[The Urban Sombrero]

You know, correct interpretation of Scripture is not subject to nuance either. God says what He means exactly, and though understanding that meaning is achieved largely via the gift of The Holy Spirit, said meaning is still singular and applicable to all. There is only one interpretation so you can drop the pretense, just acting above it all doesn't quite deliver for anyone worth impressing professor Corey.

To the bolded. You can't demonstrate that position from anything in the Old Testament, because as we've gone over time and again on here, Israel was much of the time a Theocracy. God's plan. And even during the times she was ruled by Kings, deference was given to the Church and/or the Prophets by those Kings. God's attitude is the same timelessly;
Hebrews 13:8 (KJV)
8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

In the New Testament God has clearly revealed His plan to govern men here on this earth with exacting precision and inflexible control.
Revelation 19:14-15 (KJV)
15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

When the Lord rules on this earth during the Millennium, government will certainly not stand apart from His authority, nor will it be in any way empowered outside of His good graces. I doubt sincerely He would be okay with giving men full rein to do as they think right in His absence. Remember the standard set by the parable of the talents? In short you can keep coming at this thing from all 360 degrees or until you turn blue for your efforts. The concept of separation of Church and State cannot be substantiated anywhere in Scripture. And though I agree that at present it seems that man is getting by with doing things his way, he will nonetheless suffer judgment for his defiance. And let's face it, man's effort to govern himself apart from Godly principles certainly hasn't worked out so well to date now has it?

If you believe the Papacy joined to civil government turned out better than the separation of church and state practiced in this nation, that's your wart to wear.

I return to this: TRT goes to the church of his choice, at the time of his choice, reads the translation of Scripture of his choice, eats fried chicken at the homecomings of his choice, criticizes ad nauseum the government and liberals and Republicans who do not share his vision for America, and more, ALL without interference. Congratulations, TRT, it seems separation of church and state has allowed you to freely and unhindered exercise your faith and bless us all with your lengthy diatribes.

The best form of government is a benevolent autocracy. I believe Christ to be a benevolent autocrat. At present, that autocrat is at the right hand of the Father. That will change. We can agree on that.

[TheRealThing]

If you believe the Papacy joined to civil government turned out better than the separation of church and state practiced in this nation, that's your wart to wear.

I return to this: TRT goes to the church of his choice, at the time of his choice, reads the translation of Scripture of his choice, eats fried chicken at the homecomings of his choice, criticizes ad nauseum the government and liberals and Republicans who do not share his vision for America, and more, ALL without interference. Congratulations, TRT, it seems separation of church and state has allowed you to freely and unhindered exercise your faith and bless us all with your lengthy diatribes.

The best form of government is a benevolent autocracy. I believe Christ to be a benevolent autocrat. At present, that autocrat is at the right hand of the Father. That will change. We can agree on that.

No now the big put-on doesn't quite work when you try to outflank even your own argument. In other words professor Corey already came and went on this matter. And he said though in ambiguous terms, in your opinion this version of US government is God ordained. Said version BTW, is by recent definition as understood under a distorted interpretation of the concept of the separation of Church and State, to reject by any and all means any influence of Godly awareness whatever.

I offered Scriptural evidence which proves that notion to be inconsistent with God's character and stated intentions. The Lord does not sanction abortion on demand, nor does He wink therefore when any government ordained of Him decides to legalize homosexual relationships. Nor does He share your views that it's okay for men in government to embrace within their policies the destructive 'nuances' of sin.

[The Urban Sombrero]

No now the big put-on doesn't quite work when you try to outflank even your own argument. In other words professor Corey already came and went on this matter. And he said though in ambiguous terms, in your opinion this version of US government is God ordained. Said version BTW, is by recent definition as understood under a distorted interpretation of the concept of the separation of Church and State, to reject by any and all means any influence of Godly awareness whatever.

I offered Scriptural evidence which proves that notion to be inconsistent with God's character and stated intentions. The Lord does not sanction abortion on demand, nor does He wink therefore when any government ordained of Him decides to legalize homosexual relationships. Nor does He share your views that it's okay for men in government to embrace within their policies the destructive 'nuances' of sin.

I think you sincerely believe that.
To embrace equal protection under the law is not to embrace what people might choose under its protection. That's a ridiculous thing to assert.

[TheRealThing]

I think you sincerely believe that.
To embrace equal protection under the law is not to embrace what people might choose under its protection. That's a ridiculous thing to assert.

