Quote from: kroz on July 01, 2015, 12:11:36 PM
Darth, you are going to get nowhere with Daidalos.   He never responds to the facts..... always ignores them and keeps spreading his lies.

It doesn't matter how many times we prove him wrong, he will continue his diatribe.  It is getting extremely old and tiring!!!

But I appreciate your efforts to set the record straight!  I just don't think it is received by Daidalos.  He is a one trick pony!

They twist the Scriptures to their own destruction -- Peter

Quote from: kroz on July 01, 2015, 12:11:36 PM
Darth, you are going to get nowhere with Daidalos.   He never responds to the facts..... always ignores them and keeps spreading his lies.
It doesn't matter how many times we prove him wrong, he will continue his diatribe.  It is getting extremely old and tiring!!!
But I appreciate your efforts to set the record straight!  I just don't think it is received by Daidalos.  He is a one trick pony!

I just posted a reply to one of Daidalos's posts, Kroz. Now you are saying don't waste my time. You know, I never really followed his posts that closely to tie them together.
The one I replied to said, essentially, don't worry about the Supreme Court ruling, it is harmless. I as struck that in this day and age, anyone, especially here, could be so naive.

There is a journal of one of the Pollyanna liberal thinks tanks called Daidalos. Popular in academia. Maybe he's a neo con. They are known for sucking up to the left in exchange for fat military contracts. Hard to pin down, but I think you may have him.

Quote from: Dori on July 01, 2015, 10:12:05 AM
That I do agree with.  Requiring a government to grant permission for a couple to marry is a relatively new concept, which was enacted by the states.  The why's or history of it, I don't know.  But one thing is certain, the concept of marriage between a man and a woman to form a family is as old as mankind.  Go into any culture and you will find that.

Yes and in almost every culture too there is a religious ceremony to publicly state, "hey we are a couple" and then a party for everyone basically. Oh the states involved itself in marriage before. In Europe it was a common practice that on the wedding night, the Lord of the land got to sleep with the serfs wife! And he had to approve the marriage too in the first place.

A practice we didn't import to the U.S. lol

Quote from: daidalos on July 02, 2015, 02:25:29 AM
Yes and in almost every culture too there is a religious ceremony to publicly state, "hey we are a couple" and then a party for everyone basically. Oh the states involved itself in marriage before. In Europe it was a common practice that on the wedding night, the Lord of the land got to sleep with the serfs wife! And he had to approve the marriage too in the first place.

A practice we didn't import to the U.S. lol

So, let's see how truly dedicated to your concept of the government staying out of marriage.

In the late 1800s Utah was seeking admission to the United States as a State. At that time, polygamy was not only legal in Utah Territory, it was a fundamental part of the Mormon religion. The Congress of the United States basically blackmailed the Mormon Church into abandoning its practice of polygamy if it wanted Utah to be eligible for Statehood. (it was much more complicated than that, but I'm giving you the Reader's Digest Condensed version). 

In your view of secular vs religious marriage, I"m assuming you would approve of the LDS Church being able to maintain its practice of polygamy, unfettered by Government Intervention?

Quote from: carlb on July 01, 2015, 01:53:15 PM

They twist the Scriptures to their own destruction -- Peter

Really is that so. And what "facts" would it be that I won't respond too. FYI I always deal in the facts. I'm not some liberal driven my emotion all the time. Oh and anytime you want to debate me, about our history, or the scripture bring it on carlb. I'll bury you with the facts. If anyone is ignoring the facts it's you and your pals like Huckabee who think Christian doctrine should be mandated as part of our secular law.

Wrong no it shouldn't. You think the government should be involved in a religious ceremony called marriage. Wrong no it shouldn't FACT: we have separation of church and state enumerated within the Constitution of the U.S. You and your pal Huckabee thinks that church's who refuse gays will be sued or lose tax exempt status.

FACT: Wrong, again the first amendment prohibits government from trying to dictate to the church what they do religiously or not do religiously.

