|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
|
| |
| ChatGPT | |
| Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/1 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
| Author | Topic: Checking for validity of supposed early christian gay marriage rite | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member  Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Nemesis Juggernaut responds to subbie:
quote:quote: Really? A state has the right to violate the Constitution? Despite the explicit direction of the Fourteenth Amendment that they don't?
quote: Huh? Who said anything about a federal marriage license? Nobody here did. Where did this come from? The question was whether or not you thought a state should be able to violate the Constitution.
quote: That's what the Supreme Court is for. As Scalia himself noted, Lawrence v. Texas pretty much declares that DOMA is unconstitutional. The only thing that is needed now is to find someone with standing to challenge it. In order to do that, you need to find a married couple of the same sex. Since only states marry couples, that requires a state coming forward to let gay people get married. Well, we have it now. It would seem that it will soon be before the SCOTUS and we'll see if Scalia can live up to his own declaration that Lawrence v. Texas requires the legalization of same-sex marriage and rules to overturn DOMA. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
quote: Have you not read a single Supreme Court decision ever? Go look at the commentary over Lawrence v. Texas. Scalia was falling all over himself to claim that it was a disaster to allow gay people the same rights as straight people because if we were to do so, then it would require that we allow gay people the right to marry. So if Scalia thinks that the precedent set by Lawrence v. Texas is to allow same-sex marriage, what makes you think that he'll violate his own understanding of the Constitution? Hmmm..."judicial activism," perhaps?
quote: No, it hasn't. There has not been any challenge to DOMA. The only challenges have been to state-level DOMAs and so far, every single case that has gone to a state court regarding such restrictions have been overturned.
quote: So Loving v. Virginia, which dealt with a "state issue," was wrongly decided. Is that what you're saying?
quote: Except that the Constitution does provide the right to marry. Let's not be disingenuous and claim that because the word "marry" doesn't exist in the Constitution, that menas there is no fundamental right to marry. Again, have you read Loving v. Virginia? It declares that marriage is a fundamental right. Are you saying Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided? And then there is the Fourteenth Amendment which guarantees equal treatment under the law to all citizens. Are you saying gay people aren't citizens? So if marriage is a fundamental right to all citizens and gay people are citizens, then how can one possibly justify the denial of the fundamental right to a citizen? Was Lawrence v. Texas wrongly decided?
quote: So Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided when it did just that?
quote: So the Supreme Court should be abolished? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Nemesis Juggernaut responds to me:
quote:quote: So Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided? Laws that prevented marriage on the basis of the race of the participants truly was a state matter, the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply, and Loving v. Virginia actually stated that Virginia was within its rights to criminalize the Loving's marriage? Have we wandered into Opposite Land?
quote: Because you have to have standing in order to sue. Since there haven't been any marriages of same-sex couples until recently, there has never been any standing. It's why the case regarding the Pledge of Allegiance was never decided: The response was that Nedow, not being the custodial parent, didn't have any standing to sue on behalf of his daughter. No decision was made regarding the constitutionality of having a direct religious invocation in the Pledge. The whole thing got dropped (well, let's be honest...they were avoiding the question because they knew the answer but didn't want to say it out loud) on a technicality of standing.
quote: Incorrect. It is because there hasn't been a case for them to rule on. Despite what Republicans might say, judges cannot actually make law. They can only rule on cases that appear before them. If there is no case, there is no ruling. And without any married couple of the same sex, there is no case. Let us not forget, Congress passed DOMA even though there was no same-sex marriage to be found anywhere in the country. They could see the writing on the wall, however: Clearly there was no way to deny fundamental rights (Loving v. Virginia) to citizens of the United States. Or are you saying Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided?
quote: And how are those two things not connected? Let us look back at what you said in Message 16:
quote: What did you mean by "it all should go federal"? What was the point in suggesting a federalization of marriage? Loving v. Virginia didn't create a federal marriage license. It simply invalidated laws against interracial marriage in the states as violations of the Fourteenth Amendment. Are you saying Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided? States should have the right to violate the Constitution?
quote:quote: Unless you're saying that Lawrence v. Texas was wrongly decided, you do realize that those two statements contradict each other, yes? You cannot advocate equal treatment under the law for all citizens and then have it be "left up to the states" to decide if they're going to deny fundamental rights to citizens. Are you saying Lawrence v. Texas was wrongly decided? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Nemesis Juggernaut responds to me:
quote: (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? Did you not read Scalia's dissent? Did you not read the actual decision? The ruling statement:
The Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause. The very first paragraph of the justification for that rule:
Resolution of this case depends on whether petitioners were free as adults to engage in private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause. For this inquiry the Court deems it necessary to reconsider its Bowers holding. The Bowers Court’s initial substantive statement-“The issue presented is whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy . ,” 478 U.S., at 190-discloses the Court’s failure to appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake. To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it said that marriage is just about the right to have sexual intercourse. Although the laws involved in Bowers and here purport to do not more than prohibit a particular sexual act, their penalties and purposes have more far-reaching consequences, touching upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home. They seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When are you going to do your homework and actually read the cases you are purporting to comment upon?
quote: Incorrect. The specific statement of the ruling is that sexual activity between people of the same sex is not a crime.
