Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[The Rabbi]

You asked me what I think. I answered what I think with my opinion. My signature is proof of my opinion.

So it is an opinion based on nothing more than your feelings. And as such worthless.

If my opinion is worthless, why did you bother to ask for it? Were you expecting an insightful response or hoping for something to shoot at? If insightful I'll make an attempt. If you need cannon fodder, why should I waste my time.

I wondered how you might reconcile your bizarre opinion with the Bible, which is fairly clear on the subject. I should have known better.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You don't get to define the terms of the bible.

Read the following uses of the term them come back and explain how bearing false witness about an accident to steal money is not the type of sin Jesus is talking about.

What Does the Bible Say About Bearing False Witness?

You want to point out which thing you just posted you think contradicts my definition? Or should I just assume you really don't have any idea what you are talking about and ignore you?

You are trying to qualify false witness to a limited type of false witness as that of giving false witness about a crime of another. There are many types of false witness and the citation from Matthew did not qualify which. You are trying to limit gods word to some narrow meaning. Why? Why would false witness NOT INCLUDE FALSE WITNESS ABOUT YOUR OWN CRIMES? Are you really trying to pretend that lying about insurance fraud is not a crime? Or are you trying to say insurance fraud is not a crime of theft. lol wow

No, I am not, you are trying to expand it to include all types of lying when it is specifically defined as something else.

From your link:

A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who breathes out lies will will not escape.​

Why the and?

There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.
​

Lying is mentioned separately from being a false witness. The fact that you can find links that are just as ignorant as you are does not make you right when the clear text of the Scripture clearly makes a differentiation between merely lying and being a false witness.

Keep digging though, it makes the particular post where I challenged you on this all the more poignant.

 

[Seawytch]

No one is arguing anything of the sort. The "lady" stated that "Jesus never said a damn thing about homosexuality" and I'm pointing out that she was both incorrect and uninformed. Nothing more.

I don't know where you get the idea that I am advocating a return to Mosiac law. I am not.

I'm sorry if you read it that way.

He didnt. He never said a thing. He condemned divorce more, but they still get to call themselves Christian. So do gay Christians.

OK...so since you apparently didn't read what I posted, I'll put it the way I posted it in the above post:

Jesus never spoke of Beastiality, or gang rape, or incest , does that mean that they are OK?

One more time...your legalese is not an excuse. You simply can't pull a "Bill Clinton" and define "is" by what YOUR definition is.

I'm an NOT calling you a "non-Christian" or a "non-believer" or an "atheist" or anything of the kind. I do not agree with your "lifestyle". I believe that it is an abomination, but you are free to do whatever it is that you folks do. - that is between you and God. I have MORE than enough to answer for in MY life than to worry about you and your beliefs (or rather, the lack of). You will stand before God - just as I will.

He never spoke of surgery, space flight or electricity...does that make them not good?

I never said you said gays couldn't be Christian. Quantum implied it.

 

[Seawytch]

I dont see anything about denying gays anything under due process. You fail.

Both DOMA and Prop 8 were ruled unconstitutional (one by SCOTUS) because they violated the due process of gays and lesbians.

DOMA was a federal law. I dont care about Prop 8.

And yet both were ruled unconstitutional because?

 

[The Rabbi]

He didnt. He never said a thing. He condemned divorce more, but they still get to call themselves Christian. So do gay Christians.

OK...so since you apparently didn't read what I posted, I'll put it the way I posted it in the above post:

Jesus never spoke of Beastiality, or gang rape, or incest , does that mean that they are OK?

One more time...your legalese is not an excuse. You simply can't pull a "Bill Clinton" and define "is" by what YOUR definition is.

I'm an NOT calling you a "non-Christian" or a "non-believer" or an "atheist" or anything of the kind. I do not agree with your "lifestyle". I believe that it is an abomination, but you are free to do whatever it is that you folks do. - that is between you and God. I have MORE than enough to answer for in MY life than to worry about you and your beliefs (or rather, the lack of). You will stand before God - just as I will.

He never spoke of surgery, space flight or electricity...does that make them not good?

I never said you said gays couldn't be Christian. Quantum implied it.

About the same way that Wiccans can be Christians.

 

[The Rabbi]

Both DOMA and Prop 8 were ruled unconstitutional (one by SCOTUS) because they violated the due process of gays and lesbians.

DOMA was a federal law. I dont care about Prop 8.

And yet both were ruled unconstitutional because?

Of procedural issues. Not on the merits.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You lost me there. Are you saying time is not relative to the traveler? Or that you think you are smarter than god and he could not have known?

I'm saying that Genesis is a creation myth written by Men. Perhaps it was written by God through men,

but we do not have any evidence whatsoever that that is the case.