And to deny there are clear Constitutionally designed limits placed on the scope and function of the federal government is liberal subterfuge. Thusly in the above ^^, have we exhausted your ability to in any way refute my legitimate observation.

[mr.fundamental]

And to deny there are clear Constitutionally designed limits placed on the scope and function of the federal government is liberal subterfuge. Thusly in the above ^^, have we exhausted your ability to in any way refute my legitimate observation.

Oh I do agree with this point right here... the federal government can not force a religious view point on anyone... can not deny the freedom of the press, even though the Obama and Trump tried... freedom to assemble is another one that is great we saw that in full action ever since President Trump has been president. The freedom of speech is tricky the court has ruled that freedom of speech does happen except when you put lives in danger... why you can not say fire in a movie theater.

Probably where you and I disagree is the 10th amendment and the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment since the civil war has absolutely dismantled the 10th amendment and I would use the 13th amendment as proof of that, also civil right laws, marriage laws, and school funding...

[The Urban Sombrero]

And to deny there are clear Constitutionally designed limits placed on the scope and function of the federal government is liberal subterfuge. Thusly in the above ^^, have we exhausted your ability to in any way refute my legitimate observation.

Again, your premise, taken to its conclusion, would have left Jim Crow laws in place unless southern states took them off the books. Despite your constant parading around with your arms lifted, you apparently are for whatever the Constitution needs to mean to hold up your religious faith. Of course, anybody paying any attention whatsoever knows that. So, go ahead, self-proclaimer, strut on with arms raised. The act is old.

[TheRealThing]

Again, your premise, taken to its conclusion, would have left Jim Crow laws in place unless southern states took them off the books. Despite your constant parading around with your arms lifted, you apparently are for whatever the Constitution needs to mean to hold up your religious faith. Of course, anybody paying any attention whatsoever knows that. So, go ahead, self-proclaimer, strut on with arms raised. The act is old.

LOL, possibly. My act does however, feature two notable distinctions which yours always lack. I can back up what I say (and do), and where variety is concerned at least my posts make sense, as compared to yours which look like a lead writer for Bazooka Joe bubble gum comics trying to break out into a more serious venue.

But you could not have started your post more aptly, as you try to dress up the same old sidestep using different wording in order to say the same thing over and over AGAIN. The Democrats are the fathers and fomenters of Jim Crow laws. Republicans are the ones who fought against Jim Crow, over the objections of callous and hardhearted Democrats I might add. And I only say that to point out two more things. First as I keep telling you, you're white. Playing the race card every whip stitch is therefore asinine. And second as I have mentioned on here in the past, I have been privileged to have known a great many Christian men in my lifetime. Never and I mean never, have I ever heard even one of them attack another Christian on grounds of their faith. And certainly never for quoting Scripture. You do though, right?

[TheRealThing]

Oh I do agree with this point right here... the federal government can not force a religious view point on anyone... can not deny the freedom of the press, even though the Obama and Trump tried... freedom to assemble is another one that is great we saw that in full action ever since President Trump has been president. The freedom of speech is tricky the court has ruled that freedom of speech does happen except when you put lives in danger... why you can not say fire in a movie theater.

Probably where you and I disagree is the 10th amendment and the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment since the civil war has absolutely dismantled the 10th amendment and I would use the 13th amendment as proof of that, also civil right laws, marriage laws, and school funding...

Oh I don't agree.

[The Urban Sombrero]

LOL, possibly. My act does however, feature two notable distinctions which yours always lack. I can back up what I say (and do), and where variety is concerned at least my posts make sense, as compared to yours which look like a lead writer for Bazooka Joe bubble gum comics trying to break out into a more serious venue.

But you could not have started your post more aptly, as you try to dress up the same old sidestep using different wording in order to say the same thing over and over AGAIN. The Democrats are the fathers and fomenters of Jim Crow laws. Republicans are the ones who fought against Jim Crow, over the objections of callous and hardhearted Democrats I might add. And I only say that to point out two more things. First as I keep telling you, you're white. Playing the race card every whip stitch is therefore asinine. And second as I have mentioned on here in the past, I have been privileged to have known a great many Christian men in my lifetime. Never and I mean never, have I ever heard even one of them attack another Christian on grounds of their faith. And certainly never for quoting Scripture. You do though, right?