Held: The Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause. Pp. 3”18. What part of this are you having trouble with? Yes, the right to privacy within one's own home is part of that justification, but that is only ancillary to the point: Having sex with someone of the same sex is not a crime. The very first sentence of the ruling opinion:
The question before the Court is the validity of a Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct. What part of this are you having trouble with?
quote: Incorrect. It is clear that you haven't actually read the opinion. When are you going to do your homework? You are arguing as if the claim was that yes, same-sex behaviour is criminal but that the State had no right to enter a private home to go looking for it, akin to the need to get a warrant before searching a residence. That because there was no probable cause, anything found in the search of the home should have been excluded. That has no connection to the ruling at all. The grant of certiorari states that three questions were to be answered:
“1. Whether Petitioners’ criminal convictions under the Texas “Homosexual Conduct” law-which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior by different-sex couples-violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of laws? “2. Whether Petitioners’ criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? “3. Whether Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), should be overruled?” Pet. for Cert. i. Question 2 is what you are referring to, but it is clear that Question 2 lives or dies on the resolution of Questions 1 and 3. If it is found that sexual activity between people of the same sex is not a crime, then Question 2 becomes nonsensical: How can there be criminal convictions for something that is not a crime? And what's the first thing they do? They go to Question 3 and resolve whether or not Bowers v. Hardwick was correctly decided and conclude that it wasn't:
We conclude the case should be resolved by determining whether the petitioners were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. For this inquiry we deem it necessary to reconsider the Court’s holding in Bowers. Lest you try to claim that Bowers v. Hardwick had nothing to do with sexual activity, I ask that you actually read the decision:
The issue presented is whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy and hence invalidates the laws of the many States that still make such conduct illegal and have done so for a very long time. As the Lawrence v. Texas decision immediately responds to that claim:
That statement, we now conclude, discloses the Court’s own failure to appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake. To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse. The laws involved in Bowers and here are, to be sure, statutes that purport to do no more than prohibit a particular sexual act. Their penalties and purposes, though, have more far-reaching consequences, touching upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home. The statutes do seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals. When are you going to do your homework? Here's where you can show us that you have: Where in the Lawrence v. Texas decision do we see the ruling talk about Question 2? Be specific. Full quotes in complete context. Privacy concerns are brought up in the decision, but the ones you reference must be in regard to the sanctity of the home and not regarding sexual activity. Again, if Bowers v. Hardwick was wrongly decided and if same-sex sexual activity is not a crime, what is the point of Question 2? I've been pulling from Kennedy's opinion, but perhaps you can show us something from O'Connors' concurrence. She spends a lot of time talking about morals, conduct, and persons. The final statement of her concurrence:
I therefore concur in the Court’s judgment that Texas’ sodomy law banning “deviate sexual intercourse” between consenting adults of the same sex, but not between consenting adults of different sexes, is unconstitutional. Where do you find a claim regarding the privacy of the home? Even Scalia's dissent regards the ridiculousness:
I do not know what “acting in private” means; surely consensual sodomy, like heterosexual intercourse, is rarely performed on stage. If all the Court means by “acting in private” is “on private premises, with the doors closed and windows covered,” it is entirely unsurprising that evidence of enforcement would be hard to come by. (Imagine the circumstances that would enable a search warrant to be obtained for a residence on the ground that there was probable cause to believe that consensual sodomy was then and there occurring.) Surely that lack of evidence would not sustain the proposition that consensual sodomy on private premises with the doors closed and windows covered was regarded as a “fundamental right,” even though all other consensual sodomy was criminalized. So it appears that even Scalia isn't buying your claim. Instead, he goes off on a rant equating being gay with "bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestality, and obscenity." He can't get over the fact that he thinks gay sex is icky and thus his entire response is about how it ought to be criminalized. He even tries to do the "All men are prohibited from sleeping under bridges, therefore the law does not discriminate against rich and poor" routine:
On its face 21.06(a) applies equally to all persons. Men and women, heterosexuals and homosexuals, are all subject to its prohibition of deviate sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex. To be sure, 21.06 does distinguish between the sexes insofar as concerns the partner with whom the sexual acts are performed: men can violate the law only with other men, and women only with other women. But this cannot itself be a denial of equal protection, since it is precisely the same distinction regarding partner that is drawn in state laws prohibiting marriage with someone of the same sex while permitting marriage with someone of the opposite sex. Since straight people don't have sex with people of the same sex, we have only to turn to Scalia's own statement regarding the difficulty of finding a straight person in violation of this law and the ridiculousness of having that be a standard. Criminalizing an act that only certain members of the citizenry engage in is not merely criminalizing the act. It is criminalizing the class of people who engage in it. Rich people don't sleep under bridges. Straight people don't engage in sexual activity with people of the same sex. He then starts to blather about the "homosexual agenda." Interesting that a great deal of his previous argument up to this point was that respect for the integrity and personhood of gay people isn't historical and therefore there can be no legal support for such respect, and yet now here is complaining that people are respecting the integrity and personhood of gay people and therefore expecting there to be legal support for such respect. He can't have it both ways. And Thomas? His dissent basically says that he's not interested and the case should never have been taken up. Ironically, the very case he uses to justify his position, Griswold v. Connecticut, expressly denies his response. It is precisely because the law is "uncommonly silly" that he is required to act in his capacity as a judge. He admits that were he a member of the Texas Legislature, he would vote to repeal it. Well, the people convicted have no ability to do that. Their convictions are on the record. They were then to be listed as registered sex offenders for the rest of their lives. Exactly how does Thomas expect to have that silliness revoked except through the courts? Only the courts can vacate a conviction. But back to your claim that Lawrence v. Texas wasn't about sex but was about the privacy of the home. Where in any of the opinions in the case do you find any statement addressing that?
