Canada government: We will legalize gay marriage.

[Asher]

Would the homosexuals want to treat me the same way I treated them?

Golden rule.

Shi has the right idea. Incase you haven't noticed, Christianity is growing less and less popular and less and less influential by the day. Make no mistake, soon Christians will be a minority, and all the people your tyranny has shat on over the years will remember that when you start protesting.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by techumseh


This is not a theory. The administration of licenses is not the same as the power to determine who is eligible to marry and under what circumstances. While a province might refuse to administer the new law, this would certainly result in a court ordering them to comply. But they definitely cannot invoke the "notwithstanding clause" in a matter of Federal jurisdiction.

You are right that a province can't legislate in areas of SOLELY federal jurisdiction-- the notwithstanding clause applies to the Charter not to the division of powers. Too bad you are wrong here--There is a provincial jurisdiction . . .

See section 92 item 12

92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subject next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,--



12. The Solemnization of Marriage in the Province.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Get it straight, junior. Marriage is a provincial jurisdiction.

You are both partly right . . . As I stated above "solemnization of marriage" is an exclusive provincial jurisdiction while "marriage and divorce" is exclusively federal jurisdiction. This mix means that the feds can pass the law they wish defining marriage but the provinces have ample ability to thwart it in application and prevent a homosexual marriage from taking place in their province. . .

So

1. Alberta or any other province can validly prevent homosexual marriages by using the notwitstanding clause.

2 An Alberta gay couple getting married in another province would get some "married "rights and some not, it would be a mess. If they split up they could get divorced and be entitled to the property division rights in the divorce act (federal law). For any provincial benefits though they would still get them under the various cohabitation rules ( which in Alberta do apply to same sex couples IIRC). So for the purposes of federal law they could be married while for the purposes of provincial law they may not be considered married.

[techumseh]

Nice try, Flubber.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by obiwan18

.

The same court challenge occurred in BC, Ontario and Quebec. In BC and Quebec, the courts rejected the case.

So if we are looking at these two provinces, the court precedent should bar recognising homosexual unions as marriages.

Instead, we see the Federal Government choosing to rule in Ontario's favour, and against the results in Quebec and BC. Any wonder when the Liberals have 100 seats in Ontario?

Wrong wrong wrong. The BC and Quebec courts came to exactly the same decision and struck down the marriage law BUT gave Parliament a two year window to pass new laws before the "striking-down" came into effect. They declined to rewrite the law but it was clear that anything that made homosexual marriages illegal would not be acceptable.

The Ontario Court adopted the same reasoning as the courts in BC and Quebec and even quoted those decisions approvingly and at length. The only difference was the remedy. The Ontario court saw no reason to delay and instead used the remedy of "reading in" words so that the legislation no longer violated the Charter.

So basically 3 out of 3 courts have ruled in favor of Homosexual marriage. It is now my understanding that 9 out of 10 provinces intend to accept this.

get your facts straight.

[Flubber]

QUOTE] Originally posted by obiwan18

.

What will happen, is that they will file a suit against the church for discrimination on the basis of their section 15 rights. They'd win.

It's a problem with Canada, that we don't have equitable freedom of association. It's a problem stemming from the courts ruling that section 15 applies to sexual orientation. [/QUOTE]


WRONG. The charter applies to government actors only. No action of a church can be challenged on Charter grounds . Do you not understand the slighest about waht the Charter does.



32. (1)This Charter applies

a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and
b) to the legislature and government of each province


A church may be challenged under a human rights code for violating someones human rights but there are multiple protections built in there for religious and fraternal groups

Obiwan18-- you really should try to understand things before making blanket statements like the above. Even the most recent Court of Appeal decison ( dealing with the issue in obiter) stated that no religious group would be forced to marry people if such marriage did not comply with their beliefs. The logic of thinking otherwise is ridiculous.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by techumseh
Nice try, Flubber.

[Berzerker]

Obiwan -

Why strange for Christ to forgive those who execute him?

Forgiveness is not an endorsement of what the state did. I can forgive someone who punches me without endorsing assault.

