Posted on 11/01/2001 9:00:19 AM PST by FormerLib
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:35:48 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
ANNAPOLIS
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
(Was that a flame or an ad hominem?)
Neither. It appears to be an attempt to correct a flaw in the logic of a previous statement.
Excellent point. And one that conveniently eludes the "whats-wrong-with-gay-marriage-dont-ram-your-morality-down-our-throats" crowd.
(Was that a flame or an ad hominem?)
Neither. It was an observation based on the fact that your debating technique reminds me of someone else who had a problem with straight (no pun intended) answers.
Western Civilization is partially based on Ancient Roman Civilization. Which was very pro-homosexual.
For example, on how Western Civilization is partially based on Ancient Roman Civilization, the T-Shirt is basically a modern day version of the Ancient Roman Tunic.
Humor me: Give us a good definition that's more substantive than substituting one word for another. Once more, I beg you, no flames or ad hominems. It's an honest challenge.
You might be interested in consulting Male & Female" before composing a reply.
An objective reading of the Bible and of the history of Jewish, Christian, & Muslim nations suggests that God allows a lot of leeway in admonishing us not to kill.
Your World War II example is a perfect red herring because it does nothing to address the assertion that the terrorists acted out of religious conviction.
But think about this.
By the way, I used and altered one your sentences. I hope you don't mind.
One crowd screams "whats-wrong-with-gay-marriage-don't-ram-your-morality-down-our-throats"
And the other crowd screams "whats-wrong-with-morality-don't-ram-your-gay-marriage-down-our-throats"
Does anyone else see a strange polar similarities to the views of these two groups.
If you don't like "Thou shalt not kill.""
Then how about "Thou shalt not take thy Lord's name in vain."
Isn't doing evil in the name of God, taking thy Lord's name in vain.
Not until you defend your position for refusing to allow the people to speak via the ballot.
That's because the Bible (in Hebrew and in the original Greek translations) condemns murder, the killing of an innocent. What you are referring to is where God pronounces the sentence of death for crimes (ie. no longer innocent).
So, what is your definition of "is?"
are you kidding me? democrats.com is calling you . . .
Oh come on and 'fess up. It was both. ;-)
Truly though, there are way over 100,000 U.S. citizens whose biological sex could be either male or female depending on what medical test was being administered. For example, the 2000 Olympics dropped sex testing because they were embarrassed after the 1996 Olympics disqualified several female atheletes who subsequently gave birth to healthy babies.
We do not know of any case that established the eligibility for a marriage license when one or both of the partners is intersexed. Since most intersex people live as unambiguously male or unambiguously female, we doubt that their legal standing is much different from that of non-intersex people who are unambiguously gendered. We do not know of any precedence regarding how the court would interpret the prohibition against same-sex marriage when the intersex person is also transgender or has transitioned genders. Eventually, it will take the lifting of restrictions on marriage to make sure that all intersex people are treated equally under the law.
I'd hate to be judgemental but . . .
Isn't this precisely the sort of reasoning that recently led to unfortunate incidents in New York & Arlington
The answer is no. To extrapolate that those who wish to bring the gay marriage law to a vote are acting under a conviction no different than the loonies who murdered 6000 people is a breathtaking leap in pseudo-logic. It will not wash.
My answer was an example that, on those rare occasions when we must disregard man's law in favor of the laws of God, we ALWAYS do so out of mercy and in pursuit of peace. It's called love. So, my example of Christians saving Jews in WW II is precisely the point. Those who obey God's law will do good, not kill innocents. Got it yet? No red herring here.
The correct translation is actually "Thou shalt not commit murder." That should clear up the "leeway" issue.
Right. But that doesn't make you correct and it doesn't address the question. Have you looked at that link I gave you, yet? It's pretty enlightening.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.