Straw. The origin of Jim Crow laws is racism, and the issue is not your faith, but rather the logical conclusion of your premise. The suggestion was that all your verses quoted do not impact the "equal protection under the law" aspect of the Constitution. I believe what I said was that it appears you are sincere in your beliefs, but that in regards certain applications of separation of church and state we disagree. As for bubble gum, Bazooka Joe is pretty good. I enjoyed as a kid going to a barber who would give it out as reward for sitting still. I see no reason to cast about for this or that voice to lend credence when you so clearly are stuck in the mud of your own willingness to ignore certain basic Constitutional principles.

[TheRealThing]

Straw. 1) - The origin of Jim Crow laws is racism, and the issue is not your faith, but rather the logical conclusion of your premise. The suggestion was that all your verses quoted do not impact the "equal protection under the law" aspect of the Constitution. I believe what I said was that it appears you are sincere in your beliefs, but that in regards certain applications of separation of church and state we disagree. As for bubble gum, Bazooka Joe is pretty good. I enjoyed as a kid going to a barber who would give it out as reward for sitting still. I see no reason to cast about for this or that voice to lend credence when you so clearly are stuck in the mud of your own willingness to 2) - ignore certain basic Constitutional principles.

1) - Right, Democrat racism which originated from the north, the home territory of all the land owners/legislators, and holders of great wealth at the time. But that's not what you said, you said Jim Crow laws would still be in affect were it not for the heretical and liberally twisted misrepresentation of the concept of separation of Church and State. I say the Republican led dissolution of Jim Crow laws have done little to get us past racial unrest. Mostly because as liberals realized some time ago, fomenting racial unrest is a powerful tool. So powerful in fact Dems just cannot let it go, and Democrats use it almost exclusively to get their way in Congress. For example, I believe and this is my opinion only, that congressional black caucus member Rep Elijah Cummings (D) MO, was able to derail the overall effectiveness of the House Oversight Committee's investigation into the Benghazi affair, by agressively using overt and covert charges of racism on the part of the Chair, Rep Darrell Issa. In like manner you would use race to change our national heritage, the Constitution, and original intent, even to the point of revising the conditions of our founding, and that in the face of insurmountable evidence to the contrary as provided and preserved with great care in the record.

And I say that since it's unfortunate inception, the separation of Church and State ala the liberal vision, has been both gasoline on the fires of civil unrest and elixir of social/political corruption and secular humanism. Regardless of your best thought through rationalization, I see from that day, how far we as a nation have fallen. We are barely recognizable from the rational people we once were, for whereas once we protected the law abiding innocents, we now are become staunch defenders of those who commit criminal trespass as the following DHS report excerpt reveals;

"The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) today issued its first “Declined Detainer Outcome Report,” which highlights the Counties that are not cooperating with Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer requests. From the time period between January 28 – February 3, 2017, 206 criminally charged illegal immigrants nationwide were released from custody due to the denial of ICE detainer requests. The worst offender was Travis County, which accounted for 142 (nearly 70%) of those released and charged with crimes including sexual assault, aggravated assault, domestic violence, and robbery."

2) - But you mean like the 'Constitutional principle' which stipulates that the federal government's power is limited by the people? The same government that just ran over the will of the people, as had been recently and clearly reaffirmed by duly discharged state referendums on gay marriage? The people who had nonetheless fallen under the auspices of the former DOJ, and who were at that point forced to sit back with a sense of horror to see those referendums overturned by judicial activists? Such actions amount to open rebellion against The Almighty at worst, and probably treason at best IMHO. So in this manner the few are attempting in our day, to legislate the unwilling many, into submission. Why would the left do this? Because their arguments for gay marriage and abortion on demand to name only two, are unwinnable, in that free men will never allow their own sense of morality to be overcome, no matter how clever or eloquently presented the talking points are put forth. And because despite your argument to the contrary all men have a conscience, and as Scripture clearly states, said conscience guides our perception of morality just as it did the Founding Fathers.