The machinations of our creator, the ruler of this universe and the next, are not made for the minds of men to understand.

Which begs the question why would this "creator" even care whether or not mere insignificant mortals were worshiping him? Obviously he does not require worship from any other creature on this planet or anything else in the universe so why is insignificant mankind so important in the grand scheme of things? Take it a step further, if we are incapable of comprehending his machinations isn't it possible that we have completely misunderstood what he wants of us? Isn't possible that he doesn't want us to worship him at all? Perhaps he just wants us to focus on the job in hand and do that right instead. After all what CEO cares about what the people who work for him think about him? All he cares about is if they are doing their jobs, right?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He didnt. He never said a thing. He condemned divorce more, but they still get to call themselves Christian. So do gay Christians.

OK...so since you apparently didn't read what I posted, I'll put it the way I posted it in the above post:

Jesus never spoke of Beastiality, or gang rape, or incest , does that mean that they are OK?

One more time...your legalese is not an excuse. You simply can't pull a "Bill Clinton" and define "is" by what YOUR definition is.

I'm an NOT calling you a "non-Christian" or a "non-believer" or an "atheist" or anything of the kind. I do not agree with your "lifestyle". I believe that it is an abomination, but you are free to do whatever it is that you folks do. - that is between you and God. I have MORE than enough to answer for in MY life than to worry about you and your beliefs (or rather, the lack of). You will stand before God - just as I will.

He never spoke of surgery, space flight or electricity...does that make them not good?

I never said you said gays couldn't be Christian. Quantum implied it.

I implied no such thing, you inferred that my statement that anyone who does not follow the teachings of Jesus to mean that. That says more about you than it does me, I have said more than once that I am not in charge of who gets into heaven.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

DOMA was a federal law. I dont care about Prop 8.

And yet both were ruled unconstitutional because?

Of procedural issues. Not on the merits.

Nonsense.

Obviously you’ve not read Windsor; and Perry was invalidated by the Ninth Circuit.

The great bulk of Constitutional case law is decided in the lower courts, the Supreme Court grants cert to a tiny percentage of petitions. When cert isn’t granted or the Court refrains from making a ruling, the lower court’s decision stands.

DOMA and Proposition 8 are both un-Constitutional, on 5th and 14th Amendment grounds.

 

[RKMBrown]

So it is an opinion based on nothing more than your feelings. And as such worthless.

If my opinion is worthless, why did you bother to ask for it? Were you expecting an insightful response or hoping for something to shoot at? If insightful I'll make an attempt. If you need cannon fodder, why should I waste my time.

I wondered how you might reconcile your bizarre opinion with the Bible, which is fairly clear on the subject. I should have known better.

My apologies. I did not think you were serious and I knee jerked.

Here is my serious response:

For the most part my view of the old testament is that it is a book of allegorical stories and history of religion and religious laws in antiquity. My view of the new testament is that it is a collection of stories told about the greatest, kindest man that has ever lived on earth. I do believe he was and is still the Christ, the son of god. His teachings as told through his disciples ring true in my heart.

While there are no specific stories told to give guidance in this regard, there are a number of stories told that do cover the christian concepts that tell me to see gays in a non-judgmental manner.

I'll pull two from Luke:

10 After this the Lord appointed seventy-two[a] others and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to go. 2 And he said to them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few. Therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest. 3 Go your way; behold, I am sending you out as lambs in the midst of wolves. 4 Carry no moneybag, no knapsack, no sandals, and greet no one on the road. 5 Whatever house you enter, first say, ‘Peace be to this house!’ 6 And if a son of peace is there, your peace will rest upon him. But if not, it will return to you. 7 And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages. Do not go from house to house. 8 Whenever you enter a town and they receive you, eat what is set before you. 9 Heal the sick in it and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’ 10 But whenever you enter a town and they do not receive you, go into its streets and say, 11 ‘Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet we wipe off against you. Nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God has come near.’ 12 I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town. (Luke 10:1-12)

Treating others as you wish to be treated. Being inclusive, receiving people, as they are. Are you a son of peace or will you cast the gays out and refuse their right to marry because they are different? If you cast them out is that approaching the kingdom of god?

25 And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” 27 And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” 28 And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.”
29 But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” 30 Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. 32 So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. 34 He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 And the next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ 36 Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” 37 He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.” (Luke 10:25-37)

Love your neighbor as yourself! Hard to do sometimes, huh?

Nah it's clear to me here. Our mission in life is to love our neighbors, whether they are philistines, or islamics, or gay. To show them mercy, compassion, friendship.

I apologize for failing so miserably. I get so ramped up sometimes in these arguments.

