Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[RandallFlagg]

We don't have a Christian theocracy. Nor are we in any way bound to follow ancient law,

unless of course the voters decide to pass modern laws that happen to reflect something in ancient law.

Thats not the point. The subject was that Jesus never spoke about homosexuality. Jesus wouldn't have necessarily had a reason to speak out about it. It was a given in those days.

No one here is advocating adopting Mosiac law into the civil code.

If you are arguing for the teachings of Jesus to be reflected in our laws, as you are above, then you are advocating for theocracy, albeit a democratic theocracy of sorts.

No one is arguing anything of the sort. The "lady" stated that "Jesus never said a damn thing about homosexuality" and I'm pointing out that she was both incorrect and uninformed. Nothing more.

I don't know where you get the idea that I am advocating a return to Mosiac law. I am not.

I'm sorry if you read it that way.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is no violation.
But your point is: You are entitled to any opinion, as long as it agrees with mine.
Typical libs. They claim to respect divergent opinions and then are shocked and outraged when they discover there are divergent opinions.

The 10th Amendment only allows states to make laws that the federal government doesn't prevent them from making;

that would exclude unconstitutional laws.

The 10th Amendment does no such thing.

Then what would you like to tell us that the phrase 'nor prohibited by it to the states' means?

 

[kaz]

Both DOMA and Prop 8 were ruled unconstitutional (one by SCOTUS) because they violated the due process of gays and lesbians.

Pure legislation by the bench

Like Heller and the Voting Rights Act?

I was thinking more like Roe v. Wade and New London.

 

[Seawytch]

Pure legislation by the bench

Like Heller and the Voting Rights Act?

I was thinking more like Roe v. Wade and New London.

Of course you were. Rulings you like, a-okay...rulings you don't ..."judicial activism!"

 

[Seawytch]

Thats not the point. The subject was that Jesus never spoke about homosexuality. Jesus wouldn't have necessarily had a reason to speak out about it. It was a given in those days.

No one here is advocating adopting Mosiac law into the civil code.

If you are arguing for the teachings of Jesus to be reflected in our laws, as you are above, then you are advocating for theocracy, albeit a democratic theocracy of sorts.

No one is arguing anything of the sort. The "lady" stated that "Jesus never said a damn thing about homosexuality" and I'm pointing out that she was both incorrect and uninformed. Nothing more.

I don't know where you get the idea that I am advocating a return to Mosiac law. I am not.

I'm sorry if you read it that way.

He didnt. He never said a thing. He condemned divorce more, but they still get to call themselves Christian. So do gay Christians.

 

[RKMBrown]

If God and/or Jesus wrote the Bible, then we already know that for some reason they were wrong about how the Earth was created,

which is curious since God says he created it.

What part was wrong? The only part most folks complain about is the time duration it took. But those folks are usually ignorant to the fact that time is relative to the traveler.

In other words mortal men are allowed to interpret Genesis any way they see fit in order to make the creation myth match up with scientific fact and therefore clear God of any charge of error?

lol good one.

You lost me there. Are you saying time is not relative to the traveler? Or that you think you are smarter than god and he could not have known?

 

[kaz]

Like Heller and the Voting Rights Act?

I was thinking more like Roe v. Wade and New London.

Of course you were. Rulings you like, a-okay...rulings you don't ..."judicial activism!"

The one being political in all those rulings is blatantly you.

- Heller - The Constitution enforced the second amendment. Simple case based on the actual Constitution. That case did not in any way expand Federal power. There is no judicial activism in this unless you're arguing you don't accept Marbury v. Madison.

- Voting Rights Act. There is no basis in the 14th amendment to punish States because of "historical" behavior. If they discriminate, enforce it, if they don't, don't. The 14th does not say if the Feds have the opinion you have discriminated before, then they can arbitrarily punish them. Again, this does not in any way expand Federal power. Clearly not activism, unless you're arguing you don't accept Marbury v. Madison.

However,

- Roe v. Wade. Abortion isn't in the Constitution. Murder isn't in the Constitution. This greatly expands Federal power giving the Federal government the right to dictate the definition of murder to States. And when you say I "like it" you're perfect in your record of being wrong every time, I'm pro-choice. There is no Constitutional basis for the Fed to have Roe v. Wade power. Pure judicial activism.

- New London. The Constitution gives the right to take land for "public use." Not to take it from the hands of one private citizen and give it to another. This massively expands all government power. Judicial activism pure and simple, there is no Constitutional basis for that. Pure judicial activism.

New London does show the left's hypocrisy. You supported an evil developer over grandma. Then BTW, they didn't build it. Grandma got kicked out of her home, and it got overgrown by weeds and is sitting there. You're the hypocrite, my dear.

 

[RandallFlagg]

If you are arguing for the teachings of Jesus to be reflected in our laws, as you are above, then you are advocating for theocracy, albeit a democratic theocracy of sorts.