[The Urban Sombrero]

1) - Right, Democrat racism which originated from the north, the home territory of all the land owners/legislators, and holders of great wealth at the time. But that's not what you said, you said Jim Crow laws would still be in affect were it not for the heretical and liberally twisted misrepresentation of the concept of separation of Church and State. I say the Republican led dissolution of Jim Crow laws have done little to get us past racial unrest. Mostly because as liberals realized some time ago, fomenting racial unrest is a powerful tool. So powerful in fact Dems just cannot let it go, and Democrats use it almost exclusively to get their way in Congress. For example, I believe and this is my opinion only, that congressional black caucus member Rep Elijah Cummings (D) MO, was able to derail the overall effectiveness of the House Oversight Committee's investigation into the Benghazi affair, by agressively using overt and covert charges of racism on the part of the Chair, Rep Darrell Issa. In like manner you would use race to change our national heritage, the Constitution, and original intent, even to the point of revising the conditions of our founding, and that in the face of insurmountable evidence to the contrary as provided and preserved with great care in the record.

And I say that since it's unfortunate inception, the separation of Church and State ala the liberal vision, has been both gasoline on the fires of civil unrest and elixir of social/political corruption and secular humanism. Regardless of your best thought through rationalization, I see from that day, how far we as a nation have fallen. We are barely recognizable from the rational people we once were, for whereas once we protected the law abiding innocents, we now are become staunch defenders of those who commit criminal trespass as the following DHS report excerpt reveals;

"The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) today issued its first “Declined Detainer Outcome Report,” which highlights the Counties that are not cooperating with Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer requests. From the time period between January 28 – February 3, 2017, 206 criminally charged illegal immigrants nationwide were released from custody due to the denial of ICE detainer requests. The worst offender was Travis County, which accounted for 142 (nearly 70%) of those released and charged with crimes including sexual assault, aggravated assault, domestic violence, and robbery."

2) - But you mean like the 'Constitutional principle' which stipulates that the federal government's power is limited by the people? The same government that just ran over the will of the people, as had been recently and clearly reaffirmed by duly discharged state referendums on gay marriage? The people who had nonetheless fallen under the auspices of the former DOJ, and who were at that point forced to sit back with a sense of horror to see those referendums overturned by judicial activists? Such actions amount to open rebellion against The Almighty at worst, and probably treason at best IMHO. So in this manner the few are attempting in our day, to legislate the unwilling many, into submission. Why would the left do this? Because their arguments for gay marriage and abortion on demand to name only two, are unwinnable, in that free men will never allow their own sense of morality to be overcome, no matter how clever or eloquently presented the talking points are put forth. And because despite your argument to the contrary all men have a conscience, and as Scripture clearly states, said conscience guides our perception of morality just as it did the Founding Fathers.

What you say I say is a distortion. Always. If the power of the federal government is not broad enough to guarantee ALL citizens equal protection under the law, it is too narrow. That is not a separation of church and state arguement. Racism, as a matter of the heart, needs no italics, and no Patti Partisan of any party need exalt or fluff feathers.

Your Christian scruples bend your conscience away from adultery, from gambling, yet you do not argue that adulterers and gamblers be denied marriage. Your particular scruples posit homosexuals as a special class of sinner, a class that does not merit equal protection. That is a matter of separation of church and state. Seeking to cloud the issue, you attempt to blow smoke up all our backsides. Douse that flame.

[TheRealThing]

What you say I say is a distortion. Always. If the power of the federal government is not broad enough to guarantee ALL citizens equal protection under the law, it is too narrow. That is not a separation of church and state arguement. Racism, as a matter of the heart, needs no italics, and no Patti Partisan of any party need exalt or fluff feathers.

Your Christian scruples bend your conscience away from adultery, from gambling, yet you do not argue that adulterers and gamblers be denied marriage. Your particular scruples posit homosexuals as a special class of sinner, a class that does not merit equal protection. That is a matter of separation of church and state. Seeking to cloud the issue, you attempt to blow smoke up all our backsides. Douse that flame.

Not according to God, or sound logic for that matter.

The only thing homosexuals have gotten for their efforts, are taxpayer funded benefits and legal recourse forced upon an unwilling public. But the function of the federal government was never to guarantee or grant validity to those with a bent to sexually depraved behavior. Such is what they crave but no law can ever grant. And though your ilk would use it for that, and argue with your last breath that you're right, the bulk of America knows better. The stuff you shovel is the liberal's attempt to lend unmerited dignity to unacceptable and according to God, unnatural behaviors. Just as judicial eloquence under the expanded auspices of the right to privacy never quite managed to build a bridge between murder, aka abortion on demand, aka women's health, and morally acceptable behavior.