quote: (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? You presumed to comment about a decision you didn't even read? You think you are capable of determining what the point of a decision was, what its content said, what the points it made were, all without even bothering to read it? And you wonder why you keep getting tripped up on your own arguments. Are you saying Lawrence v. Texas was wrongly decided?
quote:quote: Incorrect. In fact because there is no standing. The feds don't offer marriage licenses. Only states do. The only way to challenge DOMA would be for a married, same-sex couple to file claim for rights offered to married couples (such as a tax return filed jointly), have it denied, and then go to court. But you can't do that until you get a married, same-sex couple. Such a beast did not exist until just now. And that required court battles not at the federal level, since marriage licenses are not given out by the feds, but rather at the state level. That's the reason why we've had all these state cases: Marriage licenses are given out by the state. DOMA only affects federal rights granted to couples that are licensed by the state. You can't challenge the denial of those rights to certain classes of married couples until you have a second class of married couple to deny such rights.
quote: Incorrect. Jurisdiction and standing must apply. That was the point behind Baehr v. Miike in Hawaii that started it all off: The decision of the Hawaii Supreme Court could not be appealed to the SCOTUS because marriage is not licensed by the feds but rather by the state. If the HSC decided that marriage could not be denied to same-sex couples (which it did decide but was rendered moot by the constitutional amendment that was passed between the time the case was presented and then decided), then there was nothing the feds could do about it. The federal government cannot criminalize or delegitimize same-sex marriage. All it can do is deny the federal rights that come along with marriage once a state has decided to license a couple as married. Federal DOMA can only be challenged in federal court because it is a federal law. However, there is no way to challenge DOMA until you have a married, same-sex couple. That requires state-level action.
quote:quote: That isn't an answer. Let's try again, shall we? So Loving v. Virginia, which dealt with a "state issue," was wrongly decided. Is that what you're saying?
quote: So if it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation? Are you saying Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided? States have the right to violate the Constitution?
quote: So Loving v. Virginia, which dealt with the "state issue" of marriage, was wrongly decided. Is that what you're saying?
quote: So Loving v. Virginia, which had the federal government passel out a one-size-fits-all mandate, was wrongly decided? Is that what you're saying?
quote: So Loving v. Virginia, which resulted in the feds preventing states from determining their own standards for marriage, was wrongly decided. Is that what you're saying? Are you saying Loving v. Virginia defined marriage? What in the decision can be interpreted so? The decision merely said that if a state is going to provide marriage, then it cannot deny it to people based upon the race of the participants. Are you saying Loving v. Virginia "redefined" marriage? If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote: So states are free to violate the Constitution, including Article IV, Section 1?
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. States have the right to violate the Constitution? Is that what you're saying?
quote:quote: So if marriage is a fundamental right (Loving v. Virginia) and if gay people cannot be discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation (Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans), then how does one come to the conclusion that a fundamental right can be denied to citizens of the United States? Are gay people not citizens? Is that what you're saying?
quote: And what "bizarre interpretations" does same-sex marriage lead to that mixed-sex marriage does not? Be specific.
quote: You do realize that you just contradicted yourself, yes?
My stance is that the federal government should neither regulate personal relationships nor discriminate against individuals for their personal preferences. Laws regulating marriage should be left to the states, precisely where the Constitution places the issue. How do you reconcile this demand of yours that the feds never define marriage with your latest statement that you agree with the feds defining marriage via DOMA?
quote: So being gay is a crime? Does the phrase "due process" mean nothing to you?
quote: So if you knew you were making a nonsense statement, why did you make it? Do you think we're stupid?
quote: So being gay is an "aberration"? Just like being an interracial couple is an "aberration"? If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation? What "aberrations" does same-sex marriage lead to that mixed-sex marriage does not? Be specific.
quote: So Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided. Is that what you're trying to say?
