You were just plain wrong. But even Scalia makes it clear that the court's position was beyond mistaking. Virtually every court to rule on the matter affirms as much. And the Obergefell ruling is the cherry on the top of you not knowing what you're talking about.
Its not Scalia, almost all lower courts and the Supreme Court that was wrong on Windsor. Its just you.
Why married couples get a tax break based solely on their being married when single people do not is beyond me.....I had hoped that if the SC ruled as they did on gay marriage they would at least see this unfairness and strike it down...of course they did not.
THIS is why > States Have a Valid Legal Argument to Defy Gay Marriage | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
No, to the OP. Read it. It answers your question perfectly and should clear up any confusion you had about why states give tax breaks to married men and women.Not sure what your getting at here, ? you link me to a whole discussion thread?
your pompous need to climb on your high horse and prove yourself morally superior is tedious, sad and pathetic. What you have set out to show is un-proveable by its very nature. I am glad to see tho that you are half-acknowledging that you have lost the legal argument.
I will start tho to wade through your arguments.
this is a quasi legal argument ...using an emotional tug to play to heightened scrutiny. It certainly doesn't point to a necessary way to accommodate....a required way to accommodate. Many children in our society have disadvantages, some may think being raised by gay parents is a disadvantage.
Maybe some do have "procreative urges" tho this puts the lie I think to the idea of"born that way" ...the government is under no obligation to provide outlets to all who have urges. You are jumping to pompous arrogant conclusions about this being a bigoted view.
Sutton quotes a basis to rational revue " legislative choices may rest on “rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data,”
Studies can be and often are these days proven wrong. This isnt a criminal proceeding. It is a question of constitutional law. The contract between the government and the people, who should decide these matters. You may have some good arguments as to desirability,....but it is up to the people to decide.
Marriage is not a right, it is a license from the government. .....the case we recently argued about said voting is not a right....if THAT is not a right.....surely something with the name license is not a right....that even implies it could be a local decision...lower than the state level.
Good, I lean towards the idea that government should not have been involved in this area to begin with. It is really a relic of the church-state of England, where taxes went to the church.
Why married couples get a tax break based solely on their being married when single people do not is beyond me.....I had hoped that if the SC ruled as they did on gay marriage they would at least see this unfairness and strike it down...of course they did not.
I am amused that what the anti-gay people label "perversion", and "degradation", not to mention "morally bankrupt" when objecting to sex practiced by gays, is also practiced by most heteralsexual couples. That, however, is not objectionable, I guess, since nobody talks about it. Of course, what people do in their own bedrooms is their own business, but somehow, what gays do in their own bedrooms is every conservative's business.
The whole thing leads me to believe that the objections are coming from people with extremely suppressed personal sex lives....
What I said was that I will never convince you of the fallacy of your legal argument as you will never prove me wrong.
Oh, cool, the butthurt continues.What I said was that I will never convince you of the fallacy of your legal argument as you will never prove me wrong.
You've been proven wrong by no less an authority than nature itself.
Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman. This as a result of the human physiological design; wherein Nature designed the human species with two distinct, but complementing genders, each designed SPECIFICALLY... the join with the other, forming one sustainable body, from two.
What's more, there is not now, nor has there ever been a law in the US which precludes homosexuals from marriage... they need only do as EVERY OTHER CITIZEN IS REQUIRED and that is to apply for such with a person of the distinct gender... .
In THAT we find that there is not now, nor has there ever been a legal discrimination against homosexuals with regard to marriage.
Your argument; along with the argument of the other degenerates who join your argument: is specious NONSENSE...
And that you found a judge who was predisposed to agree with your specious claptrap in NO WAY alters reality, wherein:MARRIAGE: Is the joining of One Man and One Woman.
Thus: homosexuals seeking to "marry" individuals of the same gender, are NOT QUALIFIED CANDIDATE FOR MARRIAGE!
You people DO realize that King David had a LEGALLY RECOGNIZED UNION with his best friend Jonathan, right?
your pompous need to climb on your high horse and prove yourself morally superior is tedious, sad and pathetic. What you have set out to show is un-proveable by its very nature. I am glad to see tho that you are half-acknowledging that you have lost the legal argument.
I will start tho to wade through your arguments.
