Party idea, two right wing parties

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Far from it, you're legislating contrary to Christianity.

Why is that a problem, exactly?

Martin Luther King Jr in his treatise on civil disobedience said something like this.

" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all."

Simply put a law that is not one that affirms the laws of God is an unjust law.

[President Tyrion]

Far from it, you're legislating contrary to Christianity.

Why is that a problem, exactly?

Martin Luther King Jr in his treatise on civil disobedience said something like this.

" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all."

Simply put a law that is not one that affirms the laws of God is an unjust law.

That implies that you're using Christianity as the basis for determining whether a law is just in the first place, but it doesn't answer the question as to why that would be a good idea.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Far from it, you're legislating contrary to Christianity.

Why is that a problem, exactly?

Martin Luther King Jr in his treatise on civil disobedience said something like this.

" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all."

Simply put a law that is not one that affirms the laws of God is an unjust law.

That implies that you're using Christianity as the basis for determining whether a law is just in the first place, but it doesn't answer the question as to why that would be a good idea.

What do you want to know?

[President Tyrion]

Far from it, you're legislating contrary to Christianity.

Why is that a problem, exactly?

Martin Luther King Jr in his treatise on civil disobedience said something like this.

" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all."

Simply put a law that is not one that affirms the laws of God is an unjust law.

That implies that you're using Christianity as the basis for determining whether a law is just in the first place, but it doesn't answer the question as to why that would be a good idea.

What do you want to know?

How could you possibly think that edicts codified thousands of years ago would provide a good basis for law? How would that not be unconstitutional? What's the difference between what you're proposing and Sharia Law?

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

The core of human law and governance goes back to men like Moses,Noah and Hammurabi. How do laws like "You shall not murder " or "You shall not steal" which transcend even Jewish and by extension Christian jurisprudence sound like extremist sentiment? These laws like the ones that they came with form much of the legal system that the west added to have been tested and tried and proven as just and equitable. Marriage laws are amongst them as well.

[President Tyrion]

The core of human law and governance goes back to men like Moses,Noah and Hammurabi. How do laws like "You shall not murder " or "You shall not steal" which transcend even Jewish and by extension Christian jurisprudence sound like extremist sentiment? These laws like the ones that they came with form much of the legal system that the west added to have been tested and tried and proven as just and equitable. Marriage laws are amongst them as well.

The fact that murder and thievery should be illegal, and were codified as such in ancient scripture, has nothing to do with marriage. You can't say that something is right in some places and is therefore right as a whole.

[President Tyrion]

I tried to tell you that his views are horrifying.

No kidding

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I tried to tell you that his views are horrifying.

No kidding

My views are anything but horrifying. Denying the right to keep and bear arms is horrifying. Killing babies in the womb is horrifying. Denying gays marriage is perfectly fine.

[PJ]

I tried to tell you that his views are horrifying.

No kidding

My views are anything but horrifying. Denying the right to keep and bear arms is horrifying. Killing babies in the womb is horrifying. Denying gays marriage is perfectly fine.

I was going to reply to this post, but then I decided not to.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Traditional marriage is defined by Christ as 'one man, one woman'. For life. Not two men, not two women, not 'till I can trade you in for a better, younger, cheaper, model.

You can support gay marriage all you like. You do so contrary to Christ.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Forcing it on the regions is not a settled issue. You vote the Labor party line on that and I'll never vote for you again. Ever.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, that doesn't address the point. You are claiming Christianity backs you up here. Where? If you're willing to concede that your belief is contrary to Christ we can move on.

I have no issue with the statement that 'marriage as a secular institution, etc'. That's a respectable argument. Arguing that Christians should support gay marriage is a whole 'nother ball of wax.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I thought you said you were a Christian? Are you saying that what the economist says trumps what the bible says?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So you're saying, in essence that people do not choose to have sex. Rape and consent are thusly impossible because people have urges that must be satisfied.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can you find one. Just one, where he condones homosexual activity.