The passage I'm thinking of is from Romans 13:6
You really should read Romans carefully, it's one of the most important books in the entire Bible.

Sorry , that came from Paul, not Jesus. You see, I hold Paul responsible for destroying Christianity, turning it into just the opposite of what Jesus wanted. Jesus tried to get rid of the mindset of putting the letter of the law above the principles they were supposed to reflect. So, the Golden Rule has been largely ignored because we have Paul and all his "laws"...

What Christ said is that give to Caesar what is Caesar's, as you already alluded to.

Which was not an endorsement of the state.

On matters of civil authority, Christians should respect the state. They also have a duty to serve God, and the tension between the two comes forth in civil disobedience.
Duty to God should always be highest, but there are usually effective means within the system to evoke change.

Did Jesus say that? Does that mean German Christians should have respected the Nazis?

That does not deal with the problem of Ananias. Ananias testified in Acts 9:11 that God spoke to him and told him to meet Saul of Tarsus, confirming his appearance.

Ananias even expresses doubt that Saul would be called, as a persecuter of Christians.

Again, this is according to Paul. He is the author of "acts", not the apostles, and not Ananias. But notice how Ananias somehow knew Jesus appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus? Did Jesus tell that to Ananias? No, so how did he know when and where Paul was "converted"? Paul knew, so who wrote that into the Bible? Not Ananias...

Where? I don't know what you allude to.

Hehe, you wouldn't know by reading what Paul said, but we have early church writings from the original members, including James. There's a book called, "Paul, the Mythmaker", or just, "The Mythmaker", by a bible scholar who delves into Paul's conduct and why unnamed "Jews" were trying to kill him. Notice how we have 4 gospels that roughly corroborate each other? We have no corroboration for Paul, just his words about his deeds...

We all end up in the same place when were done, before God. Some of us have more challenges than others.

That doesn't justify intentionally creating cripples.

Nothing to do with the preferences, just the gender? If so they should file a complaint under gender, not sexual orientation.

Preferences are involved for all parties. Would they have grounds?

A man shows up on your door who has been killing your supporters, what would your response be? Open arms, if he comes in peace? Of course they are going to be initially frightened until they get independent confirmation of his testimony.

But they never got confirmation, Barnabas took up Paul's cause.
And based on what? Paul's word...

[Agathon]

Slightly OT but coming soon to a Canadian province near you - gay adoption. The next barricade in the right's war to keep homosexuals from taking over the country.

I'm not sure I agree with this guy, but he has a point.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydispl...ction=dialogue

[MrFun]

What do those poor children suffer from, when they have one parent of one race, and another parent of another race?

And how about that poor lad who is being raised by a single parent?

Oh, and what about that poor kid who is made fun of in school because he was adopted?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MrFun
What do those poor children suffer from, when they have one parent of one race, and another parent of another race?

And how about that poor lad who is being raised by a single parent?

Oh, and what about that poor kid who is made fun of in school because he was adopted?

I think his point is that these things don't seem to matter much anymore. However, there is still a lot of prejudice against gays - that's why many gay kids are advised not to come out at high school.

Of course it's a moot point as to whether allowing it would aid in lowering the rate of prejudice.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Hardly, the left's idea of "tolerance" is "do what we say is moral or get hurt".

How ironic.

This is a thread in which the Liberals are saying that gays can do what they want, while the conservatives are trying to deny rights to those the conservative claim are immoral.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by obiwan18
One of the purposes of marriage provides a stable environment to have and to raise children.

Leaving out castrated men, which I'll get back to, none of these categories should affect this purpose of marriage. Anyone in a homosexual union would have to rely upon adoption to begin a family.

So are you suggesting that an infertile couple should not have the right to get married? Or that a couple who do not want children should be denied the right to get married?

[Ben Kenobi]

Tingkai:

So are you suggesting that an infertile couple should not have the right to get married? Or that a couple who do not want children should be denied the right to get married?

Infertility? No reason to bar a couple that finds one partner or the other to be infertile, or if one person of the couple has a pre-existing condition for infertility.

