Duck Dynasty
Forums › General Discussion › Duck Dynasty-
Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
Huh?Oarsman wrote:
. Wow!!! Case in point. Amendments to the Constitution become part of the constitution however the articles themselves do not make up the Constitution.Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
How did I miss that? You still don't understand that a rarified amendment is the constitution?Oarsman wrote:
Lol. I argued that that the constitution has amendments, amendments are part of the constitution but amendments are not the Constitution.Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
★fnord★ wrote:
C&S -
Amendments to the Constitution become part of the constitution however the amendments themselves do not solely make up the Constitution.
-
Ojibwe wrote:
Lol. Explain that to your boy Fnord.Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
No chit Sherlock. Is THAT what you just spent six pages trying to get across? Why didn't you just say that in the first place?Amendments to the Constitution become part of the constitution however the amendments themselves do not solely make up the Constitution.
-
People are just confused about the difference between the "moral code" and the "natural code" in the bibble.
Let's put it in simple terms so people can more easily absorb the concept:
The moral code is also known as the "picking code". The natural code is also known as the "choosing code".
When you define it that way, people understand the concept better.
-
Ojibwe wrote:
I honestly don't see how that supports his argument at all though. Merely points out that he's drawing back to pitiful wordplay to prove what point exactly? I'm not seeing a reason he even needs to make that argument because it has no relevance to the discussion.Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
No chit Sherlock. Is THAT what you just spent six pages trying to get across? Why didn't you just say that in the first place?Amendments to the Constitution become part of the constitution however the amendments themselves do not solely make up the Constitution.
-
Brown🎵Note😲 wrote:
Well i guess you graduated in strawmen. Lets just say you arent the best theologen out here.People are just confused about the difference between the "moral code" and the "natural code" in the bibble.
Let's put it in simple terms so people can more easily absorb the concept:
The moral code is also known as the "picking code". The natural code is also known as the "choosing code".
When you define it that way, people understand the concept better.
-
"the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules."
-
This thread is getting a lot of attention, maybe I should read it despite the title "duck dynasty" 😜👀
-
☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:
Never trust a theologen that can't spell theologian. Hell, never trust a theologian, period. We don't need a bunch of pointy-headed academics perched up in ivory towers telling us what the bible says now that we have the twin innovations of literacy and printing press. Silly rabbit, salvation comes from within.Brown🎵Note😲 wrote:
Well i guess you graduated in strawmen. Lets just say you arent the best theologen out here.People are just confused about the difference between the "moral code" and the "natural code" in the bibble.
Let's put it in simple terms so people can more easily absorb the concept:
The moral code is also known as the "picking code". The natural code is also known as the "choosing code".
When you define it that way, people understand the concept better.
-
Shit you guys are still going
-
I'm not the best theologian out there, certainly. Folklore and mythology has never been my focus. I've always spent more time on reality.
Although, the more I learn about the world of magic space men, the funnier it gets. It seems like every time we find out that a story in the popular subset of prehistoric desert-dwelling ramblings can't be true, it graduates from truth to parable. "Noah's ark is not meant to be taken literally... Of course it's just a story for moral edification."
Which morals are those? That god kills indiscriminately? That a drunk dude and his incestuous offspring cared enough about kangaroos to make a special trip around the world for them?
The more I dig, the funnier it gets.
-
✯RagnarLoðbrók✯ wrote:
The thing is that there's a difference between slavery whic is entirely inhumane, and a movement of people that want to be able to have themselves and their same sex partner recognized as being "married". I can't remember the last time homosexuals were forced to go work and a field and were eaten mercilessly for not performing on a level seen for by their master. So you can't compare the two lol.🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
The south said the same thing about their slaves about 150 years ago. How'd that work out?Ojibwe wrote:
Let me just say that if you think states like Louisiana and other southern states are going to legalize gay marriage you're in for a rude awakening. The only thing less likely than southern states voting in gay marriage would be us giving up our guns xD. -
Ojibwe wrote:
😂 well i got the reference 😂"the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules."
-
@darkmagician
I was not comparing slavery to same sex marriage. I was commenting that the south was refused to give up slavery, just as now, you say they will never accept gay marriage.
The south was wrong then, and they are wrong now. Then, they took their wrong headedness to the extreme and started a civil war. I don't think the south will take this issue that far.
-
✯RagnarLoðbrók✯ wrote:
Well the thing is you can't reference something so extreme as an example. As you said slavery started a war. Homosexuality isn't even a slight speck of importance compared to slavery. Something had to be done about slavery, same sex marriage isn't a need its simply a want.@darkmagician
I was not comparing slavery to same sex marriage. I was commenting that the south was refused to give up slavery, just as now, you say they will never accept gay marriage.
The south was wrong then, and they are wrong now. Then, they took their wrong headedness to the extreme and started a civil war. I don't think the south will take this issue that far.
-
@DM:
One large component of the fight against slavery was in fact marriage equality. Blacks weren't allowed to marry in any legal sense and their children could be taken away from them without any legal recourse. In comparison, to this day a gay partner can lose a child they raised from infancy if their partner dies, simply because they don't have that inherent right that straight couples do. You can argue degrees of cruelty, but both practices are undeniably cruel. For a more apt comparison, read about anti-miscegenation laws in the south during the Jim Crow era, which made race mixing illegal. The court decisions that struck those laws down are appropriately setting legal precedents in court battles for marriage equality we face today. All that aside, I don't think Ragnar was necessarily saying that marriage inequality is an equal horror to slavery like you suggest. More it was a comment on changing southern values and how their cultural attitudes evolve more slowly, but they do eventually evolve. -
If a State decides not to recognize marriage (any form) then what?