And I can find one easy for you. Matthew 19. "He made them male and female". Why create two sexes which are capable of having sex with one another and having children - if that is not what sex was made for?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, Matthew 19. It's all right there.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then admit that Jesus explicitly teaches that the ideal of marriage is one man and one woman for life. Which is exactly what he does teach.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

lol at the socons turning this into a religious debate, as they do with everything else

All I'll say is that:
1. In Matthew 19, Jesus was talking specifically about divorce, not about gender roles in a marriage.  Same-sex relationships were seen in a much different light than the way they are today; they existed, but most of them were viewed as a symbol of oppression.  In actuality, they are no more or less oppressive than straight relationships.
2. Ben, the fact that you're saying you won't vote for SJoyce again because of one issue which, I might add, has no impact on your life whatsoever, is pretty frickin' ridiculous.

And you wonder why no one takes you seriously.

[Napoleon]

Lol Ben strikes again.

[Wisconsin+17]

"In Matthew 19, Jesus was talking specifically about divorce, not about gender roles in a marriage."

Then why does Christ say, "He made them male and female"?

"Ben, the fact that you're saying you won't vote for SJoyce again because of one issue which, I might add, has no impact on your life whatsoever, is pretty frickin' ridiculous."

Yes, it does have an impact on my life. I teach for the Catholic church.

Next terrible argument?

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

"In Matthew 19, Jesus was talking specifically about divorce, not about gender roles in a marriage."

Then why does Christ say, "He made them male and female"?

Again, look at the context of what He was saying.  Gender was not the subject of that teaching.  Why He excluded gay couples is irrelevant to the substance of the passage, and not doing so wouldn't have made sense given the nature of most same-sex relationships at that time.

It's not my burden to prove why Jesus used that choice of words to condemn divorce; it's your burden to prove why Jesus used that choice of words to indirectly condemn something that was not the subject of the lesson.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good for you.  You will keep your teaching job whether gays marry or not.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then why did Christ say, "He made them male and female?" It's all connected together. The ideal of marriage is one man and one woman, and Christ explicitly stated this as so. Everything outside of this is sin.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, he specifically affirmed that marriage is between one man and one woman. This *IS* significant, since SJoyce was stating how he could 'reconcile' his Christianity with support for gay marriage. The two are not compatible and gay marriage is incompatible with the Christian definition of marriage as Christ himself stated.

"not doing so wouldn't have made sense given the nature of most same-sex relationships at that time."

If Jesus Christ were merely 'expressing the concept of marriage at the time', why did the disciples say after, "if that is the case it is better for a man and a woman not to marry?" Jesus expressed the transcendent definition of marriage - marriage for all times.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, show me. Where is there any evidence whatsoever that Jesus said, "gender is irrelevant to marriage" You said it. Where is this? I don't see it.

You've got absolutely nothing. There's no evidence for your position whatsoever.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Conservatives who have expressed their opinion that gay marriage is wrong have been fired. So yes, gay marriage does have a profound negative effect on my life.

So, any *other* terrible arguments? ".

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then why did Christ say, "He made them male and female?" It's all connected together. The ideal of marriage is one man and one woman, and Christ explicitly stated this as so. Everything outside of this is sin.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, he specifically affirmed that marriage is between one man and one woman. This *IS* significant, since SJoyce was stating how he could 'reconcile' his Christianity with support for gay marriage. The two are not compatible and gay marriage is incompatible with the Christian definition of marriage as Christ himself stated.

"not doing so wouldn't have made sense given the nature of most same-sex relationships at that time."

If Jesus Christ were merely 'expressing the concept of marriage at the time', why did the disciples say after, "if that is the case it is better for a man and a woman not to marry?" Jesus expressed the transcendent definition of marriage - marriage for all times.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, show me. Where is there any evidence whatsoever that Jesus said, "gender is irrelevant to marriage" You said it. Where is this? I don't see it.

You've got absolutely nothing. There's no evidence for your position whatsoever.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Conservatives who have expressed their opinion that gay marriage is wrong have been fired. So yes, gay marriage does have a profound negative effect on my life.

So, any *other* terrible arguments? ".

No need to be snippy.  You really don't have a reason to be.  If Jesus was trying to condemn gay couples, He would have made that perfectly clear.  The passage in question is about divorce and only about divorce.  The Pharisees specifically asked Him if it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife, NOTHING about whether it's wrong to be in a gay relationship.  The Pharisees argued that if divorce is wrongful, than people are better off not to marry at all, but Jesus responded by saying that there are eunuchs who were born that way and people who choose to live like eunuchs, and not marry.  Again, nothing about gays.  You are inserting things into scripture that aren't there just because you don't like gay people.  You are continuously shifting the burden of proof to SJoyce and myself when it is clearly your duty to prove that Jesus explicitly condemned same-sex relationships.  You are the one who made the case that gender is relevant in a marriage according to Christ, so you must prove that is what He said.  I cannot prove a negative.

