|
 | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
| (...) Show me specifically where I said that their comments were politically motivated. I think I specifically said that a) they weren't speaking as Christian leaders, because they have no authority (that I recognize anyway) to speak on behalf of (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| |
|  
all, rights
(score: 0.906)
|
|
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
| You know, I had kinda hoped that someone other than John might have spoken up in defence here. Perhaps that they have not is a very good sign. This post is longish, and I do apologise. I don't normally wax quite so lyrical, but it is a deep and (...) (21 years ago, 13-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all, rights
(score: 0.906)
|
|
| |
|
all, rights
(score: 0.906)
|
|
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
| (...) I do. But you now say "I wouldn't have any idea as to their motivations" (...) It is you who said they were politically motivated, and now say "I wouldn't have any idea as to their motivations"! (...) I'm just not clear on what the threat was. (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| |
|
all, rights
(score: 0.905)
|
|
| | 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)
| |
|
all, rights
(score: 0.905)
|
|
| | 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)
| |
|
all, rights
(score: 0.905)
|
|
| | 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)
| |
|
all, rights
(score: 0.905)
|
|
| | 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)
| |
|
all, rights
(score: 0.905)
|
|
| | 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)
| |
|
all, rights
(score: 0.905)
|
|
| | 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)
| |
|
all, rights
(score: 0.905)
|
|
| |
|
all, rights, property
(score: 0.902)
|
|
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
| (...) Great idea. Teach your children well and all that. Not seeing the connection to drug laws or public nudity laws though. (...) Eh, what? ... (was dozing off for a sec, this all seems familiar to me somehow) Oh! Yes! Morality, inasmuch as it (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all, property
(score: 0.900)
|
|
| |
|
all, rights
(score: 0.897)
|
|
| | Re: This is where I actually want a gun
|
| (...) HA, don't let the Libs hear you say that;-) (...) But herein lies the rub. Does the punishment fit the crime? A 3 time drug abuser can get about the same length sentence (depending upon the ages of the criminals-- hey, life is only so long). (...) (21 years ago, 9-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| |
|
all, rights
(score: 0.897)
|
|
| |
|
all, rights, property
(score: 0.896)
|
|
| |
|
all, rights
(score: 0.896)
|
|
| | Re: To change the tune...
|
| By and large, I agree with DaveK's attack on our president. He lied to us and I believe, still, that he is a bad man. But that doesn't change the fact that Saddam Hussein is also a bad man. Really bad! I do believe that the world is a better place (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all, rights
(score: 0.896)
|
|
| | Peanuts on Airplanes (was Re:Skin)
|
| (...) So this is an interesting example, because the negative effects are pretty well understood, and the costs of an alternative are pretty well understood. Of course what may not be so understood is how many other substances can cause fatal (...) (21 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all, rights
(score: 0.896)
|
|
| |
|
all, rights
(score: 0.896)
|
|
| | Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada!
|
| (...) There are two basic thrusts that I'll take with this. First, and what I expect to me more convincing/interesting to the "pro-spank" or "parents' rights" crowd, is that it produces long-term deleterious motivational effects. It seems that (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all, rights
(score: 0.896)
|