None of these exceptions apply to a homosexual person who is perfectly capable of having kids, yet chooses to avoid having one.

Or that a couple who do not want children should be denied the right to get married?

General argument along these lines goes that I don't want my kids to grow up because I have some problem that I don't want to be passed onto my kids.

I'll be honest, this question has some personal implications, I've had to think hard about why I would want to have kids and get married.

I don't feel that it is fair to the other partner to marry her, and not to have kids. I'd rather encourage her to marry someone else, so that she can enjoy these benefits.

I would hate to see such a marriage break up because one of the parties changed their minds later. Best to avoid the situation all together.

[Ben Kenobi]

Sorry , that came from Paul, not Jesus. You see, I hold Paul responsible for destroying Christianity, turning it into just the opposite of what Jesus wanted. Jesus tried to get rid of the mindset of putting the letter of the law above the principles they were supposed to reflect. So, the Golden Rule has been largely ignored because we have Paul and all his "laws"...

Jesus also gave applications to how one should love ones neighbours. So does Paul. How do Paul's insights represent the old Law that Paul tried hard to get away from? They in no way guaranteed salvation, but simply help Christians to live their lives in the proper manner.

Which was not an endorsement of the state.

Tough. It's an endorsement of state authority for taxation. Not very libertarian of Jesus.

Did Jesus say that? Does that mean German Christians should have respected the Nazis?

No, the German Christians should have violated an unjust law due to their duty with God. An unjust law cannot hold moral force. The question is to examine why a law would be unjust before simply breaking one.
Maybe reading Paul will help you understand.

Again, this is according to Paul. He is the author of "acts",

Source?

not the apostles, and not Ananias.

The "Acts of the Apostles' heading does not mean that the books were written by the apostles, but about the apostles.

Consensus credits Luke as the author of Acts.

But notice how Ananias somehow knew Jesus appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus? Did Jesus tell that to Ananias? No, so how did he know when and where Paul was "converted"? Paul knew, so who wrote that into the Bible? Not Ananias...

God did speak to Ananias. How else would he know the details of Paul's testimony, and where to meet him? I would think that it would take the word of God for a Christian to agree to meet with Paul.

quote:
Where? I don't know what you allude to.

we have early church writings from the original members, including James.

Well then, please show me where James says that Paul embezzled money from the Jerusalem church.

That doesn't justify intentionally creating cripples.

Aren't we all cripples? Chew on that for a bit, Berzerker.

Preferences are involved for all parties. Would they have grounds?

Not for discrimination. Discimination can't be based on sexual preference, but only on sexual orientation if it can be shown that sexual orientation can be inherited like skin colour, or the rest.

But they never got confirmation, Barnabas took up Paul's cause.
And based on what? Paul's word...

Why would they trust a man who had just tried to kill them? They would have sought independent testimony as to the validity of his conversion. It makes no sense your way.

[blackice]

While I never made "glue" for BASF, it would seem a good excuse for your stunted maturity assher would be you sniff it?

While solemnizing marriage is provincial, a minister etc. can do it in any province.

Common law and married are different within definition, income tax laws etc. cover both.

Property laws, support laws and custody laws vary from province to province. Something that prenups can take care of mind you.

No state recognizes gay matrimony as of june 20th 2003. So, no Canadian gay marriages will be recognized in the US.

Banns

The publication of the banns takes the place of a marriage license. The pastor must ensure civil regulations are fulfilled, which the issuer of marriage licences would have done.

Now Kill'em could decide the marriages "won't be registered" because they don't meet federal guidelines, but that is time limited. Once the feds pass the laws he has but a toilet to sit on and decide what to do.

Now go figure the religious time honored Banns constitutionaly, provincialy recognized law will be the only way a gay couple will marry in alberta...Keep bashing religion assher...

So unless kill'em kline changes the Bann laws heh. Dispite the waste of tax payers money, people in alberta will be able to marry.

Alberta has denied rights to gays and lesbians on several occasions.

