Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think that a can of worms has been opened regarding the gay and lesbian community.
This decision, a 4 to 3 decision, was 4 Jurists legislating from the bench.
IMO, I think you are going see many States take actions, similar to what Arizona is doing (a Constitutional Amendment being forwarded to the voters) and when the states limit / define marriage as between a man and a woman, and retailiation being taken against the gay / lesbian community.
I think that a can of worms has been opened regarding the gay and lesbian community.
This decision, a 4 to 3 decision, was 4 Jurists legislating from the bench.
IMO, I think you are going see many States take actions, similar to what Arizona is doing (a Constitutional Amendment being forwarded to the voters) and when the states limit / define marriage as between a man and a woman, and retailiation being taken against the gay / lesbian community.
Again, I'll ask, were Perez v. Sharp and Loving v. Virginia decided incorrectly? The first case was also a 4-3 decision. Public sentiment was strongly opposed to interracial marriages at the time. I'm sure Brown v. Board of Education was highly unpopular too.
Again, I'll ask, were Perez v. Sharp and Loving v. Virginia decided incorrectly? The first case was also a 4-3 decision. Public sentiment was strongly opposed to interracial marriages at the time. I'm sure Brown v. Board of Education was highly unpopular too.
There you bring the race thing into it again. If I was a black man I would be very offended by you comparing your sexual behavior to the color of my skin. They are apples and oranges and there is no valid comparison.
California couldn't force a church to perform a wedding if they wanted to, but the only thing holding back a number of Christian churches is the secular prohibitions against gay marriage.
Interestingly I've never found any place in the Bible where Jesus condemned homosexuality. It was certainly well known in that era. Maybe he didn't think it was a big issue as long as you loved your fellow man.
Well obviously we see that just about anything could happen in California. You can try to smoke sombody else out about what the Bible says about Homosexuality, but I wont waste my time, plenty of others are covering it quite well. I will stick to the pretty solid argument that, "One man's an*s was not designed by God, mother nature, evolution or Darwin himself to have another Man's pen*s being a ramrod up there" We certainly dont need the states officially recognizing or sanctioning that type of bizzare behavior!
if ONLY that were true! then the CA real estate prices could finally come down to earth when the holy rollers and illegal aliens exit the State, making room for all of the sinners and sodomites from the other states to claim california as our "homeland" LOL
There you bring the race thing into it again. If I was a black man I would be very offended by you comparing your sexual behavior to the color of my skin. They are apples and oranges and there is no valid comparison.
I bring it up because the arguments used against the two are the same.
I honestly don't understand how people could have used the Bible to support racism if they even did. The Bible makes it clear that we are all made in the image of God. The Bible also makes it clear whats sin and whats not. It lays out what matrimony has to be for it to be considered 'holy' by God.
Surely, you must have heard about the "curse of Ham"? For those not familiar with it, it comes from Genesis (the Old Testament, not the band.)
20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. 23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. 24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. 25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
It was historically used to justify the enslavement and maltreatment of blacks, who were thought to be descended from Canaan. Sounds silly today, but at the time these arguments were used, they carried great weight.
Similarly, fifty years from now, biblical arguments against homosexuality will seem bizarre and silly.
Surely, you must have heard about the "curse of Ham"? For those not familiar with it, it comes from Genesis (the Old Testament, not the band.)
20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. 23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. 24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. 25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
It was historically used to justify the enslavement and maltreatment of blacks, who were thought to be descended from Canaan. Sounds silly today, but at the time these arguments were used, they carried great weight.
Similarly, fifty years from now, biblical arguments against homosexuality will seem bizarre and silly.
Not unless they government forces passages dealing with homosexuality to be removed from the Bible or re-written. There is no clear indication that the curse was black skin - thats what the racists wanted to believe. However, this passage is as clear as day.
Romans 1:25-27: They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
No it just seems like wherever we turn its some Christian organization abusing children.
In that context, it would be more accurate to define "we" as the media.
No one I know or have ever known has any first-hand knowledge of any organization abusing children.
Perhaps we move in different circles.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
