[TheRealThing]

Right, man's recorded history starts at 4000 years ago.


I don't have a clue. I'm not a scientist. All I know is that real scientists(not you) have found the Higgs boson, the missing link they were looking for. Plus, they have proved the big bang theory was right. Don't waste your breath, I'll always take their word over yours.

I'll let you in on a little secret. Nobody does, only the true Creator of the universe can actually say He knows what really happened. Everything else is a guess. A scientific hypothesis, supported by an impressive and elaborately retro-engineered framework. Into which, each new revelation of man's ever expanding knowledge of this universe, is periodically plugged in, according to a system of belief. The Big Bang, and other alternative (to God's truth) views and theories meant to explain everything that is in existence around us, will necessarily wax more and more complex and detailed. Some men will use this system of belief, which has only one purpose, that being to deny the existence of God, to lean on right up until the day they die. But, like the rich man from whose table Lazarus begged bread, the second they die, they will lift up their eyes being instantly transported to the place of torments. The smoke of which "ascendeth up for ever and ever", time will have no meaning there, and in what will seem like the snap of a finger, they will actually face God Himself at the Great White Throne Judgment.

[Hoot Gibson]

If we are measuring over a mis-stamement of "looking at" vs "ruling on", this week, you win. You got me. :biglmao:

No, you said that we would "see this week," which shows that you do not know what you are talking about.

What will happen this week is that the justices will have an opportunity to grill both sides' attorneys in open sessions of the court and then "experts" will try to guess how they will rule based on their questions. The decision will definitely not be announced this week or next week or next month.

Go ahead, pretend that you knew that these rulings would not be announced this week - but we both know the truth. Your sources are not reliable, which is why facts always trip you up. :biglmao:

[TheRealThing]

[attachment=o2791]

Need a new signature block RV?

[TheRealVille]

I'll let you in on a little secret. Nobody does, only the true Creator of the universe can actually say He knows what really happened. Everything else is a guess. A scientific hypothesis, supported by an impressive and elaborately retro-engineered framework. Into which, each new revelation of man's ever expanding knowledge of this universe, is periodically plugged in, according to a system of belief. The Big Bang, and other alternative (to God's truth) views and theories meant to explain everything that is in existence around us, will necessarily wax more and more complex and detailed. Some men will use this system of belief, which has only one purpose, that being to deny the existence of God, to lean on right up until the day they die. But, like the rich man from whose table Lazarus begged bread, the second they die, they will lift up their eyes being instantly transported to the place of torments. The smoke of which "ascendeth up for ever and ever", time will have no meaning there, and in what will seem like the snap of a finger, they will actually face God Himself at the Great White Throne Judgment.

Or not. :biglmao:

[TheRealVille]

That conclusion would be much more logical than the one that RV is trying to jump to. :biggrin:

The conclusion that I'm coming to is that you can bet, since SCOTUS has ruled 14 times that marriage is a citizens right, that they will rule that it is a right of all citizens.

[TheRealThing]

The conclusion that I'm coming to is that you can bet, since SCOTUS has ruled 14 times that marriage is a citizens right, that they will rule that it is a right of all citizens.

The SCOTUS has mentioned marriage, procreation, raising children etc. in rulings they have made on cases coming up to them from the various states. It is within the purview of individual STATE'S GOVERNMENT to grant or limit certain rights since ultimately marriage itself was instituted by God.

The supreme court has not made a ruling that marriage is a right. Not once and certainly not 14 times. Here is a conversation you and RunItUpTheGut just had last night;

RUN
"The constitution was made for a reason, not to be changed in any way."

YOU
"Where does the constitution say anything about marriage?"

YOU
"He (RunItUpTheGut) brought up the Constitution. It say's nothing about marriage."