The separation argument is the reasoning behind the open rebellion men mounted against the authority of God. Because as our system of law is based in the Christian understanding of morality, how could one then argue with omniscience, infallibility and righteousness, right? Lawyers therefore, had to get Christian precepts out of the way if they ever hoped to prevail in moral matters. The only smoke being blown on here is produced during one of your many defenses for sin and/or depravity. But your dutiful compulsion to preach the liberal message provides a much needed service, and for that I am happy to set the record straight as often as I have occasion.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Not according to God, or sound logic for that matter.

The only thing homosexuals have gotten for their efforts, are taxpayer funded benefits and legal recourse forced upon an unwilling public. But the function of the federal government was never to guarantee or grant validity to those with a bent to sexually depraved behavior. Such is what they crave but no law can ever grant. And though your ilk would use it for that, and argue with your last breath that you're right, the bulk of America knows better. The stuff you shovel is the liberal's attempt to lend unmerited dignity to unacceptable and according to God, unnatural behaviors. Just as judicial eloquence under the expanded auspices of the right to privacy never quite managed to build a bridge between murder, aka abortion on demand, aka women's health, and morally acceptable behavior.

The separation argument is the reasoning behind the open rebellion men mounted against the authority of God. Because as our system of law is based in the Christian understanding of morality, how could one then argue with omniscience, infallibility and righteousness, right? Lawyers therefore, had to get Christian precepts out of the way if they ever hoped to prevail in moral matters. The only smoke being blown on here is produced during one of your many defenses for sin and/or depravity. But your dutiful compulsion to preach the liberal message provides a much needed service, and for that I am happy to set the record straight as often as I have occasion.

Once again, advocating for equal protection under the law for ALL is not a defense of any behavior. Singling out behaviors, skin colors, ethnicities, as your understanding would allow, is a threat, and has proven so time and again in history, to egalitarian principle and equal protection, and try as you might to equate belief in a Constitutional principle to rebellion, you fail. Miserably.

[mr.fundamental]

Not according to God, or sound logic for that matter.

The only thing homosexuals have gotten for their efforts, are taxpayer funded benefits and legal recourse forced upon an unwilling public. But the function of the federal government was never to guarantee or grant validity to those with a bent to sexually depraved behavior. Such is what they crave but no law can ever grant. And though your ilk would use it for that, and argue with your last breath that you're right, the bulk of America knows better. The stuff you shovel is the liberal's attempt to lend unmerited dignity to unacceptable and according to God, unnatural behaviors. Just as judicial eloquence under the expanded auspices of the right to privacy never quite managed to build a bridge between murder, aka abortion on demand, aka women's health, and morally acceptable behavior.

The separation argument is the reasoning behind the open rebellion men mounted against the authority of God. Because as our system of law is based in the Christian understanding of morality, how could one then argue with omniscience, infallibility and righteousness, right? Lawyers therefore, had to get Christian precepts out of the way if they ever hoped to prevail in moral matters. The only smoke being blown on here is produced during one of your many defenses for sin and/or depravity. But your dutiful compulsion to preach the liberal message provides a much needed service, and for that I am happy to set the record straight as often as I have occasion.

I point out that the Good Lord talks more about money than any other issue, I point out the early church after He left
I point out before He came

Sell all of your possessions, stop working for capitalism, work for the Lord... if that is what you feel, you can not love this world and His...

[TheRealThing]

>Once again, advocating for equal protection under the law for ALL is not a defense of any behavior. Singling out behaviors, skin colors, ethnicities, as your understanding would allow, is a threat, and has proven so time and again in history, to egalitarian principle and equal protection, and try as you might to equate belief in a Constitutional principle to rebellion, you fail. Miserably.

Just because you're irretrievable doesn't mean others share your opinion, in fact even the few who normally back you on here likely don't agree with you. I've hit a few drives into the high rough in my day, and I'll give a reasonable effort to retrieve a good Top Flight. But you're one lost ball I gave up on long ago. Like I said, you do serve a purpose though, and I am happy to give proper perspective and set you straight for the sake of others.

> Really? The only qualifying criterion for gay marriage is abnormal behavior. As I said and you have in times past agreed, this nation's system of law was based on Christian principles. Therefore, as the Bible clearly spells out what constitutes unacceptable behavior, (such as murder and thievery) we have written laws declaring such behavior illegal and have established punishments applicable to such offense.

