Smith

I'm not sure what the title means? Did you get married or are you just excited about the class?

Mike? I have no problem with it being genetic like any other of the many problematic genetic disorders and tendencies that people have. That being said it is not an excuse to choose the wrong thing. I feel for the guy who struggles with alcoholism but I don't just condone it because he was "born that way". There are people born with tendencies towards violence and murder. Does that make it OK? Just because a choice is hard does not mean you don't have to make the right one and the deal with the consequences that come with it choosing the wrong one.

Or entire system is built on Christian morality and all legislation is morality. Not sure where you guys think they septate? You can't have your cake and eat it to. You want Constitutional law? You have to accept the precepts it was founded on. If not you destabilize the entire system and no longer have rule of law, but rather rule of anarchy. Or as the rest of the world knows it... Europe.

Couple problems. 1 tax "breaks" and the like were established to support the traditional family as it had been understood was the core of society by providing propagation and a solid traditional family would support and govern itself. Thus relieving the burden on the governments social programs. They've turned that on its head so essentially that's thrown out the window. 2 with the above idea, the state "partnered" with the church to support marriage through various economic incentives. However, as had been stated, that is now turning against that idea. If be fine if the government got out of marriage altogether. Since it is a religious institution to begin with. I don't see that happening, so this will come to a reckoning as OS and Mike pointed out. Somebody will be left in the lurch. Sometimes there its not a win-win. I'd rather a minority miss out than the government to co-pt the church and tyrannically force its will on the vast majority. As the OP referenced about statistics. Again making the stated and church one. We are in more agreement than disagreement. We are just approaching it from different points.

Won't happen. That's not the real issue they are after. As has been said everything they claim they want they can have thought various paths. What they can't have is recognition from churches. That is the real heart of the matter. All the rest is a red herring. IMO As to all the flipant biblical references, it doesn't take a scholar to note that just because the Bible references or accounts for wrong actions is it implied or stated as being condoned. The fact scripture accounts for the imperfections in humanity works towards its credit, not against it. Scripture, properly understood, teaches us to work from imperfection to perfection. It does not assume utopia is attainable or possible in this present life.

All the benefits of marriage can be had through civil unions, living trust, wills, etc. As far as insurance is concerned ether problem with that is that family policies are built around the idea of child producing families. I'm still against the government writing policies based on socio political ideology. The biggest impact reason I'm against gay marriage, outside of the moral and definition reasons already mentioned, is that the state well be dictating to the church what it can and can't believe and hold to as far as theology and practice. I believe that if it is made legal there will be "new" civil rights and discrimination suits against churches and pastors who do not acknowledge or accept the practice. If it its recognized as a right, them it has to be protected by the government and that is done through the legal system. You will then have the very thing strickj was arguing so adamantly against. The starte, in essence, would become the religious author of theology and practice. Some will say that is far fetched, but I always thought it was far fetched that the generation that lived thorough the Cold War would elect a a socialist President. Just look at what Obama Care is threatning to do to hospitals who well not preform abortions.

Its been answered numerous times here and in other threads. It wouldn't make a difference in any ones opinion either way. Never does.

My apologies the the OP for being part of this derailment. I know better and sometimes I get sucked into these vortex's of no-win "discussions!".

So you agree? As to your illusion of Biblical "laws," hedge laws are what you are referring to and are not considered "laws" in the Biblical sense because the Jews do not acknowledge the Bible. I was referring to the Judeo-Christian ethic as was the framers.

That's why I said Erick

Erick made the emotional attempt to negate anything religiously associated as "sin" as a nonsensical factor in legislature. I pointed out that almost everything Biblically viewed as a sin is illegal and considered morally unacceptable in our Constitution and legal codes. Come on guys. Get off the emotion train and read in context. Then it has been the current cultural context of humanity since the beggining of time. If that is the argument the you are implying that homosexuality is indeed and abnormality and abstract to all known human history. Which by definition does not make it "cultural" but a condition of humanity.

Easy there tiger. You know good and well that "Seperation of Church and State" as used in the context you tried to use it is not implied or there. The framers where very clear it was about the FED government not being able to dictate a FED Church. In fact the states COULD establish there own "Church". Not abolition of religion altogether or a negating or it's role or importance. We've had this discussion before. So is murder, stealing, adultry, assault, abuse, ..... Does that negate those as well?

The whole Constitution was written based on Religious opinion. To read "Seperation of Church and State" into the context you used you have to read 2A as only being for Militia.

That is incorrect and not within the inteded or expressed context.

When you identify yourself by the way or who you have sex with yes, it is much different. I have never used the term heterosexual to identify myself politically, spiritually, economically, morally, or physically. Male/Female has to do with biological makeup and signifies difference based on that bilogical birthed identifier. It is not up to me to determine or define those perameters. Homosexualiaity is soley based on the physical act of who and how people have sex and their identity to that relationship. Otherwise they are men/women which does not necessarily identify sexuality.

Gay relationships are entirely about sexualization. Otherwise what is there? You do realize the whole "homosexual" identity is about who they have sex with right? I don't think I ever heard of a heterosexual movement.

They were also reintroduced into North Eastern Arkansas a few years back.

Those 39A's are incredible. My dad has one from the 70's and it is a tack driver.