quote: Why don't I believe that? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Nemesis Juggernaut responds to me:
quote: (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? The pronouncements of the judges, even the dissents, are important when examining the law. When are you going to do your homework? The reason Brown v. Board of Education was decided the way it was is in part due to the DISSENT that was written in Plessy v. Ferguson by Harlan. If there were no point to a dissent, then the dissenting justices would not bother writing them. But there is a point to them. Cases get revisited. When they do, it is helpful to find out what the dissenting justices thought of the case when it was brought up the first time.
quote: But shouldn't he, as a judge that is not swayed by "activism," be able to put that aside and read the Constitution for what it says, regardless of his personal feelings? Actually, when you define "activism" as "overturning law," then Scalia is actually the most "activist" judge on the court: He is the most likely to vote to strike down laws. So when DOMA comes before the court, shouldn't the advocates for its overturning point out that Scalia's own argument is that DOMA is unconstitutional in the light of Lawrence v. Texas?
quote: (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? Have you still not bothered to read the decision? It isn't that long.
There are broad statements of the substantive reach of liberty under the Due Process Clause in earlier cases, including Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), and Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); but the most pertinent beginning point is our decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). In Griswold the Court invalidated a state law prohibiting the use of drugs or devices of contraception and counseling or aiding and abetting the use of contraceptives. The Court described the protected interest as a right to privacy and placed emphasis on the marriage relation and the protected space of the marital bedroom. Id., at 485. After Griswold it was established that the right to make certain decisions regarding sexual conduct extends beyond the marital relationship. In Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972), the Court invalidated a law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried persons. The case was decided under the Equal Protection Clause, id., at 454; but with respect to unmarried persons, the Court went on to state the fundamental proposition that the law impaired the exercise of their personal rights, ibid. It quoted from the statement of the Court of Appeals finding the law to be in conflict with fundamental human rights, and it followed with this statement of its own: “It is true that in Griswold the right of privacy in question inhered in the marital relationship . . If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.” Id., at 453. Do you not see the pattern? If Lawrence v. Texas follows from a line of reasoning regarding the ability of the state to regulate intimate relations between persons, then surely that applies to the legal recognition of those relationships, too. That's why Scalia made the point that he did: If it is unconstitutional to deny the sexual activity of gay people, then it certainly is unconstitutional to deny the marriage of gay people.
quote: Because when DOMA comes before the court, it will be used as an argument: When a justice has declared that decision X requires decision Y, then the affirmation of X is an argument for the affirmation of Y.
quote: Then why did he write it? Dissents are not binding precedent, no, but they are legal arguments. Should the question be revisited, the dissent from the last time the case was before the court is going to be examined. If it has no point, why bother writing one?
quote: Which only goes to show that you still haven't done your homework. You are still pontificating about things you have not bothered to educate yourself upon first.
quote: As demolished as ever and as based upon ignorance as before. You still haven't bothered to read the opinion, have you?
quote: I asked you where in Kennedy's opinion or O'Connor's concurrence you found any mention of privacy. I asked you to be specific.
Held: The Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause. Pp. 3”18. Where in there do you find the justification being based upon the sanctity of the home, divorced from the sexual activity taking place?
Resolution of this case depends on whether petitioners were free as adults to engage in private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause. For this inquiry the Court deems it necessary to reconsider its Bowers holding. The Bowers Court’s initial substantive statement-“The issue presented is whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy . ,” 478 U.S., at 190-discloses the Court’s failure to appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake. To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it said that marriage is just about the right to have sexual intercourse. Although the laws involved in Bowers and here purport to do not more than prohibit a particular sexual act, their penalties and purposes have more far-reaching consequences, touching upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home. They seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. Where in there do you find the justification being based upon the sanctity of the home, divorced from the sexual activity taking place?
The question before the Court is the validity of a Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct. Where in there do you find the justification being based upon the sanctity of the home, divorced from the sexual activity taking place?
We conclude the case should be resolved by determining whether the petitioners were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. For this inquiry we deem it necessary to reconsider the Court’s holding in Bowers. Where in there do you find the justification being based upon the sanctity of the home, divorced from the sexual activity taking place?
The Court began its substantive discussion in Bowers as follows: “The issue presented is whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy and hence invalidates the laws of the many States that still make such conduct illegal and have done so for a very long time.” Id., at 190. That statement, we now conclude, discloses the Court’s own failure to appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake. To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse. The laws involved in Bowers and here are, to be sure, statutes that purport to do no more than prohibit a particular sexual act. Their penalties and purposes, though, have more far-reaching consequences, touching upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home. The statutes do seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals. Where in there do you find the justification being based upon the sanctity of the home, divorced from the sexual activity taking place?
I therefore concur in the Court’s judgment that Texas’ sodomy law banning “deviate sexual intercourse” between consenting adults of the same sex, but not between consenting adults of different sexes, is unconstitutional. Where in there do you find the justification being based upon the sanctity of the home, divorced from the sexual activity taking place?