In 2000, the province passed a law to disallow gay marriages, although neither Klein nor Alberta Justice Minister David Hancock voted for it.

In 1998, the Supreme Court ruled against the Klein government and in favour of Edmonton teacher Delwin Vriend, who argued he was a victim of discrimination after being fired from a Christian college because he is gay.

Two years ago, an Alberta Court of Queen's Bench judge ordered the province to change its laws to allow homosexuals to inherit property from their partners.

There is more about your beloved pro gay lov'in kline assher, i'll go a few at a time so as not to burst your love bug in one stroke, so to speak.

You defended this guy and province in the other thread about this same topic assher. You even made excusses for his actions... Now what? Still love him?

In fact if I am not mistaken you have made no mention of this man and his government and or thier stance?

So what is your opinion of him and or his government now?
What is it like to live in the nearest thing we have to a bible belt being gay?
Do you think the majority of Albertans in that democracy agree with thier views?
Do you think in a democracy they have a right to voice thier opinions?
Do you think the majority rules in a democracy?
If so do you believe they should not allow gay marriages if the majority rules?
Do you think the constitution protects the minority? If so too much?
If the majority of albertans disagree with gay marriages and it became law there would that be right?

Alberta Premier Ralph Klein’s government
conducted by Longwoods International,
November and December 1998, released March 1999
56 percent opposed legal marriage
for same-sex couples
39 percent supported legal marriage
for same-sex couples
5 percent undecided
total of 1,000 Alberta respondents

Canadian Justice Department
conducted by Angus Reid Group in 1998

on recognition of same-sex partnerships:
74 percent supported federal social benefits
for same-sex couples
69 percent supported income benefits and obligations
67 percent supported full equality with common-law
opposite-sex couples
59 percent supported use of the word “spouse” for
same-sex partners
84 percent gay men and lesbians should be protected
from discrimination
71 percent supported extending the benefits of
common-law relationships to all economically
interdependent couples

Globe & Mail
conducted by Angus Reid Group,
May 25 through May 30, 1999, released June 10, 1999

53 percent supported legal marriage
for same-sex couples
44 percent opposed legal marriage
for same-sex couples
3 percent didn’t know or were undecided
telephone survey of 1,500 Canadian adults
Province breakdown - those who supported
legal marriage for same-sex couples:
61 percent in Quebec
54 percent in British Columbia
53 percent in Ontario
48 percent in Atlantic Canada
43 percent in Alberta
42 percent in Saskatchewan and Manitoba
Age breakdown - those who supported
legal marriage for same-sex couples:
66 percent aged 18-34
57 percent aged 35-54
32 percent aged 55+
Education breakdown - those who supported
legal marriage for same-sex couples:
59 percent with university degrees
38 percent had not completed high school

Environics Research Group
reported in the National Post, May 2001

Questions asked:
1. Currently, gay and lesbian couples have the same
treatment under Canadian federal law as common-law
heterosexual couples. Would you strongly support,
somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose
allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry?
2. Do you personally strongly approve, somewhat
approve, somewhat disapprove or strongly
disapprove of homosexuality?

55 percent approve legal marriage for same-sex couples
29 percent strongly support
26 percent somewhat support
73 percent support - aged 18-29
35 percent support - aged over 60
41 percent oppose extending legal marriage
30 percent strongly oppose
11 percent somewhat oppose
4 percent have no opinion

Support for same-sex marriage was strongest among
women, younger people, those with higher annual
household incomes and those with post-secondary
education. Opposition is concentrated among those
over the age of 60 and those with less than a high
school education. Support is also stronger in Quebec
(69%), and in British Columbia (60%). Support is
weakest in Saskatchewan and Alberta (43% each).
In Ontario, support is just below the national
average at 50 percent.

