Would you support a presidential candidate who held that biblical law superceded the Constitution?

[ScreamingEagle]

And which statement am I 'wrong on'? Does marriage not being allowed for polygamy magically make marriage prostitution? Or make prostitution legal?

What statement of mine *specifically* does your example prove wrong? Because it looks like you're arguing a point I'm not making.

Obergefell addressed the specific legal questions asked of the court. And the court answered those questions. Where did you ever get the idea that Obergefell ruled on, or was capable of ruling on every possible question related to marriage that ever did exist or could exist?

It addressed same sex marriage. If you want polygamy, make your case for it. And bring it before the courts. But Obergefell never so much as mentions polygamy.

both wanting to marry someone of the same sex and wanting to prostitute oneself are CHOICES MADE BY INDIVIDUALS. Why is it ok to make one illegal and the other legal? That isn't fair.

Once again, marriage isn't prostitution. You can equate them all you like. But it doesn't make your analogy any less void of logic or reason.

If you legalize one CHOICE you need to legalize ALL possible CHOICES an individual can make that doesn't harm others in their making that choice.

Nope. As the basis of the obergefell decision wasn't the legalization of 'all choices'. It was that the basis for exclusion of gays from marriage failed to meet the constitutional requirements.

You can imagine that Obergefell 'needed to' address all choices for everyone, forever. But your imagination really has nothing to do with the decision, caselaw, reality or the constitution.

All choices an individual can make involving the individual and consenting other individuals should be legal. Homosexuality should not be a special case that gets legalization while ignoring other choices people can make.

you're right....homosexuality should not be a special case.....it should be banned just like prostitution, etc.....gay marriage would be actually be banned today if the courts didn't think they could make law....a society needs to determine what values it will live by and this should be through the democratic process.....not through 5 or 6 lawyers in black robes....

No, he's not right. Why should homosexuality be criminalized?

our country was founded on many Christian principles and the more we get away from our original moral values the more our country sinks into depravity due to atheist secular relativistic arguments like yours.....if our country does not get back to its basic moral values our nation will rot from the inside......

The founders executed gays. The Puritians executed adulterers. Are these the 'christian principles' you think we should return to?

If so, why?

i don't care to regurgitate the arguments.....just know that if our society was allowed to vote on the issue gay marriage would be a dead issue....

i believe society can be tolerant of gays......however it does not accept gay marriage which is an affront to the laws of nature.......just ask the majority of states that rejected it before the issue was sent to their courts....

 

[bodecea]

When liberals raise such questions, I like to point out that nearly all liberals believe that secular humanist principles and/or "international law" supersede the Constitution. Liberal Supreme Court judges have routinely ignored the Constitution because they felt that "civil rights" or "human rights" or their idea of "progress" superseded the Constitution.

If the Constitution is accurately interpreted, i.e., in accordance with original intent, there will never be conflict between it and biblical law. For one thing, if we were following original intent, most of the hot button issues that have come before the Supreme Court in the last 50 years would have been left to the states to work out. That way, if you were living in a state and you found its laws and policies intolerable, you could simply move to a state more to your liking.

Nope...they don't supersede the Constitution....you just say that when you don't like a decision of the Supreme Court. And they are called Justices....how can we take you seriously when you don't even know what the Supreme Court consists of?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

No such person should ever become president of the USA.

There is no religious test dumb-ass... you can't prevent such a person from being elected. It's pretty basic dummy.

 

[Skylar]

Re another thread here regarding a presidential candidate that held a particular religion superceded the Constitution. My own view is there is no religion that supercedes the Constitution.

Absolutely I would. God knows better than man

Yeah, but whose god? Would you be happy with Allah setting the tone for the US? Or Vishnu? How about Amaterasu?

Ain't Religious Freedom a Cast Iron Mother Fucking Bitch?

You cannot restrict or deny another person their their Freedom of Religion because you do not like how they worship, where they worship, why they worship or what they call their version of their god.

Religious Freedom means exactly that.

You don't get to decide how another person can worship, but you sure as hell have to live with it.