I do not know what “acting in private” means; surely consensual sodomy, like heterosexual intercourse, is rarely performed on stage. If all the Court means by “acting in private” is “on private premises, with the doors closed and windows covered,” it is entirely unsurprising that evidence of enforcement would be hard to come by. (Imagine the circumstances that would enable a search warrant to be obtained for a residence on the ground that there was probable cause to believe that consensual sodomy was then and there occurring.) Surely that lack of evidence would not sustain the proposition that consensual sodomy on private premises with the doors closed and windows covered was regarded as a “fundamental right,” even though all other consensual sodomy was criminalized. Where in there do you find the justification being based upon the sanctity of the home, divorced from the sexual activity taking place?
On its face 21.06(a) applies equally to all persons. Men and women, heterosexuals and homosexuals, are all subject to its prohibition of deviate sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex. To be sure, 21.06 does distinguish between the sexes insofar as concerns the partner with whom the sexual acts are performed: men can violate the law only with other men, and women only with other women. But this cannot itself be a denial of equal protection, since it is precisely the same distinction regarding partner that is drawn in state laws prohibiting marriage with someone of the same sex while permitting marriage with someone of the opposite sex. Where in there do you find the justification being based upon the sanctity of the home, divorced from the sexual activity taking place? Time to show you've done your homework: Full quotations in complete context, please. Where in the Lawrence v. Texas decision to you find justification being based upon the sanctity of the home, divorced from the sexual activity taking place? Be specific.
which makes me wonder why anyone uses this case as some sort of blanket defense for homosexual marriage. It has nothing to do with it! So Scalia was wrong when he wrote:
State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding. I mean, it's only a dissent, right? So why did he write it? When DOMA comes before the court, do you seriously think one of the arguments that will be made when Scalia decides to try and be clever will not be that his own statement regarding the precedent of Lawrence v. Texas means that DOMA is inherently unconstitutional?
quote: Incorrect. You clearly haven't read the decision. It directly and specifically states that such is not what the case is about. First, the cops were in the home legally. You would know that if you had read the decision, but you didn't, did you?
A police officer, [I][B]whose right to enter seems not to have been in question[/I][/b], observed Hardwick, in his own bedroom, engaging in intimate sexual conduct with another adult male. Emphasis added. Now, why do you not know this if you have done your homework and read the opinion before making a statement about the facts of the case? It's because you haven't actually read the decision.
quote: Incorrect. They were not in the house to arrest the men for sodomy. They were in the house as part of a search and in the process of doing so, discovered the defendants engaged in sex. You would know that if you had read the decision, but you didn't, did you? The very first sentence of the summary:
[I][B]Responding to a reported weapons disturbance in a private residence, Houston police entered petitioner Lawrence’s apartment[/I][/b] and saw him and another adult man, petitioner Garner, engaging in a private, consensual sexual act. Emphasis added. Now, why do you not know this if you have done your homework and read the opinion before making a statement about the facts of the case? It's because you haven't actually read the decision.
quote: Because the case isn't about privacy. Nothing in the decision discusses privacy. It is all about the criminalization of sexual activity. The statement that literally is the decision:
Held: The Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause. Pp. 3”18. Where in there do you find any mention of privacy?
quote: Read the decision and find out.
The Court described the protected interest as a right to privacy and placed emphasis on the [I][B]marriage relation[/i][/b] and the protected space of the marital bedroom. Id., at 485. To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a [I][B]married couple[/i][/b] were it to be said [I][B]marriage[/i][/b] is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse. The Casey decision again confirmed that [I][B]our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage[/i][/b], procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Id., at 851. Second, individual decisions by [I][B]married[/i][/b] persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Gee...for a case that has no connection to marriage at all, they sure do bring it up a lot. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
LudoRephaim writes:
quote: Ah, yes..."Love the sinner, hate the sin." I don't hate you, I just hate what you do and don't want you to ever experience the joy of love.
quote: So being gay is the same as lying, breaking marital vows, murdering people, and breaking the Sabbath. Is that what you're trying to say? Being gay is equivalent to murder?
quote: "But they would not allow blacks to become a member unless they repented and come/come back to Christ." Should black people "repent"? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
LudoRephaim responds to me:
quote: Who are you to tell me what "good conversation" means? Don't I get to determine that for myself?
quote: So being gay is equivalent to being a thief? How does being gay do that while being straight does not? Be specific.
quote: Who are you to tell me "what I want"? Don't I get to determine that for myself?
quote: So being gay is equivalent to murder? How does being gay do that while being straight does not? Be specific.
quote: Who are you to tell me what "the most dangerous prey" is? Don't I get to decide that for myself?
quote: So being gay is equivalent to infidelity? How does being gay do that while being straight does not? Be specific.
quote: Who are you to tell me what "the joy of love" is? Don't I get to decide that for myself?
quote: So being gay is equivalent to cursing? How does being gay do that while being straight does not? Be specific.
quote: Who are you to tell me what my speech should be? Don't I get to decide that for myself?
quote: So being gay is equivalent to idolatry? How does being gay do that while being straight does not? Be specific.
quote: Who are you to tell me what my tastes in art should be? Don't I get to decide that for myself?
quote: So being gay is equivalent to religion? How does being gay do that while being straight does not? Be specific.
quote: Who are you to tell me what my religion should be? Don't I get to decide that for myself?
quote: So being gay is merely lust? How does being gay do that while being straight does not? Be specific.
quote: Who are you to tell me how to engage my sexuality? Don't I get to decide that for myself?
quote: So being gay is equivalent to fornication, bestiality, incest, pedophilia, pornography, and lustful thoughts? How does being gay do that while being straight does not? Be specific.
quote: Who are you to tell me if I'm in love or not? Don't I get to decide that for myself?
quote: Maybe. The problem is that nothing you have said passes muster except to entrench homophobia, equating being gay with everything under the sun except being straight.
quote:quote: And yet, the Bible doesn't really say anything about homosexuality as we understand it.
quote: (*chuckle*) Nice try. That's my question to you.
quote: So instead of answering the question, you want to argue semantics? Let's try again, shall we? This time, let's use my exact words rather than the re-write you did: Should black people "repent"? If you're really that concerned on semantics, check the spelling and punctuation. I wrote it that way for a reason.
quote: Since "race" is not well-defined, I don't really know how to answer that question. The simple fact is that there are gay people. Why do the rights of gay people depend upon why or how?
quote: "Religion"? Since when did physical characteristics become equivalent to "religion"? As for culture and history, certain there is a culture and history to gay people. Culture and history automatically come into being when humans form societies. Gay people have formed societies and, since they are human, that necessarily means there is culture and history associated with those societies. Are you denying this?
quote: Since no humans comes from Antarctica, the answer to that would be no. Your point is?
quote: Being humans, gay people come from the same place as straight people. What's your point?
quote: That's my question to you. If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation? Surely you aren't about to say that you haven't heard of certain sects who claim that the "curse of Ham" was dark skin, yes? You are aware that the Mormon church held this belief up until about the 1970s. You were not allowed to be black and Mormon. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Taz responds to LudoRephaim:
quote:quote: I know that it's off-topic, but didn't you used to have an avatar of the Tasmanian Devil from the Warner Bros. cartoons? Am I thinking of someone else? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
LudoRephaim responds to me:
quote: And which "Biblical God" are you referring to?
quote: Since when? If we are restricting ourselves to the Bible, there's nothing in there that says anything of the sort.
quote: Huh? That's not what Leviticus 18 says.
quote: That's not what it says. Lots of people think that's what it says, but it isn't. No, let's not play dumb and refer to literal readings of English translations (and there's a festive clue right there). The point is that the point of Leviticus 18 was not a reference to what we refer to as homosexuality. It is referring to ritual practice. The reference is not to gay people but rather to temple prostitution. You don't think the Bible was written in English, do you?
quote: (*chuckle*) Look, I know that there's a lot of history regarding the "classic" interpretations of these passages, but just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true. To use your words, "if you were a real Bible scholar," you wouldn't rely on known mistranslations of a text that we don't even have an original copy of. The New Century Version? Are you serious? One that was originally written for children? By the "World Bible Translation Center"? You do know who they are, right? Quick question to see just how much you know about the Bible: What's the sin of Sodom?
quote: Hint: I know that. When did that stop people from forcing their opinions upon the text to make it mean things it doesn't actually say? Hmmm...where have I heard that argument recently...?
quote: Huh? Since not even what we call "race" has that characteristic, why are you holding it against gay people?
quote: You do realize that you just contradicted yourself, yes? Hint: Differences within the group are greater than differences between groups.
quote: Who said I was "progressive"? It would help if you would respond to what I actually say and not what you are imagining me saying. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Bluejay responds to me:
quote: While I may have overstated my position, you have understated yours. It isn't simply that black people "aren't allowed the priesthood and several ordinances." It is that they are cursed and they shall spend even the afterlife as slaves:
2 Nephi 5:21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. 5:22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities. 5:23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done. 5:24 And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey. Now, a black person can attain redemption...and in so doing will gain white skin:
3 Nephi 2:14 It came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites; 2:15 And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites; 2:16 And their young men and their daughters became exceedingly fair, and they were numbered among the Nephites, and were called Nephites. And thus ended the thirteenth year. Yes, Joseph Smith accepted blacks into the church and made some of them priests, but that practice ended pretty much right after he died with the proclamation of Brigham Young that blacks were those suffering from the mark of Cain and the curse of Ham. Because of this, while blacks could physically enter temples, they were not allowed endowment nor celestial marriage, which means they will not achieve highest salvation. Instead, they are to be servants. That said, eventually the curse will be lifted...once every other child of Adam receives resurrection: Black people are to be last. The removal of the restrictions before the resurrection is a bit of a problem, but given the history of Mormonism, this is actually just par for the course: Make it up as you go along. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
subbie writes:
quote: Everybody knows that one...but what I don't understand is why everybody seems to skip over Matthew 7:2. Everybody knows Matthew 7:1: 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. Because everybody skips over Matthew 7:2, they seem to think that this means that they are free to judge others so long as they haven't engaged in the sin they are judging others over. 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. It doesn't matter if you haven't committed the sin: If you judge another person for it, you will also be punished with what you damn others with. Of course, that's just a couple passages out of many. We are not surprised to find that the Bible contradicts itself...even within the same book. It was written by many people over hundreds of years. It is not unusual that it cannot maintain a consistent point of view. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
LudoRephaim responds to me:
quote:quote: That doesn't answer the question. F'rinstance, the god of the New Testament is not the same one as the god of the Old. And even the god in the Old Testament isn't the same one everywhere. Heck, it sometimes changes in the middle of a passage (see the story of Noah.) The Bible was developed by many people over the course of centuries and was then cobbled together by other people over more centuries. The idea that it has a consistent point of view is simplistic at best.
quote: The part where it's referring to what we today call "homosexuality." Does the word "context" mean anything to you? You do know that there is no word for homosexuality in Ancient Hebrew, yes?
quote: Nobody's stopping you. This is a piece of contention regarding the text and since we don't have any original texts, since the entire thing is nothing more than a translation of oral history, there will never be a definitive answer. But seeing as how Reform Judaism doesn't seem to consider homosexuality to be a sin, one would think that they would have something to say about how to interpret their own religious text.
quote: You're confusing "temple" meaning "Jewish place of worship" with "temple" meaning "religious place of worship." Again, does the word "context" mean anything to you? Hint: What does word "toeyvah" mean? How does it relate to the word "zimah"?Hint: Who is "Molech"? Hint: Might the fact that the verse follows admonitions regarding Molech have some effect upon how it ought to be interpreted? ve.et-za.khar lo tish.kav mish.ke.vei i.sha to.e.va hiv: And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman What on earth does "lay lyings" mean? A case can be made that it's saying you're not allowed to have sex with a man in the same bed as you have sex with a woman, given other ritualistic passages in Leviticus regarding the forbiddance of mixing things (seed in a field, fibers in cloth, food on a plate). As you later quote, "Don't have sex with a man as one does with a woman." Well, gay people don't. Given the status of women in Hebrew culture, there is a dominant/submissive concept taking place. This would indicate that a man is not supposed to take the submissive position or treat his partner as if he were a woman. The simple fact of the matter is that the passage isn't very well-phrased. To claim that it is crystal clear is naive at best.
quote: Well, for example, certain translations of the passage use the term "homosexuality." Considering that there is no such word in Hebrew that could conceivably be translated as "homosexuality," one would find the translation to be poor.
quote: You mean you don't know? The New Century Version was the result of the World Bible Translation Center, Ft. Worth, Texas, founded in 1973. The result was a Bible that was written at the third-grade level. When they published in 1983, it was called the "International Children's Version New Testament." They then came out with a complete version, "The Holy Bible, International Children's Version," in 1986. This was then retitled the "New Century Version" in 1987.
quote: Yes, you do. You seem to think that this passage exists in a vacuum.
quote: Indeed. va.tig.be.hei.na va.ta.a.sei.na to.e.va le.fa.nai va.a.sir et.hen ka.a.sher ra.i.ti: We're back to defining what "toeyvah" means and how it compares to "zimah." But that said, what makes you think that it's a reference to homosexuality? After all, there is no reference to homosexuality in the story of Lot. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
LudoRephaim responds to me:
quote: Indeed, it does. Notice that in this discussion about what the text says, I've been the one quoting it in its original language.
quote: A) Again, you seem to think the passage sits in a vacuum. B) Again, I have to ask you what you think "toeyvah" means and how it relates to "zimah." I notice you didn't answer that part. Hint: Murder is "zimah," mixing fibers is "toeyvah."
quote: I am: Because the culture at the time had no concept of what we call homosexuality, there are no passages referring to it in the text. How does one write about something that one doesn't have any conceptualization of?
quote: I know. I went with the big one. But you can add Conservative to that, too. They don't really find anything wrong with being gay, either.
quote: (*chuckle*) "Messianic Judaism" is just another name for "Southern Baptists." If you actually question them, you find that they're not Jewish. I mean this quite seriously: They are a scam put out by certain parts of the Southern Baptists.
quote: And? You don't really know much about Judaism, do you?
quote: I know...that's why I was the one using the word "temple" which you took to mean "Jewish place of worship." I wasn't quoting anything. I was making a reference to a concept using words in English because that is what we're communicating in.
quote: Keep going. There's more to it than that. As I directly asked you: How does this compare to "zimah"? Hint: Murder is "zimah," mixing fibers is "toeyvah."
quote: Huh? What do the commandments have to do with anything? I thought we were talking about Leviticus, not Exodus.
quote: You tell me: How does "toeyvah" relate to "zimah"? Hint: Murder is "zimah," mixing fibers is "toeyvah."