Now as it happens the object of your impassioned activism, homosexuality, is one of those areas in which Scripture is clear:
Romans 1:27 (KJV)
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

The only way guile filled lawyers could ever argue against the Godly principles which have been written both in the law's in this land and across the very soul of man and thereby brought to bear by his own conscience, was to separate Church and State. We began that process in 1947 and it takes willfully blinded and lost men to deny how much by way of integrity America has lost. Not that you won't try, but there is just no way to deny the clarity or finality of Romans 1:27. Men know in their heart what things are wrong, and despite your having ferreted out the new word of the day, you fool no one but yourself.

[TheRealThing]

I point out that the Good Lord talks more about money than any other issue, I point out the early church after He left
I point out before He came

Sell all of your possessions, stop working for capitalism, work for the Lord... if that is what you feel, you can not love this world and His...

You're in big trouble then.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Just because you're irretrievable doesn't mean others share your opinion, in fact even the few who normally back you on here likely don't agree with you. I've hit a few drives into the high rough in my day, and I'll give a reasonable effort to retrieve a good Top Flight. But you're one lost ball I gave up on long ago. Like I said, you do serve a purpose though, and I am happy to give proper perspective and set you straight for the sake of others.

> Really? The only qualifying criterion for gay marriage is abnormal behavior. As I said and you have in times past agreed, this nation's system of law was based on Christian principles. Therefore, as the Bible clearly spells out what constitutes unacceptable behavior, (such as murder and thievery) we have written laws declaring such behavior illegal and have established punishments applicable to such offense.

Now as it happens the object of your impassioned activism, homosexuality, is one of those areas in which Scripture is clear:
Romans 1:27 (KJV)
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

The only way guile filled lawyers could ever argue against the Godly principles which have been written both in the law's in this land and across the very soul of man and thereby brought to bear by his own conscience, was to separate Church and State. We began that process in 1947 and it takes willfully blinded and lost men to deny how much by way of integrity America has lost. Not that you won't try, but there is just no way to deny the clarity or finality of Romans 1:27. Men know in their heart what things are wrong, and despite your having ferreted out the new word of the day, you fool no one but yourself.

If your suggestion is that Romans 1:27 is the basis for law, what of other verses clearly spelling out other sins? You continually ignore that aspect, prance around arms thrust upward like some clown. You believe that equal protection under the law does not extend to same sex marriage. Your basis is Christian belief. However, under your belief, adulterers may marry, murderers may marry, etc. Thus, you create, out of your Christian belief, a special class of people who are not entitled to marry, denied equal protection under the law, and, thereby, deny a right granted all other citizens based on religious conviction. My trouble is finding your ball amidst all the straw. Funny, you keep wanting to posit a show of hands as some test for efficacy of position. If every single member of BGR says same sex marriage is not entitled to equal protection under the law, that proves or settles nothing.

[TheRealThing]

If your suggestion is that Romans 1:27 is the basis for law, what of other verses clearly spelling out other sins? You continually ignore that aspect, prance around arms thrust upward like some clown. You believe that equal protection under the law does not extend to same sex marriage. Your basis is Christian belief. However, under your belief, adulterers may marry, murderers may marry, etc. Thus, you create, out of your Christian belief, a special class of people who are not entitled to marry, denied equal protection under the law, and, thereby, deny a right granted all other citizens based on religious conviction. My trouble is finding your ball amidst all the straw. Funny, you keep wanting to posit a show of hands as some test for efficacy of position. If every single member of BGR says same sex marriage is not entitled to equal protection under the law, that proves or settles nothing.

Say what you will, the logic and truth of Romans 1:27 is as undeniable as it is inescapable. I'm not ignoring anything I know of. It is best to address singular issues to provide clarity though, and that is the why of your continuing efforts to blow up a tornado over the stockyard. Self delusion and ignoring the obvious is the liberal's gift, and as I have pointed out to you repeatedly, it was the State that invaded the purview and sanctity of the Church. It has been the Church which has successfully provided right direction for men since the days of Christ, certainly not government. And that relationship was one of the main concerns of the Founders, who recognized that only a moral people can successfully self govern, and who wanted therefore, to give the citizenry of this once great land all the protections they could provide. It is the Church which shines the light on wrong doing. For as God has said, His people (the Christians in this world) represent the preserving properties of' salt and light.' But like those who argue for the nativity to be banned from the public square, wrong hates salt and light and seeks to be shielded from their effects. Hence 'the wall' of your fascination. Today enough of a slide has occurred to have aptly validated the fears of the Founder's, as the outcomes of their concern in the form of a deteriorating State are with us. Mayors defy Presidents, peep squeak judges interfere with issues of national security, every Democrat is only and always a no vote and as we have seen, the purveyors of compromise through clever and guileful legal manipulations have successfully breached the very wall upon which their entire argument is built. That is additionally, the reason I like to substantiate my arguments using the foundation of all truth, God's Holy and inerrant Word.