In a discussion of god knowing better than man in terms of laws.......you need to get specific. As often the various 'gods' disagree.

Man tries and fails to interpret what man believes is god and will always fail. Man wants to play god, with any of pesky responsibilities of god.

And that's my beef. Even if you accept that god exists, even if you accept that ONLY your religion got it right, even if you accept that your holy book is the 'word of god'.......its still men interpreting its meaning.

There's no route to religion that doesn't involve the fallibility of man. As god doesn't break ties.

 

[bodecea]

The Constitution was based on Biblical teachings and written during the time when followers of Mohammed were raping boys, subjugating women and murdering non believers. Come to think of it times haven't changed much.

No it was not. Ancient Greek Democracy, Ancient Roman Republic, Enlightenment philosophers and Free Masonry.......they all had a hand in the forming of the Constitution.

 

[bodecea]

Oh, by the way:

Our Declaration of Independence is based off of these verses, which acknowledge and teach the value of objective moral values, fixed standards, absolute truth, and the sanctity of all life.

Exodus 20:1-17
Deuteronomy 30:19
Psalm 119:142-152
Proverbs 14:34
Isaiah 5:20-21
John 10:10
Romans 2:15
Hebrews 13:8

For our system of checks and balances, they are based on the principle that all men are sinners:

Genesis 8:21
Jeremiah 17:9
Mark 7:20-23
Romans 3:23
1 John 1:8

For wisdom on the three branches of government, the Judicial, Executive and Legislative see Isaiah 33:22

Religious freedom as stated in the First Amendment can be found in 1 Timothy 2:1-2

Separation of Church from State:

Deuteronomy 17:18-20
1 Kings 3:28
Ezra 7:24
Nehemiah 8:2
1 Samuel 7:15, 10:27, and 15:10-31
2 Samuel 12:1-18
Matthew 14:3-4
Luke 3:7-14 and 11:52
Acts 4:26-29

Article IV of the Constitution, which guarantees a Republican form of Government to all the states is based off of these verses:

Exodus 18:21
Deuteronomy 1:13
Judges 8:22-23
1 Samuel 8
Proverbs 11:14 and 24:6

The First, Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments all stress the importance of governing oneself and his family, as the first level of governance and are based off of these verses:

Matthew 18:15-18
Galatians 5:16-26
1 Corinthians 6:1-11
1 Timothy 3:1-5
Titus 2:1-8

The Fifth Amendment grants the right to life, liberty, and property, and is based off of Exodus 20:15-17


The Sixth Amendment grants a fair trial to those tried in our justice system, and is based off of these verses:

Exodus 20:16
Deuteronomy 19:15
Proverbs 24:28 and 25:18
Matthew 18:16

This fails as an appeal to authority fallacy.

Don't worr christians won't be head you for your worship of government and your messiah Obama

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

How odd that you keep insisting on calling President Obama "messiah". Isn't calling him Mr. President enough for you?

 

[Skylar]

both wanting to marry someone of the same sex and wanting to prostitute oneself are CHOICES MADE BY INDIVIDUALS. Why is it ok to make one illegal and the other legal? That isn't fair.

Once again, marriage isn't prostitution. You can equate them all you like. But it doesn't make your analogy any less void of logic or reason.

If you legalize one CHOICE you need to legalize ALL possible CHOICES an individual can make that doesn't harm others in their making that choice.

Nope. As the basis of the obergefell decision wasn't the legalization of 'all choices'. It was that the basis for exclusion of gays from marriage failed to meet the constitutional requirements.

You can imagine that Obergefell 'needed to' address all choices for everyone, forever. But your imagination really has nothing to do with the decision, caselaw, reality or the constitution.

All choices an individual can make involving the individual and consenting other individuals should be legal. Homosexuality should not be a special case that gets legalization while ignoring other choices people can make.

you're right....homosexuality should not be a special case.....it should be banned just like prostitution, etc.....gay marriage would be actually be banned today if the courts didn't think they could make law....a society needs to determine what values it will live by and this should be through the democratic process.....not through 5 or 6 lawyers in black robes....