44 percent approve of homosexuality
[a 3 percent increase from 1999, and
a 22 percent jump from 1996]
21 percent strongly approve
23 percent somewhat approve
37 percent disapprove of homosexuality
[an 11 percent drop since 1996]
24 percent strongly disapprove
13 percent somewhat disapprove
16 percent are neutral regarding homosexuality
[down 13 points since 1999]

Approval was highest among women, younger people,
those with higher incomes and those with
post-secondary education, as well as among Quebecers.
Disapproval of homosexuality was highest among men,
those over the age of 60, those with low levels of
education and residents of Saskatchewan and Alberta.
Well over half of supporters of the Canadian Alliance
(58%) disapprove of homosexuality -- a far higher
proportion than that found among supporters of any of
the other four federal parties (Progressive
Conservative: 41% disapprove; Liberal: 34% disapprove;
NDP: 32% disapprove; Bloc Québécois: 9% disapprove).

The survey was conducted between April 5-24, 2001, and
based on 2,035 adult Canadians. A poll of this size
has a margin of error of 2.2 percent.

“Canadian Perceptions of Perceive Homosexuality”
conducted by Léger Marketing
June 5 through 13, 2001, released July 16, 2001
Based on phone calls to 1,507 English- or
French-speaking Canadians,
18 years of age or older.
This poll has a margin of error of 2.6 percent.

65.4 percent approve of same-sex marriage
74.5 percent approve of the same tax breaks for
same-sex couples as for opposite-sex couples
53.1 percent approve of adoption rights
for gay men and lesbians
18.6 percent do not agree with granting any of
the above rights to gay men and lesbians

Gay people should have the same rights as heterosexuals:
85.5 percent in Quebec (5.3 percent no response)
85.5 percent in the Maritimes (2.5 percent no response)
76.5 percent British Columbia (5.5 percent no response)
71.5 percent Alberta (3.7 percent no response)
69.8 percent Ontario (6.4 percent no response)
67.3 percent Manitoba (6.4 percent no response)
67.3 percent Saskatchewan (6.4 percent no response)

[note: Same-sex adoptions are allowed in Ontario,
B.C. and Alberta, with Alberta including its provision
under an allowance for same-sex step-parents.]

conducted by Pollara
48 percent of Canadians favor granting marriage rights
43 percent oppose
9 percent no opinion

65 percent aged 25-34 favor expanding the legal
definition of marriage to same-sex couples
61 percent of those 18-34 also agree

survey released in July 2002

Now clearly the Alberta stats stand out and your Canadian Alliance well it may be time to find another dictator?

The survey was taken for the Liberal party shortly
after July 12, 2002, when an Ontario court ruled that
denying same-sex couples the right to marry
was unconstitutional.

I would say good thing Ontario is a pack of liberal thinkers, better yet a majority in Canada...You?

You also bashed Trudeau what brain washed Albertan does'nt?:

1965
Everett Klippert acknowledges to police that he is gay, has had sex with men over a 24-year period, and is unlikely to change. In 1967, Klippert is sent to prison indefinitely as a "dangerous sex offender," a sentence which was backed up by the Supreme Court of Canada that same year.
December 22, 1967
Justice Minister Pierre Trudeau proposes amendments to the Criminal Code which, among other things, would relax the laws against homosexuality. Discussing the amendments Trudeau says,

Pierre Trudeau
"It's certainly the most extensive revision of the Criminal Code since the 1950s and, in terms of the subject matter it deals with, I feel that it has knocked down a lot of totems and over-ridden a lot of taboos and I feel that in that sense it is new. It's bringing the laws of the land up to contemporary society I think. Take this thing on homosexuality. I think the view we take here is that there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation. I think that what's done in private between adults doesn't concern the Criminal Code. When it becomes public this is a different matter, or when it relates to minors this is a different matter."

1969
Trudeau's amendments pass into the Criminal Code, decriminalizing homosexuality in Canada.

July 20, 1971
Everett Klippert is released.

December 16, 1977
Quebec includes sexual orientation in its Human Rights Code, making it the first province in Canada to pass a gay civil rights law. The law makes it illegal to discriminate against gays in housing, public accommodation and employment. By 2001, all provinces and territories take this step except Alberta, Prince Edward Island, and the Northwest Territories.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/backg...gayrights.html

So what is it like to live in a no-gay zone so to speak? I mean Alberta not Canada....After all it remains a common staple there...