The wall of the liberal vision would limit the Church only, not the State; Which according to you has the authority to circumvent God's law under the concept of equal protection. It was the State which flew in on the wings of malfeasance to legalize abortion on demand and oversaw the repeal of DADT. The Founders recognized, rightly, that the State is merely a reflection of those who wield power at any given point in history. Therefore, their attempt to carefully craft a Constitution which could not be easily run over. But as Roe v Wade demonstrated, evil is not in any way deterred by the efforts of men. And because the State is all powerful where the law is concerned, it is important that the only secular control put on them, the US Constitution in this case, be strictly maintained ala the originalist. Hence the concerns of the late Antonin Scalia and even Ben Franklin for that matter, who famously said that we have a republic, IF we can keep it.

The living document crowd are usurpers and polluters of the gold standard of our republic's founding. Ironically, you and the liberal bigs you imitate, try to use the law to run over the law. Libs constructed a wall to protect the machinations of government from the Church, which they immediately breached in order to regulate even the Church on grounds of morality and fairness. Consider for just a second how ridiculous that position really is, is. The inference is that God is not fair in His thinking, and man must through his laughable wisdom, somehow right the situation. And what did man's wisdom deliver to 'The People?' Abortion on demand (60 million slaughtered to date and rising exponentially) and legalized homosexuality. And the bill for same BTW.

The wall therefore is anything but a barrier. It is rather a means by which the State can control the Church, keeping the pearls of The Omniscient Lord out of our legal arguments. Push on in your pathetic self-styled intellectuality there grasshopper, and we will see very soon now if man's rebellion can prevail. Your arguments are the parroted talking points of the usurper, who have set up camp among the Democrats and turned the entire party into progressives. Ask Hillary and Bernard Sanders about it.

[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆ Thank you for your brief remarks. Perhaps it is best that we suspend this debate for a season so that you can gulp air as Flynn seeks immunity for testimony. Pray tell, what story does he have to tell?

[vector]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn...42008b278f

But Flynn saw immunity differently in September 2016, when reports surfaced that aides around Hillary Clinton had been granted immunity by the government in exchange for talking freely to the FBI about Clinton’s private email server.

“When you are given immunity, that means you probably committed a crime,” Flynn, then a top campaign aide to Donald Trump, said on “Meet the Press.”



And I quote

Lock him up

Lock him up

Lock him up

Lock him up

Lock him up

Lock him up

This is what money and power does to an individual

And you people thought Hillary was the crooked one

[TheRealThing]

⬆ Thank you for your brief remarks. Perhaps it is best that we suspend this debate for a season so that you can gulp air as Flynn seeks immunity for testimony. Pray tell, what story does he have to tell?

And here I thought you didn't know when to quit. I wouldn't get my hopes about Flynn up too high if I was you.

[The Urban Sombrero]

And here I thought you didn't know when to quit. I wouldn't get my hopes about Flynn up too high if I was you.

I was more angling toward statements slamming immunity by Flynn and President Trump. Politicians resort to the same tactics, same fox holes, same shenanigans, regardless of party affiliation.

[The Urban Sombrero]

As to knowing when to quit, stop flattering yourself. Your use of religion to interpret the Constitution, your particular interpretation, would make equal protection not extend to ALL, and you handle this by suggesting equal protection does not apply, which is circular reasoning, plain and simple, and, therefore, illogical.

[TheRealThing]

As to knowing when to quit, stop flattering yourself. Your use of religion to interpret the Constitution, your particular interpretation, would make equal protection not extend to ALL, and you handle this by suggesting equal protection does not apply, which is circular reasoning, plain and simple, and, therefore, illogical.