So, I ask you. Since you have rightly pointed out that marriage is not addressed in the Constitution. And since, one of the two primary functions of the SCOTUS is to decide on the constitutionality of state and federal statutes; see the following,

"The Supreme Court has two fundamental functions. On the one hand, it must interpret and expound all congressional enactments brought before it in proper cases; in this respect its role parallels that of the state courts of final resort in making the decisive interpretation of state law. On the other hand, the Supreme Court has power (superseding that of all other courts) to examine federal and state statutes and executive actions to determine whether they conform to the U.S. Constitution." Read more: Supreme Court, United States: Functions | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/h...z2OYeDdwPs

And again, in light of the fact that you have just drawn attention to the fact that marriage is not addressed in the Constitution. How then, can you say the court can make a ruling to define marriage as a right? Especially the way you want it redefined. Once man's law changes God's marital institution to include the unnatural situation of "Men with men, working that which is unseemly", as Hoot has correctly pointed out, thereafter where would one then draw the line? Men with horses? Men with dogs? How about men with potted plants?

[SKINNYPIG]

The conclusion that I'm coming to is that you can bet, since SCOTUS has ruled 14 times that marriage is a citizens right, that they will rule that it is a right of all citizens.

For "all" citizens? Will they put limitations on "all" citizens? Will mothers be able to marry daughters or sons? If not, why?

I know that's a redundant question asked in these discussions. Is there a difference in same sex marriage and same family marriage? I am anxious to know if you think there should be any limitations on marriage and why?

As a straight male, I have no more rights than a homosexual male...zero. As it stands in Kentucky right now, two staright men cannot get married. Whether or not they are gay has no bearing on it.

[TheRealVille]

The SCOTUS has mentioned marriage, procreation, raising children etc. in rulings they have made on cases coming up to them from the various states. It is within the purview of individual STATE'S GOVERNMENT to grant or limit certain rights since ultimately marriage itself was instituted by God.

The supreme court has not made a ruling that marriage is a right. Not once and certainly not 14 times. Here is a conversation you and RunItUpTheGut just had last night;

RUN
"The constitution was made for a reason, not to be changed in any way."

YOU
"Where does the constitution say anything about marriage?"

YOU
"He (RunItUpTheGut) brought up the Constitution. It say's nothing about marriage."


So, I ask you. Since you have rightly pointed out that marriage is not addressed in the Constitution. And since, one of the two primary functions of the SCOTUS is to decide on the constitutionality of state and federal statutes; see the following,

"The Supreme Court has two fundamental functions. On the one hand, it must interpret and expound all congressional enactments brought before it in proper cases; in this respect its role parallels that of the state courts of final resort in making the decisive interpretation of state law. On the other hand, the Supreme Court has power (superseding that of all other courts) to examine federal and state statutes and executive actions to determine whether they conform to the U.S. Constitution." Read more: Supreme Court, United States: Functions | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/h...z2OYeDdwPs

And again, in light of the fact that you have just drawn attention to the fact that marriage is not addressed in the Constitution. How then, can you say the court can make a ruling to define marriage as a right? Especially the way you want it redefined. Once man's law changes God's marital institution to include the unnatural situation of "Men with men, working that which is unseemly", as Hoot has correctly pointed out, thereafter where would one then draw the line? Men with horses? Men with dogs? How about men with potted plants?

1: Yes they have made rulings that marriage is a right. No matter how many times you say they haven't won't change the fact that in 14 cases they have ruled that it is a right.


Can horses, dogs, and potted plants make decisions for themselves, or sign a marriage license, like adults can? Please don't bring idiotic stuff to the table. You know better.

[TheRealVille]

Here's just one case where they ruled on marriage. Read the decision, and tell me how hard it will be for them to jump from interracial marriage over to gay marriage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous decision (dated June 12, 1967), dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia's argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race, and providing identical penalties to white and black violators, could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that:
“ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. ”
The court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:
“ There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. ”
Associate Justice Potter Stewart filed a brief concurring opinion. He reiterated his opinion from McLaughlin v. Florida that "it is simply not possible for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor."
[edit]

[Real Badman]

Yes.

[PaintsvilleTigerfan]

The conclusion that I'm coming to is that you can bet, since SCOTUS has ruled 14 times that marriage is a citizens right, that they will rule that it is a right of all citizens.

They have ruled many times that we have the RTKBA yet we cannot go to walmart and buy a machine gun.

[SKINNYPIG]

1: Yes they have made rulings that marriage is a right. No matter how many times you say they haven't won't change the fact that in 14 cases they have ruled that it is a right.


