Would you support a presidential candidate who held that biblical law superceded the Constitution?

[Slyhunter]

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.

What about my right to do with myself or my property as i see fit as long as it harms no other. What about my right to pursue happiness my way? Via prostitution drug using or rideshare?

 

[bodecea]

No such person should ever become president of the USA.

Then I guess you would have been against our 1st President George Washington.
Quote from part of his farewell address.
George Washington's Farewell Address of 1796
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Washington also said these:

1. “If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.”
~Founding Father George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789

2. “Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by a difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.”
~Founding Father George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792

3. “We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition… In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States.”
~Founding Father George Washington, letter to the members of the New Church in Baltimore, January 27, 1793

 

[bodecea]

Law of is of man
Man is fallible

True enough. But God isn't here to tell us what He, she, they, it want. Instead, its man telling us what God 'really means'.

Which leads us back to your statement: man is fallible.

Man could not have been that consistent. God wrote the Bible.
The Bible contains 66 books written over 1,500 years by 40 different writers but it tells one "big story" of God's plan of salvation that culminated in Jesus Christ. You can't even pass a secret around a circle of 12 people and get the same message at the end. There is a wide variety of human authors and themes (in the Bible). Yet behind these,there lies a single divine author with a single unifying theme.

What kind of writing utensil did he use? Or should I ask what font he used....I hope it wasn't Comic Sans.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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.

What about my right to do with myself or my property as i see fit as long as it harms no other. What about my right to pursue happiness my way? Via prostitution drug using or rideshare?

prostitution and drugs affect society in a negative way......what about the rights of others to live in a decent society.....?

that's why we have a law-making Congress.....to sort out the rules for society.......the People should decide what type of society they wish to live in......not a bunch of leftie lawyers in black robes who find all kinds of shit under 'penumbras' or whatever....

 

[bodecea]

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....

Not in the way you think.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"the People should decide what type of society they wish to live in" without violating the rights of others.

Pesky thing that Constitution.

 

[jillian]

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

There isn't a single correct assertion there.

 

[jillian]

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....

they are an affront to your brand of religion.

that is irrelevant to the entitlement of homosexuals to equal protection under the law.

 

[IsaacNewton]

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.

Another...

The Constitution isn't designed around Christianity, though many like to believe that cuz' it makes them feel all fuzzy and cozy.


Would... you... vote for.... someone .... who said.... they... would ... enforce.... biblical 'law'... over... the Constutiton.

Seems an easy thing to answer. Give it a shot.

 

[jillian]

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.

you have the idea of "religious test" backwards.

 

[bravoactual]

Non-believers have an easy choice...

However...

Within the domain of Believers, which dominates?

1. God's laws

...or...

2. Man's laws?

The question for you is then.....is the Constitution man's law or GOd's law?

There is no "God's Law". Because there is no God.

 

[peach174]

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?

It's all of the above as well as some Judea-Christian laws.

 

[bravoactual]

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.

But you cannot just claim on Religion is better when you have Christians killing people as well.

 

[Misty]

No and neither would Ben Carson as he stated.

 

[peach174]

Law of is of man
Man is fallible

True enough. But God isn't here to tell us what He, she, they, it want. Instead, its man telling us what God 'really means'.

Which leads us back to your statement: man is fallible.

Man could not have been that consistent. God wrote the Bible.
The Bible contains 66 books written over 1,500 years by 40 different writers but it tells one "big story" of God's plan of salvation that culminated in Jesus Christ. You can't even pass a secret around a circle of 12 people and get the same message at the end. There is a wide variety of human authors and themes (in the Bible). Yet behind these,there lies a single divine author with a single unifying theme.

What kind of writing utensil did he use? Or should I ask what font he used....I hope it wasn't Comic Sans.

He inspired the Men who wrote it.
Be insulting and flippant as you want to but history is there for the facts.
Moses who is credited with writing the Torah (Five books of Moses; Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) was educated in the house of Pharaoh, he would have been literate not only in Egyptian but the surrounding cultures in his day. In the book of Job, dated to the Patriarchal period (2100-1800 B.C.) before the time of Moses, Job refers to writing and the material on which one writes. Writing with an Iron pen upon stone and lead is clearly described; lead a soft material could be inscribed with an Iron stylus. Soft Clay was also a material used to write upon, preserving the words of the writer.
Dismiss it all you want to but the facts are there like it or not.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

"the People should decide what type of society they wish to live in" without violating the rights of others.

Pesky thing that Constitution.

so you think you should have the 'right' to deny a child of his actual mother and replace her with a man.....?

funny how 'rights' suddenly become a relative thing.......this is all part of the pesky depravity of RELATIVISM......

 

[bodecea]

Law of is of man
Man is fallible

True enough. But God isn't here to tell us what He, she, they, it want. Instead, its man telling us what God 'really means'.

Which leads us back to your statement: man is fallible.

Man could not have been that consistent. God wrote the Bible.
The Bible contains 66 books written over 1,500 years by 40 different writers but it tells one "big story" of God's plan of salvation that culminated in Jesus Christ. You can't even pass a secret around a circle of 12 people and get the same message at the end. There is a wide variety of human authors and themes (in the Bible). Yet behind these,there lies a single divine author with a single unifying theme.

What kind of writing utensil did he use? Or should I ask what font he used....I hope it wasn't Comic Sans.

He inspired the Men who wrote it.
Be insulting and flippant as you want to but history is there for the facts.
Moses who is credited with writing the Torah (Five books of Moses; Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) was educated in the house of Pharaoh, he would have been literate not only in Egyptian but the surrounding cultures in his day. In the book of Job, dated to the Patriarchal period (2100-1800 B.C.) before the time of Moses, Job refers to writing and the material on which one writes. Writing with an Iron pen upon stone and lead is clearly described; lead a soft material could be inscribed with an Iron stylus. Soft Clay was also a material used to write upon, preserving the words of the writer.
Dismiss it all you want to but the facts are there like it or not.

And you know that....how? There are several versions of the bible....fact. There are several translations of the bible....fact. There are several contradictions in the bible...fact.

Your god did kind of a sucky job inspiring Men, didn't "he"?

 

[Bonzi]

Law of is of man
Man is fallible

True enough. But God isn't here to tell us what He, she, they, it want. Instead, its man telling us what God 'really means'.

Which leads us back to your statement: man is fallible.

Man could not have been that consistent. God wrote the Bible.
The Bible contains 66 books written over 1,500 years by 40 different writers but it tells one "big story" of God's plan of salvation that culminated in Jesus Christ. You can't even pass a secret around a circle of 12 people and get the same message at the end. There is a wide variety of human authors and themes (in the Bible). Yet behind these,there lies a single divine author with a single unifying theme.

What kind of writing utensil did he use? Or should I ask what font he used....I hope it wasn't Comic Sans.

He inspired the Men who wrote it.
Be insulting and flippant as you want to but history is there for the facts.
Moses who is credited with writing the Torah (Five books of Moses; Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) was educated in the house of Pharaoh, he would have been literate not only in Egyptian but the surrounding cultures in his day. In the book of Job, dated to the Patriarchal period (2100-1800 B.C.) before the time of Moses, Job refers to writing and the material on which one writes. Writing with an Iron pen upon stone and lead is clearly described; lead a soft material could be inscribed with an Iron stylus. Soft Clay was also a material used to write upon, preserving the words of the writer.
Dismiss it all you want to but the facts are there like it or not.

And you know that....how? There are several versions of the bible....fact. There are several translations of the bible....fact. There are several contradictions in the bible...fact.

Your god did kind of a sucky job inspiring Men, didn't "he"?

If you cared to research from the "other side of the coin" you would see differently... but you only do the research AGAINST the Bible...

 

[JakeStarkey]

The theists are all relativists, as are the atheists.

The each accept certain facts and discared equally or more relevant facts.

We need an impartial playing field with umpires: Constitution and SCOTUS.

 

[Skylar]

"the People should decide what type of society they wish to live in" without violating the rights of others.

Pesky thing that Constitution.

so you think you should have the 'right' to deny a child of his actual mother and replace her with a man.....?

Gays and lesbians have kids all the time. 10s of thousands in fact live in same sex households. So denying them marriage doesn't magically mean that their children have opposite sex parents.

It only guarantees these children never have married parents. Which only hurts these children.

funny how 'rights' suddenly become a relative thing.......this is all part of the pesky depravity of RELATIVISM......

Relative to what?