quote: Huh? Where does it say "have sex"? That's not in the passage. It's "bring them out so we may know them." Surely you're not about to say that "know" means "have sex" in this context, are you? The same phrasing is used over 300 times in the Bible and it never gets translated as "have sex" except in this one passage. A bit odd, don't you think? Once again, you seem to think the passage exists in a vacuum. Go back and read Genesis 14 and think again as to what "know" means in this passage. Especially since the final passage you quoted shows the lie that "know" means "have sex." If they were there for sex, why do they become enranged when Lot offers them sex? Why do they threaten to destroy him when Lot offers them what they were supposedly there for? Since that makes no sense, it is clear that "know" does not mean "have sex." Hint: I know that "know" can be translated as "have sex," but it needs to be phrased in a certain way. You can use "know" to mean "have sex" in English, too, but you have to phrase it a certain way. When you say that you want to take your new love home to "get to know" your parents, you're not suggesting they have sex because the phrasing is all wrong. va.yik.re.u el-lot va.yom.ru lo a.ye ha.a.na.shim a.sher-ba.u e.lei.kha ha.lai.la ho.tsi.em e.lei.nu ve.ned.a o.tam Compare this to the passage of Adam having sex with Eve: ve.ha.a.dam ya.da et-kha.va ish.to va.ta.har va.te.led et-ka.yin va.to.mer ka.ni.ti ish et-a.do.nai Notice the different phrasing. You would think that if the great sin of Sodom had anything to do with the event that led to the destruction of the town, later passages talking about the sin of Sodom would mention it. Strange how those condemnations are about violations of hospitality. Sex is never mentioned. Yes, I know you were taught that the sin of Sodom was sex. That's where we get the word "sodomy" from. But the passage doesn't say that. The term "sodomize" was coined in the mid-1800s.
quote: (*chuckle*) In this conversation, I've been the one quoting the original Hebrew.
quote: Of course. But that requires one have a well-phrased statement to start with. Here, let me give you a passage and we'll see how well you do: The deep red rose I see its thorn I just ignore the scent that's borne to me it's nothing I deplore those scratches that I got before I just complain about the pain a lot I think of beauty's gain. It's missing the punctuation, I know...but then again, the Hebrew texts didn't have puncutation, either. Now, you tell me. Did I mean: The deep red rose, I see its thornI just ignore the scent that's borne To me, it's nothing I deplore Those scratches that I got before I just complain about the pain A lot I think of beauty's gain Or did I mean: The deep red rose I seeIt's thorn I just ignore The scent that's borne to me It's nothing I deplore Those scratches that I got Before I just complain About the pain a lot I think of beauty's gain How are you going to get a translation that conveys the meaning without a solid understanding of what is trying to be said? You cannot have a dynamic equivalent without knowing the complete context. So once again, I ask you: What does word "toeyvah" mean? How does it relate to the word "zimah"?Who is "Molech"? Might the fact that the verse follows admonitions regarding Molech have some effect upon how it ought to be interpreted? quote: But if the context makes it clear that homosexual acts aren't the subject of the passage, what does that do to a translation that inserts the word "homosexual" into the passage? I do not ask for my health. I really want to hear your answers: What does word "toeyvah" mean? How does it relate to the word "zimah"?Who is "Molech"? Might the fact that the verse follows admonitions regarding Molech have some effect upon how it ought to be interpreted? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
LudoRephaim writes a lot of sound and fury, but still no answer to my question. Let's try again, shall we?
How does "toeyvah" relate to "zimah"? If you don't know the Hebrew, and you've certainly been giving the indication that you don't, how can you claim to know what it means? You've questioned whether or not I've quoted the text accurately, but surely you can look that up. You've managed to look up a lot of other things, so this shouldn't be that hard. It really is a simple question: How does "toeyvah" relate to "zimah"? Now, you've come pretty close to the answer, but you need to take the final step. And since the sins in Leviticus are described as "toeyvah" when they could have been described as "zimah," what do you think that means? After all, Leviticus also describes some things as "zimah": Leviticus 19:29al-te.kha.lel et-bit.kha le.haz.no.ta ve.lo-tiz.ne ha.a.rets u.mal.a ha.a.rets zi.ma — — —-— —— ‘- ——-— That one deals with prostitution. There are a couple other passages in Leviticus that mention it. You really wanna get into it: Proverbs 24:9:zi.mat i.ve.let kha.tat ve.to.a.vat le.a.dam lets — — ‘ — — There, you've got them both. Why do you think that is? Here's another hint. The common phrase when using "toeyvah" is "toeyvah ha-goyim." How do you think that makes us look at the word? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
LudoRephaim writes:
quote: In other words, you're a cafeteria Christian: You take the passages you want to follow and ignore the rest. If you truly want to follow the Law, and Jesus said that not one jot or tittle of the Law would be changed till all be fulfilled, then it all goes together. If you're going to throw away one part of the Law, then you're going to have to throw it all away. If it happens that the Christian religion has a stance in common with Judaism, it will necessarily require a separate justification. In short, a Christian cannot use one part of Leviticus as justification for condemnation when they ignore another part. They all go together.
quote: Have you never been to a Jewish deli? Hint: Israel is the world's largest consumer of turkey per capita. Hint: A turkey is not a bird of prey. It has a crop, an extra toe, and a peelable gizzard. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