Not only are you intellectually dishonest, you are unintelligent.  Now, until you can provide solid evidence that Jesus specifically condemned same-sex relationships in the context of condemning same-sex relationships, I refuse to engage with you any longer.  How does that sound?

And for the record, plenty of people have been fired simply for being gay.  Do you have any problems with that?  Probably not.

Idiot.

[Flake]

Guys lets get along I don't care if you're gay or straight, right wing or left wing, white or black, as long as you like pizza and support marriage equality then you're alright with me.

[Goldwater]

Guys lets get along I don't care if you're gay or straight, right wing or left wing, white or black, as long as you like pizza and support marriage equality then you're alright with me.

I like pizza!

[Flake]

Guys lets get along I don't care if you're gay or straight, right wing or left wing, white or black, as long as you like pizza and support marriage equality then you're alright with me.

I like pizza!

Then you're alright with me

[PJ]

Guys lets get along I don't care if you're gay or straight, right wing or left wing, white or black, as long as you like pizza and support marriage equality then you're alright with me.

I like pizza!

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Guys lets get along I don't care if you're gay or straight, right wing or left wing, white or black, as long as you like pizza and support marriage equality then you're alright with me.

I like pizza!

Pizza is definitely good. ; P

[Donerail]

Forcing it on the regions is not a settled issue. You vote the Labor party line on that and I'll never vote for you again. Ever.

Alrighty

If you can't vote for me because I continue to support the right of people to love who they love, not my problem. I'll continue to vote the Labor/Progressive Union/Liberal/pretty much everyone else except you and JCL line on those issues, and I will continue to fight for social tolerance and give same-sex couples the same equal, fundamental, human rights as everyone else, because that is what I believe as a Christian who believes in tolerance. I am just as willing to lose votes for that belief as you are for yours.

[PJ]

Forcing it on the regions is not a settled issue. You vote the Labor party line on that and I'll never vote for you again. Ever.

Alrighty

If you can't vote for me because I continue to support the right of people to love who they love, not my problem. I'll continue to vote the Labor/Progressive Union/Liberal/pretty much everyone else except you and JCL line on those issues, and I will continue to fight for social tolerance and give same-sex couples the same equal, fundamental, human rights as everyone else, because that is what I believe as a Christian who believes in tolerance. I am just as willing to lose votes for that belief as you are for yours.

*Applause!*

[Flake]

Guys lets get along I don't care if you're gay or straight, right wing or left wing, white or black, as long as you like pizza and support marriage equality then you're alright with me.

I like pizza!

Then you're alright with me

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Forcing it on the regions is not a settled issue. You vote the Labor party line on that and I'll never vote for you again. Ever.

Alrighty

If you can't vote for me because I continue to support the right of people to love who they love, not my problem. I'll continue to vote the Labor/Progressive Union/Liberal/pretty much everyone else except you and JCL line on those issues, and I will continue to fight for social tolerance and give same-sex couples the same equal, fundamental, human rights as everyone else, because that is what I believe as a Christian who believes in tolerance. I am just as willing to lose votes for that belief as you are for yours.

Remember SJoyce I gave you my fourth preference. I was hoping to build a broad coalition inspite of my view on this.  issue. Yes I do oppose same sex marriage on Biblical grounds. I could get into the New Testament prohibition on the gay choice but I don't think you guys want to see me quote Romans 1:18-end of the chapter or 1 Corinthians 6:9 or 1Timothy 1:9-10 or Jude verse 7 but many on the left won't consider the words of the Apostle Paul. His words are endorsed by Jesus because Jesus via the Holy Spirit gave those words to Paul.

I do oppose bullying of anyone because of anything but for me to stand by and let the left have full power through the federal government over social issues like this would not only make me a bad Christian but a bad player of this game. Why shouldn't the regions answer this question? Is this government afraid of losing power over any issue when said issue is better handled closer to home. Centeralization on family issues doesn't work and is destructive of the liberty we all seek. My question is why should the left get to run roughshot on these sensitive issues without any conservative views being remotely considered?