No, he's not right. Why should homosexuality be criminalized?

our country was founded on many Christian principles and the more we get away from our original moral values the more our country sinks into depravity due to atheist secular relativistic arguments like yours.....if our country does not get back to its basic moral values our nation will rot from the inside......

The founders executed gays. The Puritians executed adulterers. Are these the 'christian principles' you think we should return to?

If so, why?

i don't care to regurgitate the arguments....

So is that a no on the execution of gays and adulterers in line with good ol' Christian values that our nation was founded on?

.just know that if our society was allowed to vote on the issue gay marriage would be a dead issue....

Two problems. First, support for gay marriage is well past the majority:

That's 60 to 37. A 27 point spread in favor of gay marriage. With the last 3 states to vote on the matter approving same sex marriage.

Second, we don't vote on rights. Making your assertions moot.

i believe society can be tolerant of gays......however it does not accept gay marriage which is an affront to the laws of nature.......just ask the majority of states that rejected it before the issue was sent to their courts....

There is no marriage in 'nature'. It exists solely within human societies. And it is what we say it is.

And we say it includes a man and a woman. Or a man and a man. Or a woman and a woman.

 

[bodecea]

You have to support your position, and he was not. If you are concerned about rdean, challenge him on it.

He is your pal, your chum.

For me he is malevolent filth. A malignant toad, a dishonest disease.

Dear me....such drama.

 

[bodecea]

"Would you support a presidential candidate who held that biblical law superceded the Constitution?"

Many would, but they lack the courage and conviction to admit it.

You have yet to point us to ANY such candidate.

Huckabee....Santorum...but fortunately they are toast.

 

[bodecea]

I think only a Nazi would disagree.

Yes you democrats do...... how many babies slaughtered since 74?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

A child dies somewhere because of disease, hunger, or abuse every 4 seconds, 20,000 a day. More than 140 million in the last 20 years. Where are you? Have you sold all your possessions to help these babies?

Or do you ignore them every day because you really don't give shit... uh huh

Hunger and disease isn't premeditated. abortions are but I don't expect socialists like you and the Nazi to understand that.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

You are a flaming hypocrite who couldn't care less about 'aborted babies' or any other baby. You are just another of the myriad masses of hypocrites who like to feel good by claiming the fake high ground.

Another 24 hours went by and you did nothing.

20,000 more... and god is watching...

Don't compare me to you progressives. I have taken care of progressive assholes kids who abandoned them since I have been a adult. So fuck you and your death cult

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Cool story, bro.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No FEMA Walmart camps for the anti-LGBT marriage opponents.

There arguments would not convince an 8th grader.

 

[bodecea]

Separation of Church and State always, no matter what the Church.

Where again is that in the Constitution?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

If you can't understand it, I can't explain it. [emoji38]

Fakey ..... go find it in the Constitution. Go boy. Fetch

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

So...if you don't believe separation of church and state is in the Constitution...you have no problem with the Constitutionality of the government taking over religion and telling religion what to do?

 

[bodecea]

Its a simple question, if you can't answer move along to the flamer forum.

Thanks for playing.

Dip shit the constitution already follows the bible ..... unlike the Quran

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

It absolutely does not.

Yes it does.... it is so funny watching you idiot commies try to talk about shit you know nothing about

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Commies. How 20th Century of you.

 

[bodecea]

Re another thread here regarding a presidential candidate that held a particular religion superceded the Constitution. My own view is there is no religion that supercedes the Constitution.

Well, actually, for the devout, God's laws supersede man's laws. This s why the U.S, Constitution is designed around Judaeo Christian law. And yes, it is really that simple.

Ancient Greek Democracies, Ancient Roman Republic, the Enlightenment, and Free Masonry is Judaeo-Christian law?

 

[bodecea]

Overturning an uncontitutional law isn't 'making law'. Its ruling that a given law is incompatible with the US constitution. Which is exactly what the judiciary is supposed to do.