So as I was saying economicaly good job, rights of the people, dictatorship, liberal thinking and oppression...How great is your province? How do you measure it? Seems clear to me money....

I digress,

A measured change in the meaning of the word "marriage" should not bother, for it has long since changed in important respects. From time immemorial in Western societies and until the 20th century, marriage and children were inextricably associated, and pitied were the married folk who could not bring forth progeny.

But that has gradually shifted in the past hundred years. Marriages without children are not at all uncommon. Marriages too brief for children are not uncommon. (Marriages long enough to produce children, but too short to raise them, are sadly thick on the ground.)

The body of law, especially laws regarding taxation and social benefits, have not kept pace. Numerous benefits are available to childless couples simply because they are married. That is today the wrong optic. Marriage should today more properly be regarded as a private contract of no great interest to the state -- for the real interest of the state is in children.

We need a complete rethinking of our laws and benefit packages from this point of view -- the point of view of advantaging and raising and providing security and stability for children. That is where our tax and pension breaks should go; forget the marriage contract. Beyond that, good luck and wishes to the happy couple of whatever complexion.

Gordon Gibson

Too true...and a glimps of the future...Strides in this area are already unfolding with the recognition of fathers as primary care givers. I think this reporter hit the nail on the head.

In traditional "we the government cash cow thinking" you bet marriages will be a thing of the past, unless they make money, not give it. As for the "we the government give money" I think you will see this as the start of "I don't think so" revolution of the feds.

You have kids you get money, your simply married without kids, see ya.

Last time I looked this would save the feds billions, yup we the people...

Hey let's get stoned and forget about it

[notyoueither]

Are you sure, blackice? Not even a little glue?

Some of your 'Alberta teachings' rants have convinced me you must have some excuse.

[Berzerker]

Tingkai -

How ironic.

This is a thread in which the Liberals are saying that gays can do what they want, while the conservatives are trying to deny rights to those the conservative claim are immoral.

How ironic, you didn't read the thread before responding, nor did you actually quote me saying homosexuality is immoral.
Btw, I'm not even a conservative...

[blackice]

notyoueither heh another fart in the wind speaks...

You sure about that? You seem positive sometimes? How much do you really know about your government, that is to say beyond what it preaches? What's the big picture? Is there one? Do you care? What did Kill'em say anyway?

Has he keep his promise of polls on major topics you two bragged about? If so what was the result of this one? Did he not say any major decissions would go to the people? Yes you two bragged about it so did he, check out Hansards. So do not keep us in suspense what was the result of the "true democracy polls" of kill'em kline and his people?

Why not answer some of the questions asked? Break tradition submit more than a one liner troll line.

Some of your 'Alberta teachings' rants

Please do go on, cite some examples for the good people here? I mean it looks good says nothing and trolls for carp. But can you back it up with meaningfull examples?

I forgot I was out of touch here for some time, challenging the feds. I am not a province but I managed to change some things for the better. I guess that is the difference between whining, propaganda, mass hysteria, mass inaction, control, dictatorship, oppression and individual action... Welcome to the real world.

Oh ya your notyoueither the master of tripe. I can count on one hand using two fingers how many times you have responded to challenges of fact over your fiction...

I must say you are an entertaining additive to any Apolyton tread.

Keep up the good work.

Excuses i'll leave that up to you I could never compete...

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Tingkai -

Btw, I'm not even a conservative...

** troll mood **

You are like, sooooo conservative.

[Asher]

blackice:

You are sooo obviously a Zylka DL. I'm surprised I never figured it out earlier.

[blackice]

Well another insult to the Apolyton crew that's how many dl's you have me down for? I guess I ( Or is that we?)fooled them all?

On the other hand I guess your simply avoiding the topic on hand? Go figure...

[Asher]

How can I avoid the topic "on hand" when you spew so much **** out that's either irrelevant or totally incorrect?

[blackice]

You sure about that or you just trying to bury the facts assher?

I smell an assher weasel tactic, no I see it damn you are obvious.

Ever noticed?

[Asher]

Yes, I am weasling out of your obvious onslaught of coherent, factual posts about how giving gays the same rights as straights negatively impacts straight people under the government.

The logic of it alone is intellectually stunning, there is no room for anyone to argue against it!

[Berzerker]

Obiwan -

Jesus also gave applications to how one should love ones neighbours. So does Paul. How do Paul's insights represent the old Law that Paul tried hard to get away from?

"Do unto others..." vs if you own slaves, treat them well.

Tough. It's an endorsement of state authority for taxation. Not very libertarian of Jesus.

Hardly, Caesar's image was on the money, that's why Jesus said, "render unto Caesar". Btw, liberatarians don't want to abolish taxation, just the use of taxes to "re-distribute" wealth.
Did Jesus advocate becoming like Caesar? Did he tell his followers they should "tax" others or do as the Romans do? Jesus was trying to avoid a potential conflict with the Romans when he gave his answer, not just for himself, but for his followers. He wasn't endorsing the state or Caesar as instruments of morality...

No, the German Christians should have violated an unjust law due to their duty with God. An unjust law cannot hold moral force. The question is to examine why a law would be unjust before simply breaking one.

Hmm...so much for respecting the "legal authorities".

Maybe reading Paul will help you understand.

Paul says we should ignore or fight the government if it passes an immoral law?

Source?

That book is the first we hear of Paul and he quickly became the central player.

God did speak to Ananias. How else would he know the details of Paul's testimony, and where to meet him? I would think that it would take the word of God for a Christian to agree to meet with Paul.

It's Paul's story, he could make anything up.

Well then, please show me where James says that Paul embezzled money from the Jerusalem church.

I already told you, "The Mythmaker". And I didn't say it was embezzlement, just a mis-appropriation of money.

Aren't we all cripples? Chew on that for a bit, Berzerker.

Would you trade places with Christopher Reeves (Superman)? Chewed on an spit out.

Not for discrimination. Discimination can't be based on sexual preference, but only on sexual orientation if it can be shown that sexual orientation can be inherited like skin colour, or the rest.

Religion isn't inherited, so I guess the government can outlaw Christianity and leave Muslims and Buddhists free to practice as they see fit, huh. That wouldn't be discrimination?

Why would they trust a man who had just tried to kill them? They would have sought independent testimony as to the validity of his conversion. It makes no sense your way.

They believed he had converted, I never said he was faking. He may very well have gone to Damascus and become a Christian, but that doesn't mean he had anybody's endorsement, much less Jesus'. The question becomes: did his actions afterward contradict the teachings of Jesus?

[blackice]

Any rate since it is obviously overwhelming information posted for you, I am truely sorry I forgot about your limitations.

You go ahead and digress it, ignore it or spam it, excuse it, avoid it, dismiss it or any of your other favorite habits your choice. Oh and this is your favourite "the twist"

Yes, posts about how giving gays the same rights as straights negatively impacts straight people under the government.

Where? If that is your interpretation so be it, but I said this glue must be glue. Jump in now Notmeeither

The obvious point being made was this is a prelude to the government making changes to the laws in such a way they in fact take more money away from the people and gain more themselves. Go figure. You up to speed now? Or are you sticking to glue?

The information is posted and your position is, well as it always is yours...

Yes, I am weasling out of your obvious onslaught of coherent, factual posts

Say no more....The possibility of you maturing before our eyes is well quite unbelievable....and quite, who am I kidding

[Asher]

Originally posted by blackice
Any rate since it is obviously overwhelming information posted for you, I am truely sorry I forgot about your limitations.

Thanks for taking into account my obvious mental limitations blackice, I am no match for you.

You go ahead and digress it

Only after you go back and regress it.

[Berzerker]

Fun -

You are like, sooooo conservative.

And yet I could care less if homosexuals "marry", or if they use drugs, hire prostitutes, and watch porn. I can identify plenty of major differences between my views and conservatism if you like. But what's the point? You don't seem to read what's going on anyway.

[Az]

Aren't we all cripples?