No one is arguing anything of the sort. The "lady" stated that "Jesus never said a damn thing about homosexuality" and I'm pointing out that she was both incorrect and uninformed. Nothing more.

I don't know where you get the idea that I am advocating a return to Mosiac law. I am not.

I'm sorry if you read it that way.

He didnt. He never said a thing. He condemned divorce more, but they still get to call themselves Christian. So do gay Christians.

OK...so since you apparently didn't read what I posted, I'll put it the way I posted it in the above post:

Jesus never spoke of Beastiality, or gang rape, or incest , does that mean that they are OK?

One more time...your legalese is not an excuse. You simply can't pull a "Bill Clinton" and define "is" by what YOUR definition is.

I'm an NOT calling you a "non-Christian" or a "non-believer" or an "atheist" or anything of the kind. I do not agree with your "lifestyle". I believe that it is an abomination, but you are free to do whatever it is that you folks do. - that is between you and God. I have MORE than enough to answer for in MY life than to worry about you and your beliefs (or rather, the lack of). You will stand before God - just as I will.

 

[The Rabbi]

You don't have to hold your breath...Just read the ruling in Windsor.

Although Congress has great authority to design laws to fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment,"

I dont see anything about denying gays anything under due process. You fail.

Both DOMA and Prop 8 were ruled unconstitutional (one by SCOTUS) because they violated the due process of gays and lesbians.

DOMA was a federal law. I dont care about Prop 8.

 

[RKMBrown]

No one is arguing anything of the sort. The "lady" stated that "Jesus never said a damn thing about homosexuality" and I'm pointing out that she was both incorrect and uninformed. Nothing more.

I don't know where you get the idea that I am advocating a return to Mosiac law. I am not.

I'm sorry if you read it that way.

He didnt. He never said a thing. He condemned divorce more, but they still get to call themselves Christian. So do gay Christians.

OK...so since you apparently didn't read what I posted, I'll put it the way I posted it in the above post:

Jesus never spoke of Beastiality, or gang rape, or incest , does that mean that they are OK?

One more time...your legalese is not an excuse. You simply can't pull a "Bill Clinton" and define "is" by what YOUR definition is.

I'm an NOT calling you a "non-Christian" or a "non-believer" or an "atheist" or anything of the kind. I do not agree with your "lifestyle". I believe that it is an abomination, but you are free to do whatever it is that you folks do. - that is between you and God. I have MORE than enough to answer for in MY life than to worry about you and your beliefs (or rather, the lack of). You will stand before God - just as I will.

And when you stand before God, do you think he's gonna pat you on the back for your attacks on gays right to life liberty and happiness? You think he's gonna give you a gold star for your gay bashing attitude?

FYI King James.. you know the guy that commissioned the King James bible.. gay.

 

[The Rabbi]

He didnt. He never said a thing. He condemned divorce more, but they still get to call themselves Christian. So do gay Christians.

OK...so since you apparently didn't read what I posted, I'll put it the way I posted it in the above post:

Jesus never spoke of Beastiality, or gang rape, or incest , does that mean that they are OK?

One more time...your legalese is not an excuse. You simply can't pull a "Bill Clinton" and define "is" by what YOUR definition is.

I'm an NOT calling you a "non-Christian" or a "non-believer" or an "atheist" or anything of the kind. I do not agree with your "lifestyle". I believe that it is an abomination, but you are free to do whatever it is that you folks do. - that is between you and God. I have MORE than enough to answer for in MY life than to worry about you and your beliefs (or rather, the lack of). You will stand before God - just as I will.

And when you stand before God, do you think he's gonna pat you on the back for your attacks on gays right to life liberty and happiness? You think he's gonna give you a gold star for your gay bashing attitude?

You think G-d is skippy with gay sex?

 

[RKMBrown]

OK...so since you apparently didn't read what I posted, I'll put it the way I posted it in the above post:

Jesus never spoke of Beastiality, or gang rape, or incest , does that mean that they are OK?

One more time...your legalese is not an excuse. You simply can't pull a "Bill Clinton" and define "is" by what YOUR definition is.

I'm an NOT calling you a "non-Christian" or a "non-believer" or an "atheist" or anything of the kind. I do not agree with your "lifestyle". I believe that it is an abomination, but you are free to do whatever it is that you folks do. - that is between you and God. I have MORE than enough to answer for in MY life than to worry about you and your beliefs (or rather, the lack of). You will stand before God - just as I will.

And when you stand before God, do you think he's gonna pat you on the back for your attacks on gays right to life liberty and happiness? You think he's gonna give you a gold star for your gay bashing attitude?

You think G-d is skippy with gay sex?

Yes.

 

[The Rabbi]

And when you stand before God, do you think he's gonna pat you on the back for your attacks on gays right to life liberty and happiness? You think he's gonna give you a gold star for your gay bashing attitude?