-
Slavery, homosexuality, pedophilia, incest all these view change over time as society evolves and where all acceptable in the past. And as things are ever evolving im sure they will come up with new ideas of whats morally acceptable and wont send you to hell. Or whatevers in the churches best interest at the time :).
-
★fnord★ wrote:
No I'm not stating that he feels or implied the two are equal horrors. Simply that he should choose a better example being as how one had to happen while the other is simply a want. Also just curious but where can I find anything stating one of the main interests in the civil war was marriage? Slaves weren't allowed to learn how to read, how would the majority of them know that marriage would give them legal rights to their children? I would like to see where this information came from.@DM:
-
Deicide wrote:
Well the thing is as a Christian I don't support gay marriage but it's more than that. Separate from my religion, because I've dabbled with atheism and multiple different religions, I never supported gay marriage and I truly never will. It's not like this is a new issue. Some people are in fact going to change their minds but there's always those "hard headed" people who won't.Slavery, homosexuality, pedophilia, incest all these view change over time as society evolves and where all acceptable in the past. And as things are ever evolving im sure they will come up with new ideas of whats morally acceptable and wont send you to hell. Or whatevers in the churches best interest at the time :).
-
If Ricardo and Paolo want to get married why should I care? As long as I get an invite to the wedding and there are sausage rolls, I honestly couldn't care less
-
CͣAͩNͩINE wrote:
I entirely respect that opinion. On a side not for everyone here I've honestly had a blast talking to all of you about this. I love debates and seeing view points that conflict mine is truly fascinating. I love to learn knew things.If Ricardo and Paolo want to get married why should I care? As long as I get an invite to the wedding and there are sausage rolls, I honestly couldn't care less
-
DM:
I flatly reject your assertion that someone needs to understand their rights to have them taken away. I said the destruction of slave families was a large component and I stand by that. Of course the major complaint was the concept of humans as property, without which none of the other human rights violations could have occurred. I'm curious about your distinguishing between the equal protection rights that are 'wants' vs 'needs'. Where is this distinction made in any of our laws? -
I'm aware you don't have to know your rights to have then taken away. But how do you know a right is being taken away if you don't know your rights? I'm not comparing wants and needs as a standard for deciding individuals rights. I'm saying that something needed to be done about human beings buying other humans, tearing their families apart, and beating them relentlessly and getting free labor in return. That is a need, if homosexuals can't get married that's not something that needs to happen, it's not inhumane by any means it's just simply unfair. So my statement still is you can't use something that had to change like slavery as a reason to support that people's opinions change, especially considering that the scenario in question isn't something that needs to be done. It's simply something people want to be done. But to answer your question anyways you do know there's a difference between rights and privileges correct?
-
The government can't stop people from getting married because marriage is a right that we all have. However, if the federal and state governments decided one day that they no longer legally recognize marriage then that's that. It's like saying its unconstitutional to take away someone drivers license.
-
DM:
I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. The right to marry the person you love has been well established in court as constitutionally protected, inalienable human right. That's why even a prisoner serving a life sentence for a horrible crime can have almost all their rights taken away, one exception being the right to marry. And it's not simply about the act of marriage, it's the instant granting of rights between you and your partner that automatically come with it. A gay couple would have to hire a lawyer to draw up 26 different legal contracts to achieve that same thing and it still wouldn't be as bulletproof as a marriage license. That's really what marriage equality is all about. The 14th amendment clearly states that the govt can't hold individuals to different legal standards, period. Gay marriage is already clearly constitutional according to every legal standard, some in our society just haven't caught on to that fact yet. -
There's a reason for that. Let's say right now I can go and get married by my pastor and never report it to the federal government. My spouse and I are still Marie's but our marriage is not recognized. Marriage is a right that te government gives its citizens which is why a man in jail can get married. However, the perks that come with marriage don't have to be offered at all. If the government decides you don't deserve a license for some reason then you don't deserve it. If the government decides not to recognize your marriage then it doesn't have to by any means. No one can stop same sex marriage whatsoever, but whether or not they get the government perks that come with it is a privilege.
-
Ojibwe wrote:
I'm stating that even though it may not be right, the government can offer privileges to anyone they want. If a Cuban steps foot on American soil he gets to stay but if a Mexican crosses the border we send them back. Just one example of how privileges can and are restricted to certain groups. Whether it's right or wrong is debatable but the government doesn't have to offer the privilege to everyone an I don't consider it unconstitutional. Like me for instance. I'm a legally recognized Native American so I could be getting a free check from the government, although I don't because I don't need it. Point is though that not everyone gets the privileges I was born with and vice versa.Do you think the government should only be able to give those privileges to straight couples? White couples? Rich couples? Or to everyone?
-
The US government doesn't bestow rights upon it's people, rather the people have inherent rights that the government is prohibited from infringing upon. The right to 'marry' in the strictly legal sense of the word is one such right, as such it can never be infringed upon. The 'perks' that are offered as you say are also inalienable. The rights of inheritance, shared property, certain powers of attorney. Marriage is a very complex agreement, legally. It's not just two people saying 'I do' then running off to have awkward virgin sex.
-
The word 'privilege' does not apply to marriage, it just doesn't. Any analogy to a privilege is a tortured one at best. That dog don't hunt.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC