DELETED

[DELETED]

DELETED

[toes in the sand]

Back to the original issue at hand in CA - the supreme court decision.

My main problem is that by letting the marriages already conducted stand its sort of like there was a firesale on marriage...LIMITED TIME OFFER...marry now before your rights are nullifed!! Get your marriage now ... limited supplies.

Makes no sense to me!

I did come across this looking for anti-gay scripture though and found it quite amusing, especially considering those who follow God's word to the letter.


Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

As far as the first part of your post, I agree. Makes no sense to me either. Re-defining marriage is either right or wrong. Such is the dilemma when trying to re-write long standing traditions just to suit the beliefs of some.

As far as the second part of your post; please explain to me exactly how a letter to a radio talk show host pertains to the original subject?

[toes in the sand]

Toes--

Huh?

Seems to be something I'm missing.

And this forum is so unique in having sort of resident trolls. Trolls usually hit and run. Pop up on forum, jerk people around, create a bit of a mess, then disappear. This forum has resident trolls who appear periodically to provoke, then lay low for a while before resurfacing.

Huh?

[flip-flop]

Flip - Like I said many times before, the New Covenant of Jesus dose away with the Levitical Laws given to the Jews by God in the Old Testament. Jesus dealt with many of these issues including slavery (he instructed slaves to obey their masters). He declared all food clean. So it seems like you have issues with Jews who do not follow the Levitical Law because to use that scripture as some kind of mockery of the scriptures in not only foolish, it is, like much of your cut and paste drivel, out of context.

So was the old testament not the word of God? Who decided it was not the "Word of God" and that all of that which was in Levitical law was no longer applicable to man? Men or God?

My problem, the fundamental problem, is the WORD of God is retold by men, to suit and serve their own purposes.

Can you tell me when God said that homosexuality was wrong? If we are throwing out the old testament, let's quote some new testament. Can you quote me some scripture because I am googling my little heart out and can't find anything. Help a girl out!

[Pete (Mr. Marcia)]

I don't know why we are concerning ourselves with what the Bible says about homosexuality. Let's just assume that it clearly says that homosexuals are sinners and should die...let's just assume.

It has no bearing on the legal issue at hand. Separation of church and state.

When it comes to the issue in California, the only thing that matters is what the law says. I feel strongly that Prop 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause. Other legal theorists may disagree.

But, what the Bible has to say on the subject is, well, irrelevant.

[Lex]

Dictionary definitions don't really carry much weight anywhere as far as being a standard upon which to base laws. They're not the standard upon which a society is built. They're not legal definitions. Legal definitions are something else altogether. Dictionaries are constantly being revised to reflect changes in society and use of language. People aren't bound by dictionary definitions. Dictionaries rush to catch up with what people are doing and saying.

Definitions of words, including the word "marriage" have always been changing and will continue to change to reflect what's changed in the language and the society.

About the only place where a dictionary is the absolute standard is in Scrabble.

[DELETED]

DELETED

[DELETED]

DELETED

[toes in the sand]

Dictionary definitions don't really carry much weight anywhere as far as being a standard upon which to base laws. They're not the standard upon which a society is built. They're not legal definitions. Legal definitions are something else altogether. Dictionaries are constantly being revised to reflect changes in society and use of language. People aren't bound by dictionary definitions. Dictionaries rush to catch up with what people are doing and saying.

Definitions of words, including the word "marriage" have always been changing and will continue to change to reflect what's changed in the language and the society.

About the only place where a dictionary is the absolute standard is in Scrabble.

So, I can redefine my sex as female so as to take advantage of minority status and become a lesbian?

[Pete (Mr. Marcia)]

I don't know why we are concerning ourselves with what the Bible says about homosexuality. Let's just assume that it clearly says that homosexuals are sinners and should die...let's just assume.

It has no bearing on the legal issue at hand. Separation of church and state.

When it comes to the issue in California, the only thing that matters is what the law says. I feel strongly that Prop 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause. Other legal theorists may disagree.

But, what the Bible has to say on the subject is, well, irrelevant.

You are correct. Legally the Bible is not a factor in the decision. William Jefferson Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 which defines marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman. The 14th amendment, so far as ruled by the courts, has not been violated by this Law. Its going to be a hard one to get changed.

Noone gets out alive Pete, its that second death ya gotta watch out for.

At the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, separate but equal was found not to violate the Equal Protection Clause. Then 58 years later,in Brown, separate but equal was found to violate the Equal Protection Clause. Things change. So too, will this. That's my opinion.

As for the "second death" thing...that's your worry. I believe in doing good things on this earth because it is the right thing to do, not because some god may punish me later if I don't.

[toes in the sand]

I don't know why we are concerning ourselves with what the Bible says about homosexuality. Let's just assume that it clearly says that homosexuals are sinners and should die...let's just assume.

It has no bearing on the legal issue at hand. Separation of church and state.

When it comes to the issue in California, the only thing that matters is what the law says. I feel strongly that Prop 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause. Other legal theorists may disagree.

But, what the Bible has to say on the subject is, well, irrelevant.

And since none of us (I am assumning) sit on the Supreme Court of any state including California, what any of us has to say on the matter is, well, irrelevant. Except for the fact that Prop 8 still stands.

[Pete (Mr. Marcia)]

I don't know why we are concerning ourselves with what the Bible says about homosexuality. Let's just assume that it clearly says that homosexuals are sinners and should die...let's just assume.

It has no bearing on the legal issue at hand. Separation of church and state.

When it comes to the issue in California, the only thing that matters is what the law says. I feel strongly that Prop 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause. Other legal theorists may disagree.

But, what the Bible has to say on the subject is, well, irrelevant.[/quote

And since none of us (I am assumning) sit on the Supreme Court of any state including California, what any of us has to say on the matter is, well, irrelevant. Except for the fact that Prop 8 still stands.

And, given that none of us are god, what we have to say about that also doesn't matter, right?

So, let's do this...I'll stop giving my legal opinions if you stop giving your religious opinions. Shake on it?

[DELETED]

DELETED

[Pete (Mr. Marcia)]

If you do not believe in God, then what anyone says about God does not matter.

Pete why do they make you put your hand on the Bible and sware an oath to God to tell the truth?

They don't make you do that if you don't believe. You are allowed to aver to tell the truth. We have evolved.

You have me pegged. I don't believe in god. So, we probably will not find common ground. To me, you are speaking in tongues. To you, I must sound like some sort of heathen.

One thing I think we can agree on, though, is that you would be pissed if the majority of people who think like I do passed an initiative to keep you from practicing your beliefs as you see fit. That could never happen, you say, because we have the right to freedom of religion in this country. Well, we also have the right to equal protection of the laws.

[soxfan22]

Pete you should know that the 3 branches of government are equal in power. The courts are only there to uphold the Constitution not make laws.

Not according to Judge Sotomayor, who believes it is her duty to make policy from the bench.