Can horses, dogs, and potted plants make decisions for themselves, or sign a marriage license, like adults can? Please don't bring idiotic stuff to the table. You know better.

Mother/daughter, father/son, brother/brother, sister/sister all can be consenting adults. Should the line be drawn before it gets to that? Where do you believe the line should be drawn? It's got to be drawn somewhere, right?

As soon as it is "okay" for same sex marriage, more than likely "other" marriages won't be far behind. Agree?

[TheRealVille]

Mother/daughter, father/son, brother/brother, sister/sister all can be consenting adults. Should the line be drawn before it gets to that? Where do you believe the line should be drawn? It's got to be drawn somewhere, right?

As soon as it is "okay" for same sex marriage, more than likely "other" marriages won't be far behind. Agree?

It doesn't matter if I agree, or not. I'm not a lawmaker. They would have to sort out your questions. What is law all over the US, is that incest is illegal, so that might help your answer. What I do know, is that the majority of Americans want same sex marriages, and that the big court is looking at two of the cases this week. Knowing that they have ruled before that marriage is a right for American citizens, logic says they will rule in favor of gay marriage. Logic says that they will rule that a state can't limit citizen's rights. Otherwise, a state could go back to banning whites and blacks intermarrying. The 14th Amendment will be in play in these cases, and if SCOTUS history is taken into account, they will rule in favor of gay marriage by saying DOMA is unconstitutional, and that a states can't deny the rights of people.

[TheRealThing]

It doesn't matter if I agree, or not. I'm not a lawmaker. They would have to sort out your questions. What is law all over the US, is that incest is illegal, so that might help your answer. What I do know, is that the majority of Americans want same sex marriages, and that the big court is looking at two of the cases this week. Knowing that they have ruled before that marriage is a right for American citizens, logic says they will rule in favor of gay marriage. Logic says that they will rule that a state can't limit citizen's rights. Otherwise, a state could go back to banning whites and blacks intermarrying. The 14th Amendment will be in play in these cases, and if SCOTUS history is taken into account, they will rule in favor of gay marriage by saying DOMA is unconstitutional, and that a states can't deny the rights of people.

Neither do you understand the situation well enough to understand the rulings regarding marriage that are in the books, much less what the court will do next.

[TheRealVille]

Neither do you understand the situation well enough to understand the rulings regarding marriage that are in the books, much less what the court will do next.

I understand it enough to know how to read that SCOTUS says marriage is a right. I know you, Hoot, and HRV consider yourselves more enlightened on things political and constitutional than most others here, but you over rate your selves. At least, the non lawyers do. You were a carpenter, not a constitutional lawyer.

[TheRealThing]

I understand it enough to know how to read that SCOTUS says marriage is a right. I know you, Hoot, and HRV consider yourselves more enlightened on things political and constitutional than most others here, but you over rate your selves. At least, the non lawyers do. You were a carpenter, not a constitutional lawyer.

Fine. Although I disagree with you on your reading comprehension prowess, not only on matters involving the US Constitution but, across the board. I'll line up with Hoot and Harry Rex, (who is a lawyer FWIW). And you and vector can take the point on gay rights. I'm good with that. nicker:

[TheRealThing]

The conclusion that I'm coming to is that you can bet, since SCOTUS has ruled 14 times that marriage is a citizens right, that they will rule that it is a right of all citizens.

To think about this for just a second causes one to realize just how hilarious this reasoning really is.



IN CONGRESS JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their [SIZE="6"]Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[/SIZE] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/


Now, I'm going to say, that any reasonable man would be able to come to his own conclusion here, that GOD "their Creator" is not about to underwrite homosexual perversions as being among the unalienable rights the founding fathers were referring to in this document. I mean, He pronounced inescapable judgment on all who fall into the homosexual life-style.
Romans 1:28 & 32 (KJV)
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
32 "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."

In other words, not only those entrapped in the grip of homosexual sin, but those who delight in defending them.

[RunItUpTheGut]

Mother/daughter, father/son, brother/brother, sister/sister all can be consenting adults. Should the line be drawn before it gets to that? Where do you believe the line should be drawn? It's got to be drawn somewhere, right?

As soon as it is "okay" for same sex marriage, more than likely "other" marriages won't be far behind. Agree?

You bring up a good point.
So, RV, should brothers and sisters have the right to be married in to an incest relationship since its "fair"?

[SKINNYPIG]

You bring up a good point.
So, RV, should brothers and sisters have the right to be married in to an incest relationship since its "fair"?

Take sisters as an example...no sex/fornication in mind, just marriage. No incest involved, right? Two consenting adult citizens exercising their right to marry. Reckon TRV would have a problem with that?

[TheRealVille]

To think about this for just a second causes one to realize just how hilarious this reasoning really is.



IN CONGRESS JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their [SIZE="6"]Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[/SIZE] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/


Now, I'm going to say, that any reasonable man would be able to come to his own conclusion here, that GOD "their Creator" is not about to underwrite homosexual perversions as being among the unalienable rights the founding fathers were referring to in this document. I mean, He pronounced inescapable judgment on all who fall into the homosexual life-style.
Romans 1:28 & 32 (KJV)
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
32 "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."

In other words, not only those entrapped in the grip of homosexual sin, but those who delight in defending them.

Their creator is a general term, and the bible isn't mentioned. Some of the early fathers worshiped a few different gods, and a few of them worshipped no god. Your biblical god isn't my god as far as the constitution is talking about. The biblical god isn't acknowledged with them, at least in a legal sense about their setting up the country. Some of them might have acknowledged your god on a personal level, but in the writings they are saying creator in general because my creator and your creator are two different things. They understood that. That is why there is no stated religion that they specified. You also realize that in 200 years ago the founders had much less science. If they were founding the country today, they would have a 200 year newer outlook. BTW, my creator god doesn't specify anything about gays, or their behavior being immoral.


FTR, no matter how many times you post verse from that book will ever make me think it's more than a fairy tale. You are wasting time.

[TheRealThing]

Their creator is a general term, and the bible isn't mentioned. Some of the early fathers worshiped a few different gods, and a few of them worshipped no god. Your biblical god isn't my god as far as the constitution is talking about. The biblical god isn't acknowledged with them, at least in a legal sense about their setting up the country. Some of them might have acknowledged your god on a personal level, but in the writings they are saying creator in general because my creator and your creator are two different things. They understood that. That is why there is no stated religion that they specified. You also realize that in 200 years ago the founders had much less science. If they were founding the country today, they would have a 200 year newer outlook. BTW, my creator god doesn't specify anything about gays, or their behavior being immoral.


FTR, no matter how many times you post verse from that book will ever make me think it's more than a fairy tale. You are wasting time.

Baloney. Whistling past the graveyard logic from somebody to whom I know God has revealed Himself. Romans 1:20 (KJV)
20 "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" Each man's conscience reveals his need for forgiveness and speaks to him about the existence of God.

The founding fathers were speaking of God.

[TheRealVille]

Baloney. Whistling past the graveyard logic from somebody to whom I know God has revealed Himself. Romans 1:20 (KJV)
20 "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" Each man's conscience reveals his need for forgiveness and speaks to him about the existence of God.

The founding fathers were speaking of God.

I'm sure you have proof they were were to the biblical god?

[TheRealVille]

In this light, it is important to note that in sentence two God is designated the “Creator.” At first this just seems like nice “neutral” language, designed to avoid offending religious sensibilities. But the choice of wording is specifically not Christian. The text does not say “God the Father” or “Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” There is nothing to reflect Christianity directly. It is the language of Deism. Furthermore, the wording is also acceptable to Judaism, to Islam, and to many other religions, including Hinduism.

http://religion-today.blogspot.com/2011/...dence.html

hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Nature's god is a deistic term.
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

The religious views of Thomas Jefferson diverged widely from the orthodox Christianity of his day. Throughout his life Jefferson was intensely interested in theology, religious studies, and morality.[1] Jefferson was most closely connected with Unitarianism and the religious philosophy of Christian deism.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jeff...d_religion

Who wrote the Declaration of Independence?

Although we know Thomas Jefferson as the true author, the Second Continental Congress initially appointed five people to draw up a declaration. The committee included Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Roger Sherman, Robert Livingston and Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was then given the task of writing a draft for the Declaration of Independence, which from June 11 to June 28 he worked on. Before he presented the Declaration to the Continental Congress, he showed it to John Adams and Benjamin Franklin; they made revisions. He presented the draft to Congress on July 1, 1776 and more revisions were made. On the fourth of July the delegates met in what we know today as Independence Hall, but back then was known as the Pennsylvania State House, and approved the Declaration. John Hancock, the President of the Continental Congress signed the declaration along with Charles Thomson and it was sent to John Dunlap’s print shop for printing.

Check the religion of some of those guys.
http://www.independencedayfun.com/261/wh...ependence/

[WideMiddle03]

http://religion-today.blogspot.com/2011/...dence.html

Nature's god is a deistic term.
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jeff...d_religion



Check the religion of some of those guys.
http://www.independencedayfun.com/261/wh...ependence/

:biglmao: :lolrage: :lmao: :flush: :hilarious: :hilarious: :hilarious: :hilarious: :biglmao: :biglmao: :biglmao: :lame:

:lame:

at leas tuse some credable sources

[TheRealVille]

Baloney. Whistling past the graveyard logic from somebody to whom I know God has revealed Himself. Romans 1:20 (KJV)
20 "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" Each man's conscience reveals his need for forgiveness and speaks to him about the existence of God.

The founding fathers were speaking of God.

This can just as easily apply to religion, or interfering into people's lives. May you should study that verse awhile, since you are so fond of bible verses. Take a little advice from the "book of advice".

http://bible.cc/proverbs/25-17.htm

[Panther Thunder]

Morals do apply to an individual and what he or she believes, but IMO, the country is becoming increasingly immoral.

I am not afraid to admit that I probably have done my fair share to add to the problem. But if you just take a look at what is acceptable today as opposed to 50 years ago (not political, racial, religious, etc...) it is almost black to white.

And without question it is more liberal. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is up to the individual again, but it is without question more liberal.

[TheRealThing]

This can just as easily apply to religion, or interfering into people's lives. May you should study that verse awhile, since you are so fond of bible verses. Take a little advice from the "book of advice".http://bible.cc/proverbs/25-17.htm

Oh I do. And the advice I saw was to warn folks when they are on a path God says leads straight to hell. Ezekiel 33:7-9 (KJV)

7 So thou, O son of man, I have set thee a watchman unto the house of Israel; therefore thou shalt hear the word at my mouth, and warn them from me.

8 When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

9 Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.



FWIW, I don't have the first clue where you pulled your interpretation of Romans 1: 32 from, but if it's a book you need to get rid or it. And all the liberal blather with them trying to bob and weave out what the declaration of independence text, "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" really means is truly laughable. According to radical Islam, adherents can go around killing folks like flies for any number of so called offenses. The fathers were speaking of the One true God alright. No, I believe I'll stick to my guns.

Sorry, this is hilarious. You're quoting Proverbs 25:17 to substantiate the validation of homosexuality? RV, that's talking about hanging out at your neighbor's house too much. You know, the company that refuses to leave?

[TheRealVille]

Oh I do. And the advice I saw was to warn folks when they are on a path God says leads straight to hell. Ezekiel 33:7-9 (KJV)

7 So thou, O son of man, I have set thee a watchman unto the house of Israel; therefore thou shalt hear the word at my mouth, and warn them from me.

8 When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

9 Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.



FWIW, I don't have the first clue where you pulled your interpretation of Romans 1: 32 from, but if it's a book you need to get rid or it. And all the liberal blather with them trying to bob and weave out what the declaration of independence text, "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" really means is truly laughable. According to radical Islam, adherents can go around killing folks like flies for any number of so called offenses. The fathers were speaking of the One true God alright. No, I believe I'll stick to my guns.

I don't remember saying anything about Romans 1:32

[TheRealThing]

I don't remember saying anything about Romans 1:32

Yeah, couldn't quite tell where you were coming from with that one. Not that you've managed to clear it up much.

[TheRealVille]

Yeah, couldn't quite tell where you were coming from with that one. Not that you've managed to clear it up much.

I didn't post any interpretation of Romans 1:32. You sure you don't mean the Proverbs link?