No now if I used Hare Krishna to re-interpret the Constitution I'd be using religion, then I'd be in the same revisionist boat with the La-La's. I look at the truth of man's creation in the same manner as did the Framers, who were careful to detail as much in the founding documents. Godly truth is even more viable than scientific truth, because we don't have to worry about It's accuracy. Scientific truths tend to evolve, as knowledge increases. With obeyance to Christian principles comes well being, as the Founders clearly proclaimed.

I never said equal protection did not apply to all, I said the group in question already enjoyed equal protection under the law prior to the repeal of DADT. And for the unfortunate tens of millions of aborted innocents who came along after Roe v Wade, equal protection flew right out the windows of the Supreme Court.

I would further say that your effort to stake out a usurper's claim on moral high ground is what is illogical. And where circular logic is concerned, let's at least do one little touch and go off of reality here, the La-La's invented circular logic. But then, when did you ever use your own material, right?

[The Urban Sombrero]

No now if I used Hare Krishna to re-interpret the Constitution I'd be using religion, then I'd be in the same revisionist boat with the La-La's. I look at the truth of man's creation in the same manner as did the Framers, who were careful to detail as much in the founding documents. Godly truth is even more viable than scientific truth, because we don't have to worry about It's accuracy. Scientific truths tend to evolve, as knowledge increases. With obeyance to Christian principles comes well being, as the Founders clearly proclaimed.

I never said equal protection did not apply to all, I said the group in question already enjoyed equal protection under the law prior to the repeal of DADT. And for the unfortunate tens of millions of aborted innocents who came along after Roe v Wade, equal protection flew right out the windows of the Supreme Court.

I would further say that your effort to stake out a usurper's claim on moral high ground is what is illogical. And where circular logic is concerned, let's at least do one little touch and go off of reality here, the La-La's invented circular logic. But then, when did you ever use your own material, right?

Let's be clear: your claim is that marriage does not fall into an "equal protection" category. Then, you jump to a, "therefore" and state same sex couples have no protected right to marry. If you cannot see that you continually assert what you have yet to prove, it is because of interpretational blindness, and at least a touch of hubris.

[TheRealThing]

Let's be clear: your claim is that marriage does not fall into an "equal protection" category. Then, you jump to a, "therefore" and state same sex couples have no protected right to marry. If you cannot see that you continually assert what you have yet to prove, it is because of interpretational blindness, and at least a touch of hubris.

Right, I claim the Constitution has not the first syllable within it about marriage under any circumstances whatever. But the fact that marriage is not addressed therein doesn't slow you down any in your interpretive creativity now does it? Blindness however would be your particular shortfall, as your obsession with defending the indefensible has clearly grown past your control. Odd soapbox fare for a Christian it would seem.

Ironically though, you did somehow manage to come close to making at least one factual observation. I do 'fail to see' how anybody with a wit of common sense could make the interpretive stretches of which you would seem to be so proud.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Right, I claim the Constitution has not the first syllable within it about marriage under any circumstances whatever. But the fact that marriage is not addressed therein doesn't slow you down any in your interpretive creativity now does it? Blindness however would be your particular shortfall, as your obsession with defending the indefensible has clearly grown past your control. Odd soapbox fare for a Christian it would seem.

Ironically though, you did somehow manage to come close to making at least one factual observation. I do 'fail to see' how anybody with a wit of common sense could make the interpretive stretches of which you would seem to be so proud.

Would you care to elaborate on other things of which "not a syllable" is uttered in the Constitution? Lecturing on blindness? You? I have chuckled until I'm euphoric.

[TheRealThing]

Would you care to elaborate on other things of which "not a syllable" is uttered in the Constitution? Lecturing on blindness? You? I have chuckled until I'm euphoric.

Euphoria is a symptom of bipolar disorder.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Euphoria is a symptom of bipolar disorder.

Or just intense happiness, as in when a gaseous windbag lectures on a condition he himself possesses.

[TheRealThing]

Would you care to elaborate on other things of which "not a syllable" is uttered in the Constitution? Lecturing on blindness? You? I have chuckled until I'm euphoric.

Or just intense happiness, as in when a gaseous windbag lectures on a condition he himself possesses.

You being the gaseous windbag I assume?

Oh that's right, you point out something in the above that had nearly slipped my mind. But thanks for helping me clarify your condition. Make that Bipolar/Psychological projection, which is the theory in psychology in which certain types of the mentally compromised, defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities by denying such existence within themselves, while at the same time attributing them to others. :Thumbs: