 | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Let me clarify: I believe it is totally appropriate to threaten any and all leaders of any nation who aid and abett terrorists who threaten our national security. (...) Against a greater threat, namely the USSR. (...) Against a greater threat, (...) (21 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) What courage? Newsom hasn't even been arrested for disobeying the law! I think I might come to California and steal your LEGO Pirate collection and expect equal treatment Newsom is getting under the law-- namely the law looking the other way. (...) (21 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) So you have no problem threatening our own leaders (watch it, with the Patriot Act, you might be locked up for life with no trial on this one...)? Our leaders supported the Taliban, after all... Our leaders supported SH, after all... (I'm too (...) (21 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Here is his justification: (URL) I find this so disingenuous! "Pursuant to my sworn duty to uphold the California Constitution, including specifically its equal protection clause..." What about the rest of the CA Constitution? Upholding all of (...) (21 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Which doesn't mean a thing if they are in violation of the constition. That's the whole point in doing this kind of thing - to test the law. Gotta admire their courage. (...) What a frivilous and idiotic misuse of the amendment process - just (...) (21 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) I don't know which leaders you are talking about and even if I did I wouldn't have any idea as to their motivations (unless they so indicated). I come from a traditional that believes that each and every person has direct access to God without (...) (21 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Oh. Yeah, I guess it's pretty clear: Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Well, in that case, I applaud Mayor Newsom for defying a bogus, descriminatory law! (...) Hmm. "Civil Right to marry" might have (...) (21 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Freed without charge
|
|
5 Britons were released from Guantanamo Bay without charge yesterday after being imprisoned for two years. One of them is now a free man, the other four have had access to legal counsel and are now being questioned. Labour Peer and QC Helena Kennedy (...) (21 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Pope aside, are saying that the statments made by many church leaders were politically motivated? (...) He was under no obligation to step down. (...) Come on John, that lie has been long exsposed. Your naivety must be starting to wear by now? (...) (21 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) The proof is in the pudding. Or, as Jesus put it: "If you grow a healthy tree, you'll pick healthy fruit. If you grow a diseased tree, you'll pick worm-eaten fruit. The fruit tells you about the tree." Matthew 12:33 I say: don't tell me you (...) (21 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Sorry. I was referring to those performing the marriages. California's Prop 22 specifically bans same-sex marriage! I mean, what the hey? (...) This is the problem. Nothing seems to matter-- federal law or state law. Both are in effect and yet (...) (21 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) But the trick, for outsiders like me, is that there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to accept one group's system of beliefs in preference to any other group's. Throughout history there have been innumerable groups whose methods of (...) (21 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) I'm a little lost on the pronouns here--does "they" refer to the people getting married and/or the people performing/solemnizing those marriages? My understanding is that the DOMA frees states from the obligation to recognize same-sex (...) (21 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) I am not a Catholic so whatever the Pope says is inconsequential to me-- I have no idea as to his motivations. (...) Many died in Iraq because of SH's refusal to abdicate his rule. If he had stepped down, there would have been no need to (...) (21 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) The religion of the believers and followers of Jesus the Christ (Messiah). (...) Jesus' teachings were obviously important, but don't forget His work as Savior, dying for the sins of all people and thereby justifying the world to God. JOHN (21 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Are you saying the Pope was politically motivated, or that killing tens of thousands in Iraq was a political decision? Scott A (21 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Fair enough. (...) Well, it is if the law hasn't even been contested before them yet! There is a process with which they apparently cannot be bothered. (...) Good question. I think he believed that judges would actually uphold the law of the (...) (21 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) In all seriousness, how do you define "Christianity?" I would suggest that the answer cannot be "the teachings of Christ according to scripture," because that answer, for all practical purposes, reduces to "the opinions of particular (...) (21 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) "Christianity" and opinions (especially political ones) of particular Christians are not synonymous. JOHN (21 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Well, I suppose since I'm not interested in marrying a man, I'll let this one pass for arguments sake to get onto the juicer bits below... (...) Wooohooo! But then, this isn't any different from a standard politician's template - they just (...) (21 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