More rantings from the dark world according to DCraelin ? Of course you will attack the truth that you are threatened by and It’s apparent that you are threatened because of your need to insult me. Now hear this, I did not concede the legal argument. I acknowledged that fact that I have my biases, something that you do not seem to have the integrity to do. What I said was that I will never convince you of the fallacy of your legal argument as you will never prove me wrong. All that you can do is to choose to ignore the majority opinion of the SC as well, the vast majority of the lower court’s rulings, and an extensive body of case law.
this is a quasi legal argument ...using an emotional tug to play to heightened scrutiny. It certainly doesn't point to a necessary way to accommodate....a required way to accommodate. Many children in our society have disadvantages, some may think being raised by gay parents is a disadvantage.
That’s right, it is emotional. This is an emotional matter. Children are an emotional issue. If you don’t think so there is something wrong with you. But heighted scrutiny was applied as a matter of law. the welfare of our children is a legitimate state interest. However, limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples fails to further this interest. Instead, needlessly stigmatizing and humiliating children who are being raised by the loving couples targeted by Virginia’s Marriage Laws betrays that interest. [Schall and Townley's daughter], like the thousands of children being raised by same-sex couples, is needless deprived of the protection, the stability, the recognition and the legitimacy that marriage conveys.
Federal Judge: Virginia’s Ban On Same-Sex Marriage Needlessly Stigmatizes And Humiliates Children
Maybe some do have "procreative urges" tho this puts the lie I think to the idea of"born that way" ...the government is under no obligation to provide outlets to all who have urges. You are jumping to pompous arrogant conclusions about this being a bigoted view.
I’m not jumping to anything. Here your profound ignorance and bigotry is front and center! What the fuck does parental instincts and the issue of “ born that way” have to do with each other. Please give me a sign that you are not so fucking stupid as to think that if someone is “really gay” that they do not want children. PLEASE!
And how the hell is the government providing an outlet for anything? This just ignores everything that has been said about the benefits of marriage to children. If you want to call me pompous and arrogant (again) because I advocate for children be my guest. You are the one looking pompous and arrogant as well as callous and stupid.
Sutton quotes a basis to rational revue " legislative choices may rest on “rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data,”
Studies can be and often are these days proven wrong. This isnt a criminal proceeding. It is a question of constitutional law. The contract between the government and the people, who should decide these matters. You may have some good arguments as to desirability,....but it is up to the people to decide.
More horseshit. As I said before. The overwhelming body of evidence shows clearly that gay parenting is equal to straight parenting and that the respective genders of the parents is of little consequence. EVERY study that contradicts that-including the one that Michigan used-has been discredited. I have them all as was as about 70 peer reviewed studies that support gay parenting. I would share but I don’t think that you are actually interested
If there was a credible body of evidence that showed that having same sex parents was somehow harmful –why did Michigan stupidly commission a highly biased and flawed study to try to prove that? And the really insane thing is that whether or not gays make good or adequate parents was not even the right question to be asking because at that point the case was about marriage, not adoption. And as you know, gay people will have kids married or not.
Marriage is not a right, it is a license from the government. .....the case we recently argued about said voting is not a right....if THAT is not a right.....surely something with the name license is not a right....that even implies it could be a local decision...lower than the state level.
Really old sport ? You can’t compare marriage to voting. It’s another of your false equivalencies. Voting has in fact not been established as a right. However, fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights Make that 15 with Obegefell.
Furthermore The Legal Information Institute states”Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional. Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel” Fundamental Right | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute
Most rights that people enjoy and take for granted in this country, are not specified in the constitution but are legal rights and presumed to be constitutional unless challanged. The time is not far off when the right to same sex marriage will be established by SCOTUS and gay marriage as a legal right will soon follow
Still not convinced? Let me ask this….If it’s not a right, what is it? The only possible answer is “privilege” What is a privilege? It’s something that you have to earn. Driving is a privilege. You have to study the rules and take a road test. You do not have to study and take a test to qualify for a marriage license. While both rights and privileges can be forfeited under certain circumstances-commit a crime and lose right to freedom/drive badly and lose your driving privileges-they are by no means the same thing, because the bar, for taking away a right, is set much higher. In addition, as we established above, rights emanate from the fact of being born a human. Privileges do not. We can only conclude that marriage is not a privilege and therefore is a right. When a ten your old asks if she can get married someday, her parent can say “sure” ….unless she means her girlfriend, and then, if she lives in the wrong place she will have to be told “maybe” and it will hurt
Good, I lean towards the idea that government should not have been involved in this area to begin with. It is really a relic of the church-state of England, where taxes went to the church.
