AUDub 11,158 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Exactly so why didn' the judge in this case just defer a ruling and not stir up a big fuss. Might be prepping for the inevitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quietfan 233 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 The amazing thing about Grace, is that all things are permissible,but not all things are profitable. I can cheat on my wife as many times as I want to. Under Grace, I can. Now, I will probably lose my family and be smeared in the public eye, but I can do that. It is also permissible for me under Grace, to do drugs and drink heavily. I will probably lose my job and maybe even my life, but I am allowed to do that. There is no rule that says that I can't do something. A Christian that believes in Christ can be a homosexual. There is no rule that states otherwise with Grace, because we aren't under the law anymore. But again, not all things are profitable. I am perfectly fine with you maintaining your beliefs regarding Grace, spiritual law, permission vs. profitability/wisdom. As a Christian (by my understanding), I agree with a good deal of your sentiment. As a believer in free speech, I respect and defend your right to "testify" or "witness" in this forum. ...I just don't see the relevance in a discussion of Constitutional law or civil rights. ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quietfan 233 Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Exactly so why didn't the judge in this case just defer a ruling and not stir up a big fuss. Reasonable question.I know very little about appellate law. Perhaps technicalities did not allow him/her to delay, procrastinate, postpone, or "punt" on making a ruling? Perhaps he wanted this case to join the cases included in the upcoming SCOTUS deliberations? Perhaps he felt strongly that there was no ambiguity in the facts of the case or the soundness of his ruling? Maybe he did not wish for any delay in granting of equal marital rights? I understand the temptation to defer taking such a stand and not "stir up a big fuss", given that SCOTUS will probably make the decision for you in the coming year. I would be tempted to "punt" myself if in his position. But I'd hate to think our judges are motivated by such seeming cowardice as "If I just procrastinate and postpone, I won't have to stick my neck out or make a fuss". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weegle777 78 Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 I bring it up because faith and Christian belief has been addressed in this thread, and I felt that Grace had been misrepresented. Just wanted to clarify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quietfan 233 Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 I bring it up because faith and Christian belief has been addressed in this thread, and I felt that Grace had been misrepresented. Just wanted to clarify. I'm cool with that. Your motivation understood and respected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quietfan 233 Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 As I understand all this, ONE District judge made this ruling. The state will appeal al it's far from over it would appear. One judge is all it takes...rights are not something to be granted or denied by a simple majority or show of hands. Rights are inherent, innate, inalienable, all this judge did was confirm that.Hopefully, however, the state won't waste any time or money appealing since SCOTUS has already promised to rule on the debate without us Alabamians needing to expend our tax dollars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,456 Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 I bring it up because faith and Christian belief has been addressed in this thread, and I felt that Grace had been misrepresented. Just wanted to clarify. Well done... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,393 Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 >>>>>>>>>>only without the additional religious baggage. LOL! That depends on who you ask. This "religious baggage" you speak of convicts me that if I lust for another women while "married" then I sin. Let's just say that I carry this baggage daily and don't have the will power to cut my eyes out. This alone is what keeps me in check from thinking that I am "holier" than any other person. Gay people carry that "baggage" plus the homo bag. In fact - to extend the metaphor - homosexuality is more like a trunk, or maybe a duffle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,393 Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Exactly so why didn't the judge in this case just defer a ruling and not stir up a big fuss. Reasonable question.I know very little about appellate law. Perhaps technicalities did not allow him/her to delay, procrastinate, postpone, or "punt" on making a ruling? Perhaps he wanted this case to join the cases included in the upcoming SCOTUS deliberations? Perhaps he felt strongly that there was no ambiguity in the facts of the case or the soundness of his ruling? Maybe he did not wish for any delay in granting of equal marital rights? I understand the temptation to defer taking such a stand and not "stir up a big fuss", given that SCOTUS will probably make the decision for you in the coming year. I would be tempted to "punt" myself if in his position. But I'd hate to think our judges are motivated by such seeming cowardice as "If I just procrastinate and postpone, I won't have to stick my neck out or make a fuss". It's my understanding that lower court rulings are considered heavily by the SCOTUS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeBags7277 734 Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 As I understand all this, ONE District judge made this ruling. The state will appeal al it's far from over it would appear. One judge is all it takes...rights are not something to be granted or denied by a simple majority or show of hands. Rights are inherent, innate, inalienable, all this judge did was confirm that.Hopefully, however, the state won't waste any time or money appealing since SCOTUS has already promised to rule on the debate without us Alabamians needing to expend our tax dollars. Don't get your hopes up. There are voting blocs to pander to here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selias 2,398 Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 My fellow Auburn people, I thank you for remaining civil in this discussion. It speaks volumes that we can disagree and debate in a civil matter. Give yourselves a hearty pat on the back. Regarding the word marriage, I have no problem moving from a religious term to a secular term and I don't think anyone with a sense of fairness would disagree. The government should cease awarding marriage licenses, at least in my opinion. Also, I don't see how any reasonable person could object to protecting churches and allowing them to practice their faith. The problem, like it or not, is that marriage is a generic term now. Much like Xerox means photocopy, marriage means a legally binding civil and legal contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 selias.....I sure agree about civil discussion. But if I understand you, I do disagree marriage is a generic term now. In the secular world perhaps. But from a religious standpoint no. The Bible hasn't been modified so aside from church some have to decide for themselves and have the chance to vote on it......not be dictated by a judge. JMHO In any event, SCOTUS will soon decide an that will be it......legally. Then I guess some nut will bring forth suit because he/she likes sheep a whole lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,431 Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 I like the idea of a Tea Party movement. What I don't like is it's implementation. When the government is small, freedom is large It definitely could have been better. I was kind of excited during the early stages. Then they just morphed into republican-on-steroid lunacy. BB42, i actually attended a few events at first, but then i started getting this onslaught of email that was just nutz. The emails were about the new armageddon of that day/week/month/year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,456 Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 selias.....I sure agree about civil discussion. But if I understand you, I do disagree marriage is a generic term now. In the secular world perhaps. But from a religious standpoint no. The Bible hasn't been modified so aside from church some have to decide for themselves and have the chance to vote on it......not be dictated by a judge. JMHO In any event, SCOTUS will soon decide an that will be it......legally. Then I guess some nut will bring forth suit because he/she likes sheep a whole lot. ;D/> That seems to be the direction this is headed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubfaninga 16 Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 I bring it up because faith and Christian belief has been addressed in this thread, and I felt that Grace had been misrepresented. Just wanted to clarify. I'm cool with that. Your motivation understood and respected. I must have missed where Grace was ever brought up but now it has definitely been misrepresented. You cannot cheat on your wife nor teach that it is ok even if you try to hide behind being profitable. Matthew 5:19 ""Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubfaninga 16 Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 >>>>>>>>>>only without the additional religious baggage. LOL! That depends on who you ask. This "religious baggage" you speak of convicts me that if I lust for another women while "married" then I sin. Let's just say that I carry this baggage daily and don't have the will power to cut my eyes out. This alone is what keeps me in check from thinking that I am "holier" than any other person. Gay people carry that "baggage" plus the homo bag. In fact - to extend the metaphor - homosexuality is more like a trunk, or maybe a duffle. I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubfaninga 16 Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 The amazing thing about Grace, is that all things are permissible,but not all things are profitable. I can cheat on my wife as many times as I want to. Under Grace, I can. Now, I will probably lose my family and be smeared in the public eye, but I can do that. It is also permissible for me under Grace, to do drugs and drink heavily. I will probably lose my job and maybe even my life, but I am allowed to do that. There is no rule that says that I can't do something. A Christian that believes in Christ can be a homosexual. There is no rule that states otherwise with Grace, because we aren't under the law anymore. But again, not all things are profitable. Digging up the Law/Grace discussion for this one so we don't derail this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weegle777 78 Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 I bring it up because faith and Christian belief has been addressed in this thread, and I felt that Grace had been misrepresented. Just wanted to clarify. I'm cool with that. Your motivation understood and respected. I must have missed where Grace was ever brought up but now it has definitely been misrepresented. You cannot cheat on your wife nor teach that it is ok even if you try to hide behind being profitable. Matthew 5:19 ""Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. " It is clear that you don't have a clue who Jesus was talking to, nor do you know why. Common mistake with context. (Clue) The sermon on the mount wasn't directed toward gentiles, but toward the jews and their arrogance about keeping the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weegle777 78 Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 No one is derailing anything. Relax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selias 2,398 Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 selias.....I sure agree about civil discussion. But if I understand you, I do disagree marriage is a generic term now. In the secular world perhaps. But from a religious standpoint no. The Bible hasn't been modified so aside from church some have to decide for themselves and have the chance to vote on it......not be dictated by a judge. JMHO In any event, SCOTUS will soon decide an that will be it......legally. Then I guess some nut will bring forth suit because he/she likes sheep a whole lot. ;D/> That seems to be the direction this is headed. I don't necessarily disagree. My point was the word marriage has entered the lexicon and that's not something you can truly change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quietfan 233 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 As I understand all this, ONE District judge made this ruling. The state will appeal al it's far from over it would appear. One judge is all it takes...rights are not something to be granted or denied by a simple majority or show of hands. Rights are inherent, innate, inalienable, all this judge did was confirm that.Hopefully, however, the state won't waste any time or money appealing since SCOTUS has already promised to rule on the debate without us Alabamians needing to expend our tax dollars. Don't get your hopes up. There are voting blocs to pander to here. Sadly you are correct! [but did you have to remind me? ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,456 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Change? Probably not. Do not allow the LEGAL meaning to be "changed"? Absolutely....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Breaking news...... http://www.al.com/news/mobile/index.ssf/2015/01/federal_judge_puts_same-sex_ma.html#incart_river Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,456 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Back tracking and side tracked. Such is politics in the judiciary....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubfaninga 16 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 It is clear that you don't have a clue who Jesus was talking to, nor do you know why. Common mistake with context. (Clue) The sermon on the mount wasn't directed toward gentiles, but toward the jews and their arrogance about keeping the law. ?????gentiles and jews????? "sermon on the mount wasn't directed toward gentiles" PURE GARBAGE!!! I bet you take the blessings. Let's just take Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John out of the New Testament and place it in the Old Testament of our bibles. (well at least his sayings that we take in vain because it does not profit us) I detest this abominable teaching because it makes every single word Jesus spoke null and void toward anyone not a Jew. Again, we have a thread for this. Last time I respond here about our Faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.