Lester, there lies the problem. Evolution (macro) can NOT be tested. The "evidence" we use now is based on assumptions. especially when it comes to carbon dating that has proven incredibly unreliable and unpredictable. In fact carbon dating only works if it is several millions of years old and so the assumption has t be made that it meets that criteria before dating can be used. Evolution all revolves around time and if the time models are incorrect or proven problematic, which they have, you can't use them. You are back to square one. Example, explain why cosmic dust levels only date the earth to around 10,000 yrs and salinity levels only date the earth to around 10,000 yrs just for two examples. Those two things are fairly independent of each other and are measurably consistent, especially cosmic dust. I am saying that evolution is just as "magical" logically and scientifically speaking as creationism. The fact that many scientist center on it simply because they reject an ID philosophy does not make it more scientific. It makes it less scientific since it disqualifies a factor that cannot and has not been dis-proven and yet retains plausibility in both the philosophical and scientific fields with much evidence coming from both. Now centering on which religious take on ID is problematic, but ID is not. In fact ID explains everything (through different models) without contradictions. That cannot be said for evolution. There is also an assumption that we have developed in knowledge past the ancients. Maybe not as much as we would arrogantly like to think. As you said, why do we teach the most complicated and problematic of the theories? My opinion is because those who push it have a philosophy that will not let them consider anything other than their own errant philosophy. Thus the Global Warming issue i have with the teacher in the first place.

Lester, creation obviously happened. The reason and how is what is in debate. Regardless of what the "Spock's" of the science world want to think, Philosophy is the root of science. The ancients accepted this and led in science for years. The current strain of modern science, as far as Creation goes, was developed out of the Enlightenment thinking that reality, God, and truth are relevant and not subject to intelligent design. This has shaped modern science, where before, everything was based off of a intelligent design understanding with truth and laws of physics and nature being fixed. What I am fundamentally challengin is this new science philosophy not the data itself. The Philosophy in which one approaches the data will shape that data to a preconcieved form. It is very rare for a person to change their personally philosophy withou a significant persoanal experience that will shake them off their original philosophy. For instance the inherent flaw with Spock was that he was so ingrained in absolute logic and science that he refused to account for the intangeables such as instinct, human spirit, intuition, emotions, and human flaws. That is why he could not be captian. He would make the wrong decisions becasue logic and science iotself are inadequate. All that to say, you can't reject one at the exclusion of the other and then claim to be purely logical and factual. That cuts both ways. What happened in my daughters class was that the teacher was excluding one while claiming absolute truth in the other. I disagree with the premise and philosophy and so I have to be skeptical of the scientific data. Not becasue I distrust the data, but becasue I distrust the philosopies of flawed humans and how they interpret and draw conclusions on the data. This is not a science debate, this is a philosophical/theological debate. Was it intelligent desgin (God, etc. ) or was it purely random? Is there a God or am I god? If it was ID then the data will be shaped a certain way and the contections will have to be made in a certain sequence. The questions and assnwers have to fit into that model. If it is random then that same data will fit and entirely different mold and the connections will be, for the most part, entirely different as will be the forcasting the conclusions.

M&P40. Everything metal is stainless inside and out, parts, sights, holsters, and trigger upgrades are as abundant as anything out there. Ergonomics are excellent, American made, and full lifetime warranty. I just don't like Glock ergonomics, but if I had to have a Glock (and I've had several) would be the 23.

Long I know, but worth it if you have the time. It is only an excerpt and not complete but gives an excellent Biblical creation science overview.

I've said it several times now that "formless and void" do not translate to not in existence. There are actually several different theories that postulate this is the time period in which Dinosaurs etc lived. Also, if the earth was created in one day, how old was it when created? Did it have all the markings of a billion years or was it brand new. Was Adam a full grown 100 yrd old or 2 yr old. Especially since time was not kept by man until he realized he was mortal and he needed to gauge his existence. "Young Earth" theories for the most part are based on man's time on earth through the biblical chronology, gene pool dilution, salinity levels, cosmic dust, and several other knowns. The flood would also account for many of the discrepancies in fossilization, large species extinction and adaptation, 4 main ethnic groups, oil deposits, diamond deposits, global weather shifts, etc. Personally the reason I scientifically do not believe in evolution is that evolution, while it has many explanations, also has many contradictions and too many unknowns and assumptions. The Biblical account of creation and the flood, while also has many unknowns, does not have any real inconsistencies. Those two events allow for all of the known data to fit if taken together. Evolution does not has too exclude certain information because it does not fit.. Keep in mind the Bible is not a scientific text book nor was it ever intended to be. It is a narrative that alludes to many scientific phenomenon. This is where science and scripture should work together and not to each others exclusion. I don't think God thinks otherwise.

So was Jesus and most of the first Christians. Science.

DaddyO, it's not a dumb question. In fact science is the term we used to describe the collection of observations that we use to form theories and hypothesis to explain what was previously unknown or unobserved and their relation to one another. Science has developed and continues to develop as we observe and learn. As I stated in my first post, it is far from the absolute some want to wrap themselves in. One small previously unobserved item can and usually changes everything we previously "knew". Kind like how we thought the cell was the smallest thing, then a nucleus, ......... Thus the reason science is supposed to be a highly critical study always looking to disprove, not trying to prove. Which is ironic because most liberal science has so much arrogance in their assumptions and security in "known" science when that attitude is the very opposite of the scientific method. Kinda like the grief Columbus received from all the "scientist" of his day. Funny that is was the Christian who set sail for discovery, while the "scientist" tried to prevent it.