Why married couples get a tax break based solely on their being married when single people do not is beyond me.....I had hoped that if the SC ruled as they did on gay marriage they would at least see this unfairness and strike it down...of course they did not.
That “government out of marriage” nonsense is just another undoable pipe dream. Get over it. And this thing about single people is just another logical fallacy, this time a red herring, and yes, another false equivalency. First of all there was no question before court concerning taxes and marital status so you hoping for a ruling on that just shows once again how little you understand In addition, I have to ask, what are these tax breaks that you refer to? Married people get to file joint returns but that doesn’t mean that they pay less taxes. Some do and some don’t. Every situation is different. Now will you please get out of here?!
needlessly stigmatizing and humiliating children
your arrogance in repeating calling opponents to gay marriage bigots is apparent. (see below) to turn around and complain abpout me insulting you is laughable.threatened because of your need to insult me.
Here your profound ignorance and bigotry is front and center
NO what you repeatedly say is horseshit...Sutton points out that rational basis revue requires no studies......These "studies" usually come off of socially liberal college campuses and are suspect regardless. Sutton does accept "rational basis revue" which is itself I think somewhat irrational and turns normal court proof requirements on their head. I believe some justices have a problem with this also.More horseshit.
What do you care about numbers?....you reject the democratic process so what do you care?....and I think you overstate the case anyway. I dont think any really established as a right except obergefellMake that 15 with Obegefell.
WHAT THE FUCK is this?....... a paste from an old post you left in?The time is not far off when the right to same sex marriage will be established by SCOTUS and gay marriage as a legal right will soon follow
no there are many possible answershe only possible answer is “privilege”
First of all there was no question before court concerning taxes and marital status so you hoping for a ruling on that just shows once again how little you understand
Gaybiker just likes to think about it a lot.You people DO realize that King David had a LEGALLY RECOGNIZED UNION with his best friend Jonathan, right?
I realize that you're clearly out of your mind... but setting aside your psychosis... to what would that be relevant?
On what grounds could the government not allow you to get married?your pompous need to climb on your high horse and prove yourself morally superior is tedious, sad and pathetic. What you have set out to show is un-proveable by its very nature. I am glad to see tho that you are half-acknowledging that you have lost the legal argument.
I will start tho to wade through your arguments.
More rantings from the dark world according to DCraelin ? Of course you will attack the truth that you are threatened by and It’s apparent that you are threatened because of your need to insult me. Now hear this, I did not concede the legal argument. I acknowledged that fact that I have my biases, something that you do not seem to have the integrity to do. What I said was that I will never convince you of the fallacy of your legal argument as you will never prove me wrong. All that you can do is to choose to ignore the majority opinion of the SC as well, the vast majority of the lower court’s rulings, and an extensive body of case law.
this is a quasi legal argument ...using an emotional tug to play to heightened scrutiny. It certainly doesn't point to a necessary way to accommodate....a required way to accommodate. Many children in our society have disadvantages, some may think being raised by gay parents is a disadvantage.
That’s right, it is emotional. This is an emotional matter. Children are an emotional issue. If you don’t think so there is something wrong with you. But heighted scrutiny was applied as a matter of law. the welfare of our children is a legitimate state interest. However, limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples fails to further this interest. Instead, needlessly stigmatizing and humiliating children who are being raised by the loving couples targeted by Virginia’s Marriage Laws betrays that interest. [Schall and Townley's daughter], like the thousands of children being raised by same-sex couples, is needless deprived of the protection, the stability, the recognition and the legitimacy that marriage conveys.
Federal Judge: Virginia’s Ban On Same-Sex Marriage Needlessly Stigmatizes And Humiliates Children
Maybe some do have "procreative urges" tho this puts the lie I think to the idea of"born that way" ...the government is under no obligation to provide outlets to all who have urges. You are jumping to pompous arrogant conclusions about this being a bigoted view.
I’m not jumping to anything. Here your profound ignorance and bigotry is front and center! What the fuck does parental instincts and the issue of “ born that way” have to do with each other. Please give me a sign that you are not so fucking stupid as to think that if someone is “really gay” that they do not want children. PLEASE!
And how the hell is the government providing an outlet for anything? This just ignores everything that has been said about the benefits of marriage to children. If you want to call me pompous and arrogant (again) because I advocate for children be my guest. You are the one looking pompous and arrogant as well as callous and stupid.
Sutton quotes a basis to rational revue " legislative choices may rest on “rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data,”
Studies can be and often are these days proven wrong. This isnt a criminal proceeding. It is a question of constitutional law. The contract between the government and the people, who should decide these matters. You may have some good arguments as to desirability,....but it is up to the people to decide.
More horseshit. As I said before. The overwhelming body of evidence shows clearly that gay parenting is equal to straight parenting and that the respective genders of the parents is of little consequence. EVERY study that contradicts that-including the one that Michigan used-has been discredited. I have them all as was as about 70 peer reviewed studies that support gay parenting. I would share but I don’t think that you are actually interested
If there was a credible body of evidence that showed that having same sex parents was somehow harmful –why did Michigan stupidly commission a highly biased and flawed study to try to prove that? And the really insane thing is that whether or not gays make good or adequate parents was not even the right question to be asking because at that point the case was about marriage, not adoption. And as you know, gay people will have kids married or not.
Marriage is not a right, it is a license from the government. .....the case we recently argued about said voting is not a right....if THAT is not a right.....surely something with the name license is not a right....that even implies it could be a local decision...lower than the state level.
Really old sport ? You can’t compare marriage to voting. It’s another of your false equivalencies. Voting has in fact not been established as a right. However, fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights Make that 15 with Obegefell.
Furthermore The Legal Information Institute states”Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional. Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel” Fundamental Right | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute
Most rights that people enjoy and take for granted in this country, are not specified in the constitution but are legal rights and presumed to be constitutional unless challanged. The time is not far off when the right to same sex marriage will be established by SCOTUS and gay marriage as a legal right will soon follow
Still not convinced? Let me ask this….If it’s not a right, what is it? The only possible answer is “privilege” What is a privilege? It’s something that you have to earn. Driving is a privilege. You have to study the rules and take a road test. You do not have to study and take a test to qualify for a marriage license. While both rights and privileges can be forfeited under certain circumstances-commit a crime and lose right to freedom/drive badly and lose your driving privileges-they are by no means the same thing, because the bar, for taking away a right, is set much higher. In addition, as we established above, rights emanate from the fact of being born a human. Privileges do not. We can only conclude that marriage is not a privilege and therefore is a right. When a ten your old asks if she can get married someday, her parent can say “sure” ….unless she means her girlfriend, and then, if she lives in the wrong place she will have to be told “maybe” and it will hurt
Good, I lean towards the idea that government should not have been involved in this area to begin with. It is really a relic of the church-state of England, where taxes went to the church.
Why married couples get a tax break based solely on their being married when single people do not is beyond me.....I had hoped that if the SC ruled as they did on gay marriage they would at least see this unfairness and strike it down...of course they did not.
That “government out of marriage” nonsense is just another undoable pipe dream. Get over it. And this thing about single people is just another logical fallacy, this time a red herring, and yes, another false equivalency. First of all there was no question before court concerning taxes and marital status so you hoping for a ruling on that just shows once again how little you understand In addition, I have to ask, what are these tax breaks that you refer to? Married people get to file joint returns but that doesn’t mean that they pay less taxes. Some do and some don’t. Every situation is different. Now will you please get out of here?!needlessly stigmatizing and humiliating children
shear BS, perhaps some children are stigmatized and humiliated by having gay "parents" ...more likely ....but stigmatizing and humiliation cannot be cured by legal status, and should not be a consideration.
your arrogance in repeating calling opponents to gay marriage bigots is apparent. (see below) to turn around and complain abpout me insulting you is laughable.threatened because of your need to insult me.
Here your profound ignorance and bigotry is front and center
NO what you repeatedly say is horseshit...Sutton points out that rational basis revue requires no studies......These "studies" usually come off of socially liberal college campuses and are suspect regardless. Sutton does accept "rational basis revue" which is itself I think somewhat irrational and turns normal court proof requirements on their head. I believe some justices have a problem with this also.More horseshit.
What do you care about numbers?....you reject the democratic process so what do you care?....and I think you overstate the case anyway. I dont think any really established as a right except obergefellMake that 15 with Obegefell.
WHAT THE FUCK is this?....... a paste from an old post you left in?The time is not far off when the right to same sex marriage will be established by SCOTUS and gay marriage as a legal right will soon follow
no there are many possible answershe only possible answer is “privilege”
First of all there was no question before court concerning taxes and marital status so you hoping for a ruling on that just shows once again how little you understand
marriage is a package of various laws.....which points to another idiocy of these cases and the SCs approach...each state probably has slight differences in marriage laws...........so the court should have examined these all...it is really not their place to redefine a word.
among those packages of laws..are tax laws...something gay marriage proponents raised as some of their litany of unfairness-es. So the fairness of tax laws based on marriage should have been considered. ...their avoidance of that issue shows they werent really concerned with consistency and equality in law but were ruling on an emotional based argument alone.
Gaybiker just likes to think about it a lot.You people DO realize that King David had a LEGALLY RECOGNIZED UNION with his best friend Jonathan, right?
I realize that you're clearly out of your mind... but setting aside your psychosis... to what would that be relevant?
Gaybiker just likes to think about it a lot.You people DO realize that King David had a LEGALLY RECOGNIZED UNION with his best friend Jonathan, right?
I realize that you're clearly out of your mind... but setting aside your psychosis... to what would that be relevant?
Here ya go.............
David and Jonathan
There is an extensive and very sympathetic description of a same-sex relationship in the Bible, the story of David and Jonathan, e.g.: 1 Samuel 18:1-5, 1 Samuel 19:1-7, 1 Samuel 20:30-42, 2 Samuel 1:25-6. While their bond is described as non-sexual, it is difficult to characterize it as purely one of friendship.
Jonathan was the son of Saul, David's nemesis. Their souls are described as 'knit together'. David and Jonathan 'made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.' The word convenant is significant, because in the Tanach this word always implies a formal legal agreement. To mark this convenant, Jonathan literally gives David the clothes off of his back, as well as other gifts such as weapons.
Later in the narrative, Jonathan successfully intercedes with Saul to spare David's life. At their last meeing, 1 Samuel 20:41, they are described as kissing one another and weeping together. David's grief at Jonathan's death is profound and moving. In Davids lament for Jonathan he describes their friendship as '(sur)passing the love of women'. This elegy, 2 Samuel 1:18-27. known as 'the Bow,' is one of the most beloved passages in the Hebrew Bible.
LGBT Texts
If King David could have a legally recognized union by the nation of Israel with a member of the same gender (Jonathan), why can't other people have legally recognized same sex unions?
Gaybiker just likes to think about it a lot.You people DO realize that King David had a LEGALLY RECOGNIZED UNION with his best friend Jonathan, right?
I realize that you're clearly out of your mind... but setting aside your psychosis... to what would that be relevant?
Here ya go.............
David and Jonathan
There is an extensive and very sympathetic description of a same-sex relationship in the Bible, the story of David and Jonathan, e.g.: 1 Samuel 18:1-5, 1 Samuel 19:1-7, 1 Samuel 20:30-42, 2 Samuel 1:25-6. While their bond is described as non-sexual, it is difficult to characterize it as purely one of friendship.
Jonathan was the son of Saul, David's nemesis. Their souls are described as 'knit together'. David and Jonathan 'made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.' The word convenant is significant, because in the Tanach this word always implies a formal legal agreement. To mark this convenant, Jonathan literally gives David the clothes off of his back, as well as other gifts such as weapons.
Later in the narrative, Jonathan successfully intercedes with Saul to spare David's life. At their last meeing, 1 Samuel 20:41, they are described as kissing one another and weeping together. David's grief at Jonathan's death is profound and moving. In Davids lament for Jonathan he describes their friendship as '(sur)passing the love of women'. This elegy, 2 Samuel 1:18-27. known as 'the Bow,' is one of the most beloved passages in the Hebrew Bible.
LGBT Texts
If King David could have a legally recognized union by the nation of Israel with a member of the same gender (Jonathan), why can't other people have legally recognized same sex unions?
That's the Bible, not whack off material there Gaybiker. Show a little respect.
I'm really not interested in entering into your gay fantasy about Paul and David. Give it a rest. Maybe start a different thread? I bet Statist and dots would jump on that action.Gaybiker just likes to think about it a lot.You people DO realize that King David had a LEGALLY RECOGNIZED UNION with his best friend Jonathan, right?
I realize that you're clearly out of your mind... but setting aside your psychosis... to what would that be relevant?
Here ya go.............
David and Jonathan
There is an extensive and very sympathetic description of a same-sex relationship in the Bible, the story of David and Jonathan, e.g.: 1 Samuel 18:1-5, 1 Samuel 19:1-7, 1 Samuel 20:30-42, 2 Samuel 1:25-6. While their bond is described as non-sexual, it is difficult to characterize it as purely one of friendship.
Jonathan was the son of Saul, David's nemesis. Their souls are described as 'knit together'. David and Jonathan 'made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.' The word convenant is significant, because in the Tanach this word always implies a formal legal agreement. To mark this convenant, Jonathan literally gives David the clothes off of his back, as well as other gifts such as weapons.
Later in the narrative, Jonathan successfully intercedes with Saul to spare David's life. At their last meeing, 1 Samuel 20:41, they are described as kissing one another and weeping together. David's grief at Jonathan's death is profound and moving. In Davids lament for Jonathan he describes their friendship as '(sur)passing the love of women'. This elegy, 2 Samuel 1:18-27. known as 'the Bow,' is one of the most beloved passages in the Hebrew Bible.
LGBT Texts
If King David could have a legally recognized union by the nation of Israel with a member of the same gender (Jonathan), why can't other people have legally recognized same sex unions?
That's the Bible, not whack off material there Gaybiker. Show a little respect.
Yo..................Kaiser Twit....................how is it being disrespectful, when I give you actual Bible verses, as well as scholarly comment on it from an actual Bible scholar?
Sacred Texts Archive is a wonderful place to learn about almost any religion and belief system there is.
But.................I understand..................if you can't refute something, you insult the person, because you don't have enough brain cells to research something yourself.
I do.
While their bond is described as non-sexual
I'm really not interested in entering into your gay fantasy about Paul and David. Give it a rest. Maybe start a different thread? I bet Statist and dots would jump on that action.Gaybiker just likes to think about it a lot.I realize that you're clearly out of your mind... but setting aside your psychosis... to what would that be relevant?
Here ya go.............
David and Jonathan
There is an extensive and very sympathetic description of a same-sex relationship in the Bible, the story of David and Jonathan, e.g.: 1 Samuel 18:1-5, 1 Samuel 19:1-7, 1 Samuel 20:30-42, 2 Samuel 1:25-6. While their bond is described as non-sexual, it is difficult to characterize it as purely one of friendship.
Jonathan was the son of Saul, David's nemesis. Their souls are described as 'knit together'. David and Jonathan 'made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.' The word convenant is significant, because in the Tanach this word always implies a formal legal agreement. To mark this convenant, Jonathan literally gives David the clothes off of his back, as well as other gifts such as weapons.
Later in the narrative, Jonathan successfully intercedes with Saul to spare David's life. At their last meeing, 1 Samuel 20:41, they are described as kissing one another and weeping together. David's grief at Jonathan's death is profound and moving. In Davids lament for Jonathan he describes their friendship as '(sur)passing the love of women'. This elegy, 2 Samuel 1:18-27. known as 'the Bow,' is one of the most beloved passages in the Hebrew Bible.
LGBT Texts
If King David could have a legally recognized union by the nation of Israel with a member of the same gender (Jonathan), why can't other people have legally recognized same sex unions?
That's the Bible, not whack off material there Gaybiker. Show a little respect.
Yo..................Kaiser Twit....................how is it being disrespectful, when I give you actual Bible verses, as well as scholarly comment on it from an actual Bible scholar?
Sacred Texts Archive is a wonderful place to learn about almost any religion and belief system there is.
But.................I understand..................if you can't refute something, you insult the person, because you don't have enough brain cells to research something yourself.
I do.
While their bond is described as non-sexual
Sweet fail... .
If it helps ya, I have legally recognized unions with dozens of other males... we share responsibilities, earnings, and when it inevitably comes along... we share the occasional losses, but above all else we share our common bond to exploit others in the pursuit of our mutual interests, which is generally centered around the accrual of our mutual and respective wealth.
I know them all quite well, thank you. You should start a thread about it, I'm sure every perv on the site (besides you) would flock to it.I'm really not interested in entering into your gay fantasy about Paul and David. Give it a rest. Maybe start a different thread? I bet Statist and dots would jump on that action.Gaybiker just likes to think about it a lot.
Here ya go.............