And lastly, I'm not twisting any scripture at all. FACT: All sin separates man from God and incurres the death penalty.

http://billygraham.org/story/billy-grahams-answer-what-is-sin-are-all-sins-equal-in-gods-eyes/

QuoteIn the New Testament Jesus said it would be more bearable on the day of judgment for Sodom than for Capernaum because of Capernaum's unbelief and refusal to repent after witnessing His miracles (Matthew 11:23-24). The sins of Sodom were identified in Ezekiel 16:21 as arrogance, gluttony, indifference to the poor and needy, haughtiness, and "detestable things."

When Jesus spoke of his second coming and judgment, he warned that among those deserving punishment some would "be beaten with many blows" and others "with few blows" (Luke 12:47-48). He also reserved His most fierce denunciations for the pride and unbelief of the religious leaders, not the sexually immoral (Matthew 23:13-36).

However, remember that whether our sins are relatively small or great, they will place us in hell apart from God's grace. The good news is that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins and the sins of the whole world at the Cross. If we will repent and turn to Jesus in faith, our sins will be forgiven, and we will receive the gift of eternal life.

If I am so wrong on the "facts" well then, it would seem I am in good company as Pastor Graham would also have been wrong. Are we Carlb?

We all eagerly await your reply to the FACTS carlb.

Quote from: Darth Fife on July 02, 2015, 02:34:27 AM
So, let's see how truly dedicated to your concept of the government staying out of marriage.

In the late 1800s Utah was seeking admission to the United States as a State. At that time, polygamy was not only legal in Utah Territory, it was a fundamental part of the Mormon religion. The Congress of the United States basically blackmailed the Mormon Church into abandoning its practice of polygamy if it wanted Utah to be eligible for Statehood. (it was much more complicated than that, but I'm giving you the Reader's Digest Condensed version). 

In your view of secular vs religious marriage, I"m assuming you would approve of the LDS Church being able to maintain its practice of polygamy, unfettered by Government Intervention?

Yes, the first amendment didn't say Congress shall pass no laws regarding an establishment of religion just for the hell of it. Or unless I personally disagree with the church doctrine.

Oh and a last FYI Daidalos is the father of Icarus in greek mythology. I choose greek mythological names as a user name often times.

But no I'm not an academic and I am damned sure not a neo-con. What I am Carlb is a dedicated, strict, Constitutionalist. Lastly if I don't reply to your so called "facts" it's more than likely it's because I didn't see your post. So if that happens as I have told everyone here before, feel free to throw me a pm and say hey check this out please or better yet, address the question or "facts" in the message. As others here can attest, I'll answer ya. Once I see you say something directly to me. As I just did here.

You quote Darth, but respond to me? Yeah, you're a strict Constitionalist Iike Kennedy. A Bible believing Christian like the average lib.

But do anser his question. You clearly approve of homo marriage. Does that new definition for marriage include polygamy?

Quote from: daidalos on July 02, 2015, 02:52:50 AM
Yes, the first amendment didn't say Congress shall pass no laws regarding an establishment of religion just for the hell of it. Or unless I personally disagree with the church doctrine.

Oh and a last FYI Daidalos is the father of Icarus in greek mythology. I choose greek mythological names as a user name often times.

But no I'm not an academic and I am damned sure not a neo-con. What I am Carlb is a dedicated, strict, Constitutionalist. Lastly if I don't reply to your so called "facts" it's more than likely it's because I didn't see your post. So if that happens as I have told everyone here before, feel free to throw me a pm and say hey check this out please or better yet, address the question or "facts" in the message. As others here can attest, I'll answer ya. Once I see you say something directly to me. As I just did here.

Quote from: daidalos on July 02, 2015, 02:52:50 AM
Yes, the first amendment didn't say Congress shall pass no laws regarding an establishment of religion just for the hell of it. Or unless I personally disagree with the church doctrine.

Then, at least you are consistent, and here we find common ground.

