Evidence for God from Science

Lol, got a funny image here:
I disagree with same-sex marriage, but I can't then turn around and say that anybody who disagrees with me is discriminatory against Christians, can I? That's what some Christians are doing, and this is an incorrect line of thinking.

Carrie Prejean's First Ammendment rights have NOT been violated. Everybody has the right to Free Speech, including Miss. Prejean.

However, this cuts both ways. When homosexual activists critisise Miss. Prejean's opinion, they are exercising their First Ammendment Rights.

If someone critisises what you say, you can't claim that they are violating your First Ammendment rights.
If someone disagrees with you, you can't claim they are discriminating against you.

On a totally different topic, how come homosexual activists are vilifying Carrie for stating that she believes marriage should be between one man and one woman, when their man Obama has said the same thing?

California Supreme court has upheld the ban on gay marriage. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8068019.stm

I haven't read this whole thread, so I don't know why you asked that, Harry, but sure, people have the right to criticize a person (from both sides . . .).

cslewislover wrote:California Supreme court has upheld the ban on gay marriage. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8068019.stm

Cool! Don't expect this victory to last long though.

I haven't read this whole thread, so I don't know why you asked that, Harry, but sure, people have the right to criticize a person (from both sides . . .).

My comment was in response to people's claims that Miss. Prejean had her first ammendment rights violated.

I'm in the UK and am largely ignorant of the politics over the pond.

Here we have civil partnerships for same sex couples, is there such thing in the US?

I know same sex couples over here who are happy with the civil partnerships and other who want the right to marry. On the other hand I know of opposite sex couples who would rather have a civil partnership than get married as they are not keen on the institute of marriage but want all the legal status that a civil partnership or marriage would provide.

Proinsias wrote:Here we have civil partnerships for same sex couples, is there such thing in the US?

I don't know if every state has them, but in California we do.

Harry12345 wrote:My comment was in response to people's claims that Miss. Prejean had her first ammendment rights violated.

But that's because she was going to lose her position for exercising free speech, not simply that she was criticized, right? Lol, I hadn't been reading this thread and don't really want to go and read 2-3 pages of it. The pageant is private, though, so it's a little different.

cslewislover wrote:
I don't know if every state has them, but in California we do.

Some states have them, some states don't. Because of the DoMA, no marriage or civil union between members of the same gender may acrue marriage benefits from the federal government.

Harry12345 wrote:My comment was in response to people's claims that Miss. Prejean had her first ammendment rights violated.

But that's because she was going to lose her position for exercising free speech, not simply that she was criticized, right? Lol, I hadn't been reading this thread and don't really want to go and read 2-3 pages of it. The pageant is private, though, so it's a little different.

First amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech

The First Amendment refers only to Congress. The people who own the pageant have every right to abridge the free speech of the people who participate in the pageant. If someone came into your house and started saying they hated you, and you then removed them from your house, their first amendment rights are not violated. If you are in private property or in a private association, there are rules.

Harry12345 wrote:The First Amendment refers only to Congress. The people who own the pageant have every right to abridge the free speech of the people who participate in the pageant. If someone came into your house and started saying they hated you, and you then removed them from your house, their first amendment rights are not violated. If you are in private property or in a private association, there are rules.

Sure Harry. I don't really care. It's a private thing, yes, but it's also very public. If enough people got upset with the pageant because of the way they operated, it would fade away, just like anything else. Frankly, I wish it would fade away.

cslewislover wrote:

Harry12345 wrote:The First Amendment refers only to Congress. The people who own the pageant have every right to abridge the free speech of the people who participate in the pageant. If someone came into your house and started saying they hated you, and you then removed them from your house, their first amendment rights are not violated. If you are in private property or in a private association, there are rules.

Sure Harry. I don't really care. It's a private thing, yes, but it's also very public. If enough people got upset with the pageant because of the way they operated, it would fade away, just like anything else. Frankly, I wish it would fade away.

Yep, so do I. I mean, Miss Prejean sounds very poorly educated, and the only reason she's in the pageant in the first place is because she's being paraded as an object.

Pioneered at the Levi Company (yet another American company that chose to go transnational and offshore it's manufacturing outside the U.S.), polarity management allows us to gauge and manage dynamic tension between competing polarized objectives.

Bill and Russ in their book 'Walking the Small Group Tightrope: Meeting the Challenges Every Group Faces' discuss how two competing desirable values can exist in tension with each other pointing out that one or the other solely is undesirable. For example, truth versus life is discussed where it is noted at the truth end of the spectrum we find pharisitical legalism with little regard for life application while at the life end of the spectrum we find people leaving there life with little regard to the truth. Hence, the need for a healthy balance between truth and life.

What we see occurring in our culture, regardless of the reason(s), is the result of a from truth toward life in the context Bill and Russ mean in any event.

Here's the thing, though. You can legally acquire the priveleges of "marriage" without it being marriage. You can even form legal agreements of who gets what if you were to break up. The only thing more you get from marriage is the name. So it seems to me that all the homosexuals are asking for is a bigger piece of the pie.

Because to me, marriage between atheists has never made sense. It's not just a legal thing, because you can get all of the priveleges legally. You can even legally change your name."Marriage" really seems to be religious...so why are they interested in it?

For_Narniaaa wrote:Here's the thing, though. You can legally acquire the priveleges of "marriage" without it being marriage. You can even form legal agreements of who gets what if you were to break up. The only thing more you get from marriage is the name. So it seems to me that all the homosexuals are asking for is a bigger piece of the pie.

Because to me, marriage between atheists has never made sense. It's not just a legal thing, because you can get all of the priveleges legally. You can even legally change your name."Marriage" really seems to be religious...so why are they interested in it?

Marriage is and always has been secular. The church got involved in the middle ages because at that time, very few other than clergy were literate - so the church's involvement was as a keeper of records; who married whom, who was born to whom, who died, etc. The idea of marriage as religious is a quite recent occurrence. However, marriage is still secular - if a couple is married in a church, it is performed by clergy acting as a representative of the state. A couple who is married in a civil ceremony is just as "married" as a couple married in a church as far as the state is concerned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History

That's a secular view and definition of marriage. Exactly what you would expect a godless atheist to say. In reality, marriage is a covenant relationship between a man and a woman entering into God's ordained provision for forming a family and for those who can have children it takes on great importance as these children are to be raised in the Lord.

Having homosexuals attempt to enter into this covenant relationship is at least as blasphemous as the KKK's co-opting the name of Christ to justify their hate. In actuality, people like these have been decieved by Satan to believe something that just isn't true.

As for atheists, they have no authentic relationship with God yet in any event.

ageofknowledge wrote:That's a secular view and definition of marriage. Exactly what you would expect a godless atheist to say. In reality, marriage is a covenant relationship between a man and a woman entering into God's ordained provision for forming a family and for those who can have children it takes on great importance as these children are to be raised in the Lord.

Having homosexuals attempt to enter into this covenant relationship is at least as blasphemous as the KKK's co-opting the name of Christ to justify their hate. In actuality, people like these have been decieved by Satan to believe something that just isn't true.

As for atheists, they have no authentic relationship with God yet in any event.

It is your belief that marriage involves a covenant relationship. You are entitled to your beliefs, but one's beliefs are not a valid reason to deprive others of their rights.

waynepii wrote:

ageofknowledge wrote:That's a secular view and definition of marriage. Exactly what you would expect a godless atheist to say. In reality, marriage is a covenant relationship between a man and a woman entering into God's ordained provision for forming a family and for those who can have children it takes on great importance as these children are to be raised in the Lord.

Having homosexuals attempt to enter into this covenant relationship is at least as blasphemous as the KKK's co-opting the name of Christ to justify their hate. In actuality, people like these have been decieved by Satan to believe something that just isn't true.

As for atheists, they have no authentic relationship with God yet in any event.

It is your belief that marriage involves a covenant relationship. You are entitled to your beliefs, but one's beliefs are not a valid reason to deprive others of their rights.

Marriage is work, it is a commitment, and a bond — It is not a right.

When Marriage is made into a right — it is no longer marriage. If made into a civil right then the courts can be used to sue anyone perceived to be violating that right. Militant homosexual activist would in turn go after Christian Churches to sue them out of existence for violating a civil right. The Judicial and Legislative branch of our US Governmental system would then be making laws that will be violating another Civil Right protected under the — “not forbidding the free practice of religion, clause.”

Marriage is work, it is a commitment, and a bond — It is not a right

It was instituted under the Judaic/Christian principles found in the bible that the States would recognize a married couple in another State as married. Again Marriage is not a right. The States recognize marriages as part of the — “not forbidding the free practice of religion” clause.

Turning marriage into a right neglect the real truth about marriage:

Marriage is work, it is a commitment, and a bond between a man and women to be committed to each other and in effect it is a covenant..

Secularization of society has been attacking this aspect of Marriage for a long time.

So let's ask the real questions to those who have been married at least 20 years…

Marriage is work is it not?

Marriage is a commitment is it not?

Marriage is a bond is it not?

How can it be made a right? No one has the right to Marry — if that is the case then by the right of marriage there would be no divorce as that also violates the Right of Marriage…

Think on it a bit.

Next time some demands the Right to be Married — Answer them with this:

Marriage is work, it is a commitment, and a bond — It is not a right.

Ask them to prove Marriage is a right…confront them with the truth
-
-
-

So let's ask the real questions to those who have been married at least 20 years…

Yep - My wife and I were married on Jan 28, 1978. (and have been for over 31 years)

Marriage is work is it not?

Absolutely

Marriage is a commitment is it not?

Sure is

Marriage is a bond is it not?

Right again

How can it be made a right? No one has the right to Marry ...

My wife and I didn't have the right to get married? Who were we supposed to ask for permission to be married? Who determines who should be allowed to marry? How do you justify depriving a couple of the ability to get married if they are willing to take on the responsibilities of marriage?

I think (hope) what you meant was that marriage involves both benefits and responsibilities.

... — if that is the case then by the right of marriage there would be no divorce as that also violates the Right of Marriage…

I don't understand what you mean here.

Think on it a bit.

Next time some demands the Right to be Married — Answer them with this:

Marriage is work, it is a commitment, and a bond — It is not a right.

Are you saying they need to consider all the ramifications of marriage before saying "I do"? I wholeheartedly agree with that. If more people did so, there would probably be fewer divorces.

If a couple (*any couple) understands that marriage is work, is a commitment, and is a bond, and understands and accepts the responsibilities involved, they CAN be married?

(* by "any couple" I mean any two adults who are competent to enter into a contract who are currently unmarried)