 

[RKMBrown]

Whatever windbag. By your statements, false witness isn't a lie and insurance fraud isn't a lie or a crime of theft. Additionally by your statements insurance fraud is not false witness about yourself, or false witness about others lol You need a hobby. Should I assume that you have committed insurance fraud and are looking for forgiveness or absolution?

 

[The Rabbi]

If my opinion is worthless, why did you bother to ask for it? Were you expecting an insightful response or hoping for something to shoot at? If insightful I'll make an attempt. If you need cannon fodder, why should I waste my time.

I wondered how you might reconcile your bizarre opinion with the Bible, which is fairly clear on the subject. I should have known better.

My apologies. I did not think you were serious and I knee jerked.

Here is my serious response:

For the most part my view of the old testament is that it is a book of allegorical stories and history of religion and religious laws in antiquity. My view of the new testament is that it is a collection of stories told about the greatest, kindest man that has ever lived on earth. I do believe he was and is still the Christ, the son of god. His teachings as told through his disciples ring true in my heart.

.

OK so the Bible isnt actually the word of G-d but a collection of amusing stories and statements by men.
That explains a lot. Why anyone would ally himself with a religion based on stories by men is beyond me but hey it's still a free country for a while.

 

[RKMBrown]

I wondered how you might reconcile your bizarre opinion with the Bible, which is fairly clear on the subject. I should have known better.

My apologies. I did not think you were serious and I knee jerked.

Here is my serious response:

For the most part my view of the old testament is that it is a book of allegorical stories and history of religion and religious laws in antiquity. My view of the new testament is that it is a collection of stories told about the greatest, kindest man that has ever lived on earth. I do believe he was and is still the Christ, the son of god. His teachings as told through his disciples ring true in my heart.

.

OK so the Bible isnt actually the word of G-d but a collection of amusing stories and statements by men.
That explains a lot. Why anyone would ally himself with a religion based on stories by men is beyond me but hey it's still a free country for a while.

Yeah that's the type of response I expected from you.. making up lies about what I said and using them as cannon fodder. If you did not want my opinion for any other reason than as cannon fodder why did you ask for it then lie about why you wanted it?

good luck..

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Whatever windbag. By your statements, false witness isn't a lie and insurance fraud isn't a lie or a crime of theft. Additionally by your statements insurance fraud is not false witness about yourself, or false witness about others lol You need a hobby. Should I assume that you have committed insurance fraud and are looking for forgiveness or absolution?

If false witnessing is not lying you must be telling the truth in this post.

Since you are the new self declared expert on lies, why don't you explain why God got away with lying in the Bible if all lying is being a false witness?

 

[RKMBrown]

Whatever windbag. By your statements, false witness isn't a lie and insurance fraud isn't a lie or a crime of theft. Additionally by your statements insurance fraud is not false witness about yourself, or false witness about others lol You need a hobby. Should I assume that you have committed insurance fraud and are looking for forgiveness or absolution?

If false witnessing is not lying you must be telling the truth in this post.

Since you are the new self declared expert on lies, why don't you explain why God got away with lying in the Bible if all lying is being a false witness?

Why don't you go eat shit?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You lost me there. Are you saying time is not relative to the traveler? Or that you think you are smarter than god and he could not have known?

I'm saying that Genesis is a creation myth written by Men. Perhaps it was written by God through men,

but we do not have any evidence whatsoever that that is the case.

The machinations of our creator, the ruler of this universe and the next, are not made for the minds of men to understand.

Which is why religious dogma is thankfully irrelevant in a court of law.

If one believes homosexuality is ‘sinful,’ then that means he shouldn’t engage in homosexual acts.

It doesn’t mean he should attempt to codify that subjective religious dogma into a secular measure denying same-sex couples their equal protection right to access marriage law.

 

[Seawytch]

OK...so since you apparently didn't read what I posted, I'll put it the way I posted it in the above post:

Jesus never spoke of Beastiality, or gang rape, or incest , does that mean that they are OK?

One more time...your legalese is not an excuse. You simply can't pull a "Bill Clinton" and define "is" by what YOUR definition is.

I'm an NOT calling you a "non-Christian" or a "non-believer" or an "atheist" or anything of the kind. I do not agree with your "lifestyle". I believe that it is an abomination, but you are free to do whatever it is that you folks do. - that is between you and God. I have MORE than enough to answer for in MY life than to worry about you and your beliefs (or rather, the lack of). You will stand before God - just as I will.

He never spoke of surgery, space flight or electricity...does that make them not good?

I never said you said gays couldn't be Christian. Quantum implied it.

I implied no such thing, you inferred that my statement that anyone who does not follow the teachings of Jesus to mean that. That says more about you than it does me, I have said more than once that I am not in charge of who gets into heaven.

TemplarWassisface: If they can be offended by Christians, we can be offended by homosexuality, polygamy and incest. It's only fair.

Me: Except "they" aren't offended by Christians. Many of "them" are Christians. "They" are offended by people who use their religion to justify bigotry, but that's all. It's not a blanket condemnation of ALL Christians as you do to ALL gays.

You: I hate to point out the obvious, but anyone who doesn't follow the teachings of Jesus is not a Christian, even if they believe they are.

What did you mean to imply with that statement?

 

[Seawytch]

And yet both were ruled unconstitutional because?

Of procedural issues. Not on the merits.

Nonsense.

Obviously you’ve not read Windsor; and Perry was invalidated by the Ninth Circuit.

The great bulk of Constitutional case law is decided in the lower courts, the Supreme Court grants cert to a tiny percentage of petitions. When cert isn’t granted or the Court refrains from making a ruling, the lower court’s decision stands.

DOMA and Proposition 8 are both un-Constitutional, on 5th and 14th Amendment grounds.

Because gays and lesbians were denied due process...proving Rabbi grossly misinformed. Gays have been (and still are) denied due process.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I was thinking more like Roe v. Wade and New London.

Of course you were. Rulings you like, a-okay...rulings you don't ..."judicial activism!"

The one being political in all those rulings is blatantly you.

- Heller - The Constitution enforced the second amendment. Simple case based on the actual Constitution. That case did not in any way expand Federal power. There is no judicial activism in this unless you're arguing you don't accept Marbury v. Madison.

- Voting Rights Act. There is no basis in the 14th amendment to punish States because of "historical" behavior. If they discriminate, enforce it, if they don't, don't. The 14th does not say if the Feds have the opinion you have discriminated before, then they can arbitrarily punish them. Again, this does not in any way expand Federal power. Clearly not activism, unless you're arguing you don't accept Marbury v. Madison.

However,

- Roe v. Wade. Abortion isn't in the Constitution. Murder isn't in the Constitution. This greatly expands Federal power giving the Federal government the right to dictate the definition of murder to States. And when you say I "like it" you're perfect in your record of being wrong every time, I'm pro-choice. There is no Constitutional basis for the Fed to have Roe v. Wade power. Pure judicial activism.

- New London. The Constitution gives the right to take land for "public use." Not to take it from the hands of one private citizen and give it to another. This massively expands all government power. Judicial activism pure and simple, there is no Constitutional basis for that. Pure judicial activism.

New London does show the left's hypocrisy. You supported an evil developer over grandma. Then BTW, they didn't build it. Grandma got kicked out of her home, and it got overgrown by weeds and is sitting there. You're the hypocrite, my dear.

Neither is the individual right to own a firearm or the right to self-defense, yet the Heller Court determined they existed nonetheless.

And Roe wasn’t solely about abortion, it was primarily about the right to privacy in the context of substantive due process as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. See: Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972).

As for Kelo, the petitioners were requesting the Court overturn established Takings Clause jurisprudence that had been accepted and settled law for over 100 years.

Indeed, while many state courts in the mid-19th century endorsed “use by the public” as the proper definition of public use, that narrow view steadily eroded over time. Not only was the “use by the public” test difficult to administer (e.g., what proportion of the public need have access to the property? at what price?),7 but it proved to be impractical given the diverse and always evolving needs of society.8 Accordingly, when this Court began applying the Fifth Amendment to the States at the close of the 19th century, it embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as “public purpose.” See, e.g., Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, 158—164 (1896). Thus, in a case upholding a mining company’s use of an aerial bucket line to transport ore over property it did not own, Justice Holmes’ opinion for the Court stressed “the inadequacy of use by the general public as a universal test.” Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Mining Co., 200 U.S. 527, 531 (1906).9 We have repeatedly and consistently rejected that narrow test ever since.10

The disposition of this case therefore turns on the question whether the City’s development plan serves a “public purpose.” Without exception, our cases have defined that concept broadly, reflecting our longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field.

KELO V. NEW LONDON

Consequently, the Kelo Court merely reaffirmed long-standing precedent where a taking is justified even if there’s a private sector component.

Kelo is among the least understood of the Court’s recent rulings, particularly among libertarians who have contrived the case into a partisan myth.

Clearly it’s ignorant idiocy to claim that Kelo is somehow an example of ‘liberal hypocrisy.’

 

[Gadawg73]

Geez folks, can't you just give in and let gay folks marry? Do you have to fight over it? Does it really make your marriage worse?
How about the humanity of it allowing these folks that love each other to get married?
What satisfaction do you get out of denying them that?