I just can not understand how you can defend the SCOTUS ruling in the Homosexual Marriage case. Irrespective of all the legalese double talk surrounding it, it does have the effect of legislating the question of the Homosexual Marriage from the bench.

As I've pointed out before (and you in your argument that marriage is a purely religious institution would seem to give tacit agreement) marriage is not a civil right, therefore the protections of the 14th Amendment do not apply. Absent that, someone as well steeped in the Constitution as yourself, would be forced to conclude that SCOTUS has egregiously overstepped its authority with this ruling.

Why you can't admit that simple fact is beyond me!

Quote from: carlb on July 02, 2015, 02:58:11 AM
You quote Darth, but respond to me? Yeah, you're a strict Constitionalist Iike Kennedy. A Bible believing Christian like the average lib.

But do anser his question. You clearly approve of homo marriage. Does that new definition for marriage include polygamy?

I never said I agree with it. Please don't put words in my mouth. What I have said from day one is that government shouldn't have involved itself to start with. If it hadn't, there wouldn't have been a ruling, or even a case.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That is the law of the land. I'm sorry some so called Christians and Conservatives don't like that. But too bad, until and unless it's changed the Government had zero business "licencing" marriages in the first place. Much less giving tax breaks and other privileges within the law for those who do obtain that "licence" from government.

Americans are supposed to be treated fairly and equally under the law. We don't hand out titles of nobility in America for a reason. 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It doesn't matter if I or you or anyone of these others who are spouting off that it's the end of civilization as we know it because some gays are getting "married". Under the laws the government, every American citizen is supposed to be treated fairly under the law the government created when it violated the first amendment to involve itself in marriage in the first place.

I didn't put words in your mouth. I asked you a question.

Recognizing marriage is NOT the establishment of a religion or giving preference to A religion.

What YOURE not getting is that you side with the lib in REDEFINING marriage. If you agree to REDEFINE marriage, to include this, then it must also include THAT.

Please quit pretending youre either a strict Constitutionalist or a Bible believing Christian. You simply stretch definitions beyond recognition.

So why did the gays insist upon "marriage" instead of "civil unions" which would give them the same rights?

It is very obvious that marriage was not the end game here.  Gay marriage is just a stepping stone to the destruction of the Church.  THAT is the end game.

Daidalos doesn't seem to get the big picture here.  Lawsuits are exploding across the Nation as we speak!  They got their most critical tool in their war on the Church.  It is just a matter of time until the TRUE church is driven completely underground.  Only the false gospel will endure...... which is of no concern to the world.

Quote from: Dori on July 01, 2015, 10:12:05 AM
That I do agree with.  Requiring a government to grant permission for a couple to marry is a relatively new concept, which was enacted by the states.  The why's or history of it, I don't know.  But one thing is certain, the concept of marriage between a man and a woman to form a family is as old as mankind.  Go into any culture and you will find that.

Governments are always looking for more money. What quicker way to raise some cash than to charge a fee for what everyone was doing anyway. Why do you think we have license plate and auto registration fees. That only happened when cars started to be mass produced and everyone had one.

Quote from: kroz on July 02, 2015, 07:04:59 AM
So why did the gays insist upon "marriage" instead of "civil unions" which would give them the same rights?

It is very obvious that marriage was not the end game here.  Gay marriage is just a stepping stone to the destruction of the Church.  THAT is the end game.

Daidalos doesn't seem to get the big picture here.  Lawsuits are exploding across the Nation as we speak!  They got their most critical tool in their war on the Church.  It is just a matter of time until the TRUE church is driven completely underground.  Only the false gospel will endure...... which is of no concern to the world.

The dirty little secret is that the vast majority of gays and lesbians who really wanted to get "married" were perfectly okay with Civil Unions. It is only the Homosexual Activists, supported by the Democrat Party, that have insisted on re-defining marriage! And you are absolutely correct, their purpose is to destroy the political power of Christianity.