Is Homosexuality a Sin?
 

[QUOTE=jasong;321144]Don't forget to check out my book, titled,"Living as a Black Caucasion," in wide publication in all Bizarro world locations.

Suffering as a homosexual, and even giving into temptation, as I do with my porn habit, doesn't doom you to hell. But openly supporting obviously unchristian things is highly immoral. I can see a non-christian supporting "gay rights," everything is potentially forgivable if you're not a Christian. But this person says they were raised Southern Baptist, which suggests that they're reasonably aware of the Bible's stance of homosexuality.

When a non-Christian encourages immoral things, it's unfortunate. When a person who claims they're a Christian does it, they're either not a Christian and know it, or they're highly confused. I guess it could go either way.[/QUOTE]

Still looking for that link to your book. If you want me to "be sure to check [it] out", a location would be helpful.

However, on the subject of "sinfulness"-
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathaniel-frank/is-homosexuality-a-sin_b_2271332.html[/url]

[QUOTE=kladner;321272]Still looking for that link to your book. If you want me to "be sure to check [it] out", a location would be helpful.[/QUOTE]I suggest you get your irony detector serviced. It appears to be badly out of calibration.
:stirpot:

I am too old for this sh!t, but "[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WarGames"]the only winning strategy is not to play[/URL]" comes to mind. "The Big Kahuna", philosohically speaking, also provides an advice (if one accepts it in a broad enough sense):
[QUOTE]-- So you are saying that I have to make mistakes that I am going to regret to become a man?
-- I'm saying you've already done plenty of things to regret, you just [B]don't know what they are[/B]. It's when you discover them, when you see the folly in something you've done, and you wish that you had it do over, but you know you can't, because it's too late.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=chappy;321267]I suppose you could consider "brilliant Ed Whelan" an ad hominem on all other judicial commentators. mea culpa...

oh snap! I just ad hominem'ed a second time![/QUOTE]

I appreciate the admission. ;-) Perhaps I'll respond to your post after all.

[quote]What matters now is how the Justices will vote. And if any of the Conservatives on the court have an eye for history or justice (I'm looking at you Alito) the court will rule 7 to 2 against.[/quote]This, I believe, is the epitome of judicial activism. Ruling one way, not because the constitution or laws require it, but because you believe history will look down on you otherwise. Evolving standards are [i]not[/i] a valid tool in judicial decisions, especially in a constitutional republic. Leave it to the populace to decide when our society has evolved enough to change the laws, not to a bare majority of unelected judges who are supposed to be blind deciders.

[QUOTE=xilman;321277]I suggest you get your irony detector serviced. It appears to be badly out of calibration.
:stirpot:[/QUOTE]

LOL! Could be! I do tend toward the literal. Thanks! :smile:

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;321322]
This, I believe, is the epitome of judicial activism. Ruling one way, not because the constitution or laws require it, but because you believe history will look down on you otherwise. Evolving standards are [i]not[/i] a valid tool in judicial decisions, especially in a constitutional republic. Leave it to the populace to decide when our society has evolved enough to change the laws, not to a bare majority of unelected judges who are supposed to be blind deciders.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps. I would argue that the height of Judicial Activism is letting your own personal beliefs on a subject force you to bend and twist the Judicial review using such weak legal arguments as slippery slope. (see also the Scalia maneuver)

I see the whole historic thing in light of the Kennedy quote on Liberty that I posted earlier. The Forefathers were wise enough to see that future generations would have a better sense of history given the learning from the past thing. So while they may have never thought to allow negroes the right to vote or own property, or women to vote, these were special cases because the Constitution was more or less instructive--so they had to be overturned by Amendment.

But what about how many working hours an employee could be forced to work in a week? Or, whether the government can institute an income tax (this was actually decided Pollack v. Farmers Loan and Trust and then overruled by the 16th amendment). Or, what constitutes a marriage? Or, whether the government can say that blacks can't marry whites (I suggest that Pace v. Alabama and the 80 years of state sponsored racism that followed until Loving v. Virginia should temper any thoughts you have that History doesn't provide a better lens to view Liberty.) These and the infinite number of things that the framers couldn't even imagine are where the SCOTUS must decide how to apply the precepts of the Constitution. That is not Judicial Activism. That is Article 3 sections 1 and 2 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is a balance against tyranny of the masses, which is exactly what your notion of letting the public decide would lead to. I know you don't mean it, but the laws passed over the years that have had to be struck down time and time again prove that the people need this particular check and balance.