You think G-d is skippy with gay sex?

Yes.

Proof?

 

[NYcarbineer]

What part was wrong? The only part most folks complain about is the time duration it took. But those folks are usually ignorant to the fact that time is relative to the traveler.

In other words mortal men are allowed to interpret Genesis any way they see fit in order to make the creation myth match up with scientific fact and therefore clear God of any charge of error?

lol good one.

You lost me there. Are you saying time is not relative to the traveler? Or that you think you are smarter than god and he could not have known?

I'm saying that Genesis is a creation myth written by Men. Perhaps it was written by God through men,

but we do not have any evidence whatsoever that that is the case.

 

[TemplarKormac]

In other words mortal men are allowed to interpret Genesis any way they see fit in order to make the creation myth match up with scientific fact and therefore clear God of any charge of error?

lol good one.

You lost me there. Are you saying time is not relative to the traveler? Or that you think you are smarter than god and he could not have known?

I'm saying that Genesis is a creation myth written by Men. Perhaps it was written by God through men,

but we do not have any evidence whatsoever that that is the case.

The machinations of our creator, the ruler of this universe and the next, are not made for the minds of men to understand.

 

[RKMBrown]

You think G-d is skippy with gay sex?

Yes.

Proof?

You asked me what I think. I answered what I think with my opinion. My signature is proof of my opinion.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes.

Proof?

You asked me what I think. I answered what I think with my opinion. My signature is proof of my opinion.

So it is an opinion based on nothing more than your feelings. And as such worthless.

 

[RKMBrown]

In other words mortal men are allowed to interpret Genesis any way they see fit in order to make the creation myth match up with scientific fact and therefore clear God of any charge of error?

lol good one.

You lost me there. Are you saying time is not relative to the traveler? Or that you think you are smarter than god and he could not have known?

I'm saying that Genesis is a creation myth written by Men. Perhaps it was written by God through men,

but we do not have any evidence whatsoever that that is the case.

Since you don't speak for all of mankind, I assume you mean you don't believe we have evidence that genesis is a creation myth written by Men or that it was written by God through men. I'm sure there are a few dozen other alternatives that you also would not agree to.

My point was merely that most folks assume they know one way or another. If one is willing to recognize that a day, is just a concept. Then one might be willing to consider that the length of time of the day for god during creation might be billions of years... or perhaps the telling refers to his creation of the design for the universe. I would assume that any god could see forward in time through the machinations of his design, that there would be light and it would be good. I would assume that god is not limited to time and space as you and I are in these corporal bodies.

 

[RKMBrown]

Proof?

You asked me what I think. I answered what I think with my opinion. My signature is proof of my opinion.

So it is an opinion based on nothing more than your feelings. And as such worthless.

If my opinion is worthless, why did you bother to ask for it? Were you expecting an insightful response or hoping for something to shoot at? If insightful I'll make an attempt. If you need cannon fodder, why should I waste my time.

 

[RandallFlagg]

He didnt. He never said a thing. He condemned divorce more, but they still get to call themselves Christian. So do gay Christians.

OK...so since you apparently didn't read what I posted, I'll put it the way I posted it in the above post:

Jesus never spoke of Beastiality, or gang rape, or incest , does that mean that they are OK?

One more time...your legalese is not an excuse. You simply can't pull a "Bill Clinton" and define "is" by what YOUR definition is.

I'm an NOT calling you a "non-Christian" or a "non-believer" or an "atheist" or anything of the kind. I do not agree with your "lifestyle". I believe that it is an abomination, but you are free to do whatever it is that you folks do. - that is between you and God. I have MORE than enough to answer for in MY life than to worry about you and your beliefs (or rather, the lack of). You will stand before God - just as I will.

And when you stand before God, do you think he's gonna pat you on the back for your attacks on gays right to life liberty and happiness? You think he's gonna give you a gold star for your gay bashing attitude?

FYI King James.. you know the guy that commissioned the King James bible.. gay.

Well Cowboy, I have never rolled a gay in my life, so I have never "attacked" a gay. Never once. If you and your gay buddies enjoy what it is you do, knock yourself out. Means nothing to me.

See, here's the deal there six-gun Pete. I was born black, at a time when it wasn't "cool" to be black. My elders FOUGHT to have everyday, common "rights" like being able to drink from the same water fountain, or to shop in the same stores as you white guys, or two eat in the front of the restaurant instead of the back room or to, God forbid, be able to vote.

Tell me there Cowboy, what "rights" don't fudge-packers have? Has a lesbian ever been denied the right to vote? has a homo ever been told to sit in the back of the bus? Has some limp-wristed guy ever been told that he may not vote?

I'm sure that God and I will get along just fine. I would suggest that you worry about your own salvation and I'll worry about mine.