David and Jonathan
There is an extensive and very sympathetic description of a same-sex relationship in the Bible, the story of David and Jonathan, e.g.: 1 Samuel 18:1-5, 1 Samuel 19:1-7, 1 Samuel 20:30-42, 2 Samuel 1:25-6. While their bond is described as non-sexual, it is difficult to characterize it as purely one of friendship.
Jonathan was the son of Saul, David's nemesis. Their souls are described as 'knit together'. David and Jonathan 'made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.' The word convenant is significant, because in the Tanach this word always implies a formal legal agreement. To mark this convenant, Jonathan literally gives David the clothes off of his back, as well as other gifts such as weapons.
Later in the narrative, Jonathan successfully intercedes with Saul to spare David's life. At their last meeing, 1 Samuel 20:41, they are described as kissing one another and weeping together. David's grief at Jonathan's death is profound and moving. In Davids lament for Jonathan he describes their friendship as '(sur)passing the love of women'. This elegy, 2 Samuel 1:18-27. known as 'the Bow,' is one of the most beloved passages in the Hebrew Bible.
LGBT Texts
If King David could have a legally recognized union by the nation of Israel with a member of the same gender (Jonathan), why can't other people have legally recognized same sex unions?
That's the Bible, not whack off material there Gaybiker. Show a little respect.
Yo..................Kaiser Twit....................how is it being disrespectful, when I give you actual Bible verses, as well as scholarly comment on it from an actual Bible scholar?
Sacred Texts Archive is a wonderful place to learn about almost any religion and belief system there is.
But.................I understand..................if you can't refute something, you insult the person, because you don't have enough brain cells to research something yourself.
I do.
It's not my fantasy, it's what is actually in the Bible. Did you not see that the reference verses were provided? I also provided a link to the Sacred Texts Archive.
"Ignorance is when you never had the chance to learn. Stupidity is when you had the chance, but didn't bother. It's quite okay to be ignorant, just don't be stupid".
Kaiser Twit..................you're about as stupid as they come, because you missed where the reference Bible verses were.
I know them all quite well, thank you. You should start a thread about it, I'm sure every perv on the site (besides you) would flock to it.I'm really not interested in entering into your gay fantasy about Paul and David. Give it a rest. Maybe start a different thread? I bet Statist and dots would jump on that action.Here ya go.............
David and Jonathan
There is an extensive and very sympathetic description of a same-sex relationship in the Bible, the story of David and Jonathan, e.g.: 1 Samuel 18:1-5, 1 Samuel 19:1-7, 1 Samuel 20:30-42, 2 Samuel 1:25-6. While their bond is described as non-sexual, it is difficult to characterize it as purely one of friendship.
Jonathan was the son of Saul, David's nemesis. Their souls are described as 'knit together'. David and Jonathan 'made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.' The word convenant is significant, because in the Tanach this word always implies a formal legal agreement. To mark this convenant, Jonathan literally gives David the clothes off of his back, as well as other gifts such as weapons.
Later in the narrative, Jonathan successfully intercedes with Saul to spare David's life. At their last meeing, 1 Samuel 20:41, they are described as kissing one another and weeping together. David's grief at Jonathan's death is profound and moving. In Davids lament for Jonathan he describes their friendship as '(sur)passing the love of women'. This elegy, 2 Samuel 1:18-27. known as 'the Bow,' is one of the most beloved passages in the Hebrew Bible.
LGBT Texts
If King David could have a legally recognized union by the nation of Israel with a member of the same gender (Jonathan), why can't other people have legally recognized same sex unions?
That's the Bible, not whack off material there Gaybiker. Show a little respect.
Yo..................Kaiser Twit....................how is it being disrespectful, when I give you actual Bible verses, as well as scholarly comment on it from an actual Bible scholar?
Sacred Texts Archive is a wonderful place to learn about almost any religion and belief system there is.
But.................I understand..................if you can't refute something, you insult the person, because you don't have enough brain cells to research something yourself.
I do.
It's not my fantasy, it's what is actually in the Bible. Did you not see that the reference verses were provided? I also provided a link to the Sacred Texts Archive.
"Ignorance is when you never had the chance to learn. Stupidity is when you had the chance, but didn't bother. It's quite okay to be ignorant, just don't be stupid".
Kaiser Twit..................you're about as stupid as they come, because you missed where the reference Bible verses were.