:goodposting: Well put!

[QUOTE=chappy;321328]Perhaps. I would argue that the height of Judicial Activism is letting your own personal beliefs on a subject force you to bend and twist the Judicial review using such weak legal arguments as slippery slope. (see also the Scalia maneuver)[/quote]Again with the [i]ad hominem[/i]. Must you attribute to Scalia motives beyond a sincere desire to interpret the law?

[quote]I see the whole historic thing in light of the Kennedy quote on Liberty that I posted earlier. The Forefathers were wise enough to see that future generations would have a better sense of history given the learning from the past thing. So while they may have never thought to allow negroes the right to vote or own property, or women to vote, these were special cases because the Constitution was more or less instructive--so they had to be overturned by Amendment.

But what about how many working hours an employee could be forced to work in a week? Or, whether the government can institute an income tax (this was actually decided Pollack v. Farmers Loan and Trust and then overruled by the 16th amendment). Or, what constitutes a marriage? Or, whether the government can say that blacks can't marry whites (I suggest that Pace v. Alabama and the 80 years of state sponsored racism that followed until Loving v. Virginia should temper any thoughts you have that History doesn't provide a better lens to view Liberty.) These and the infinite number of things that the framers couldn't even imagine are where the SCOTUS must decide how to apply the precepts of the Constitution. That is not Judicial Activism. That is Article 3 sections 1 and 2 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is a balance against tyranny of the masses, which is exactly what your notion of letting the public decide would lead to. I know you don't mean it, but the laws passed over the years that have had to be struck down time and time again prove that the people need this particular check and balance.[/QUOTE]As I understand it, the framers of the constitution did not envision the Supreme Court as the final arbiter on legality. It wasn't on their radar. It was only a later invention of said court (still quite early in the history of this nation), that has now become a fixture of our politics.

That aside, I agree that the courts do provide a necessary balance of power. Even against the "tyranny of the masses" as you put it. But that same power can, and often has been wielded as its own form of tyranny. Tyranny against the people, and their right to self-representation. Tyranny in thinking they are right and the populace is wrong, on difficult questions which the constitution does not speak against.

But I think you are right, in that the decision will come down to whether or not the Supreme Court views DOMA and Prop. 8 as efforts to (as Justice Kennedy put it) "serve only to oppress" or as legitimate, rational choices to protect. Hence Ed Whelan's point about the vote in congress for DOMA. It wasn't passed out of hate, contrary to claims in briefs submitted against it.

you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

There is no ad hominem in that post. There is a snarky critique of Scalia's judicial review. That is not ad hominem.

If I had said that Scalia is guilty of using weak judicial logic AND he is a [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4i5195VBisQ"]gunky[/URL]. then that would be an ad hominem.

merely saying something negative is not adhominem.

[QUOTE=chappy;321340]you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

There is no ad hominem in that post. There is a snarky critique of Scalia's judicial review. That is not ad hominem.

If I had said that Scalia is guilty of using weak judicial logic AND he is a [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4i5195VBisQ"]gunky[/URL]. then that would be an ad hominem.

merely saying something negative is not adhominem.[/QUOTE]

(:devil:Psst, Chappy..... The rules are, that if Someone points out an obvious result of racism, ZF can call him racist, and not be engaging in ad hominim attacks. ZF can engage in "a bit of hyperbole" where others are wildly and erroneously exaggerating. This is what I meant above when I said, "Your rules are different." This sort of behavior is often referred to as "projection". That which you do, you vehemently accuse others of. It has been raised to a fine art on the Right.)

EDIT: And that which you try to deny in yourself produces the [I]most[/I] vehement denunciations of others.

chappy,

Were you not intimating that Scalia lets his "own personal beliefs on a subject force [him] to bend and twist the Judicial review"? If not, I apologize for misunderstanding. If so, you are imputing unprovable and negative motives to Scalia, which is the heart of [i]ad hominem[/i]; an argument made against the personality of the opponent.