Nothing in the constitution says anything about sodomy being a legally protected right, nor does it say anything that over rides thousands of years of traditional marriage.

And where in the constitution does it say that all rights that a person possesses are enumerated in the constitution? No where. In fact the 9th amendment explicitly contradicts that entire idea.

Shall I quote it for you? Or will you choose to read it yourself?

You can quote what you like but people have a right to defend their own values, God given rights as stated in our laws and their own precepts.

Got some examples?

Why for you twats can waste my time for the day? I think not.

So...you've got no examples?

 

[bodecea]

And it goes the heart of argument of the woman who wants to ignore the ruling of the Supreme Court because her 'religious beliefs' are more important and she only follows 'god's law'.

Yes its an uncomfortable question for those who claim to be Christian who seem more than anxious to challenge any other religion on the same subject.

Supreme Court is not suppose to make any laws either. But they have.

What law(s) did the Supreme Court make? Give a name and/or statute # of said law.

 

[Dot Com]

NO!!! >:-(

Sent from my VS415PP using Tapatalk

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Once again, marriage isn't prostitution. You can equate them all you like. But it doesn't make your analogy any less void of logic or reason.

Nope. As the basis of the obergefell decision wasn't the legalization of 'all choices'. It was that the basis for exclusion of gays from marriage failed to meet the constitutional requirements.

You can imagine that Obergefell 'needed to' address all choices for everyone, forever. But your imagination really has nothing to do with the decision, caselaw, reality or the constitution.

All choices an individual can make involving the individual and consenting other individuals should be legal. Homosexuality should not be a special case that gets legalization while ignoring other choices people can make.

you're right....homosexuality should not be a special case.....it should be banned just like prostitution, etc.....gay marriage would be actually be banned today if the courts didn't think they could make law....a society needs to determine what values it will live by and this should be through the democratic process.....not through 5 or 6 lawyers in black robes....

No, he's not right. Why should homosexuality be criminalized?

our country was founded on many Christian principles and the more we get away from our original moral values the more our country sinks into depravity due to atheist secular relativistic arguments like yours.....if our country does not get back to its basic moral values our nation will rot from the inside......

The founders executed gays. The Puritians executed adulterers. Are these the 'christian principles' you think we should return to?

If so, why?

i don't care to regurgitate the arguments....

So is that a no on the execution of gays and adulterers in line with good ol' Christian values that our nation was founded on?

.just know that if our society was allowed to vote on the issue gay marriage would be a dead issue....

Two problems. First, support for gay marriage is well past the majority:

That's 60 to 37. A 27 point spread in favor of gay marriage. With the last 3 states to vote on the matter approving same sex marriage.

Second, we don't vote on rights. Making your assertions moot.

i believe society can be tolerant of gays......however it does not accept gay marriage which is an affront to the laws of nature.......just ask the majority of states that rejected it before the issue was sent to their courts....

There is no marriage in 'nature'. It exists solely within human societies. And it is what we say it is.

And we say it includes a man and a woman. Or a man and a man. Or a woman and a woman.

if...as you say....marriage is 'what we say it is'......then why don't we all have a vote on it.....? why does the gay mafia have to push it through the courts....?

seems to me the lefties prefer to dictate from above via the activist courts rather than allow for a free democracy.....

and the fact that our children are now accepting gay marriage is only indicative of the leftie propaganda that has been infiltrating our once moral society.....relativism is taking over....

 

[bodecea]

Re another thread here regarding a presidential candidate that held a particular religion superceded the Constitution. My own view is there is no religion that supercedes the Constitution.

Absolutely I would. God knows better than man

Yeah, but whose god? Would you be happy with Allah setting the tone for the US? Or Vishnu? How about Amaterasu?

There is only ONE true God.

And everyone says that who believes in a god/goddess.....but they don't all agree on what that "ONE true God" is.

 

[SillyWabbit]

Law of is of man
Man is fallible

Law of Man is still way better than Religious Law.

There is NO RELIGIOUS LAW.

Tell that to people getting their head chopped off--and the people chopping them off.