Dr. David Noebel - The Homosexual Revolution - (1978)

[Twisted]

https://soundcloud.com/user-583230734/dr-david-noebel-the-homosexual-revolution-1978

 

[qwerty]

https://soundcloud.com/user-583230734/dr-david-noebel-the-homosexual-revolution-1978

Is he a graduate or something?

 

[Twisted]

https://soundcloud.com/user-583230734/dr-david-noebel-the-homosexual-revolution-1978

Is he a graduate or something?

I'm sure he's a graduate of somewhere, but not HAC.

 

[qwerty]

https://soundcloud.com/user-583230734/dr-david-noebel-the-homosexual-revolution-1978

Is he a graduate or something?

I'm sure he's a graduate of somewhere, but not HAC.

Makes sense to put it in this sub-forum then.  :-[

 

[Twisted]

https://soundcloud.com/user-583230734/dr-david-noebel-the-homosexual-revolution-1978

Is he a graduate or something?

I'm sure he's a graduate of somewhere, but not HAC.

Makes sense to put it in this sub-forum then.  :-[

Yes.  It cost the same putting it here as it did upstairs.  Going for maximum exposure.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

 

[Twisted]

Smellin' rejoices at the revolution!

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Question:
Would you be against the government legalizing gay marriage if the Bible was not against it?
If you are only against the government legalizing gay marriage because of what the Bible teaches then you are saying you want the government to base it's laws on religious texts.
Perhaps it's better to legalize gay marriage than to set a dangerous precedent of the government basing it's laws on one specific religion. Next time they might pick a different religion.

 

[Twisted]

Question:
Would you be against the government legalizing gay marriage if the Bible was not against it?
If you are only against the government legalizing gay marriage because of what the Bible teaches then you are saying you want the government to base it's laws on religious texts.
Perhaps it's better to legalize gay marriage than to set a dangerous precedent of the government basing it's laws on one specific religion. Next time they might pick a different religion.

It is a state's issue, not a federal one.

 

[LongGone]

Question:
Would you be against the government legalizing gay marriage if the Bible was not against it?
If you are only against the government legalizing gay marriage because of what the Bible teaches then you are saying you want the government to base it's laws on religious texts.
Perhaps it's better to legalize gay marriage than to set a dangerous precedent of the government basing it's laws on one specific religion. Next time they might pick a different religion.

It is a state's issue, not a federal one.

Other than you saying it the question is why? You may not agree but the Supreme Court ruled it is a civil right and that states can not create laws that discriminate against gay marriage. The same basis as why slavery is not a state right.

 

[Twisted]

Other than you saying it the question is why? You may not agree but the Supreme Court ruled it is a civil right and that states can not create laws that discriminate against gay marriage. The same basis as why slavery is not a state right.

The SC does not make law.  In fact, aren't there a few states taking a stand against that ruling?  I admit it's hard to keep track of who is doing what.

More states need to take a stand against the overreach of the Fed's.  But alas, I fear that there are too few with the b***ls to do that.  "Slavery" is taking a new form.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Question:
Would you be against the government legalizing gay marriage if the Bible was not against it?
If you are only against the government legalizing gay marriage because of what the Bible teaches then you are saying you want the government to base it's laws on religious texts.
Perhaps it's better to legalize gay marriage than to set a dangerous precedent of the government basing it's laws on one specific religion. Next time they might pick a different religion.

It is a state's issue, not a federal one.

I disagree.

Marriage comes with spousal benefits and inheritance rights. Like in the original SC Obergfell case, the state boundaries were the problem as some states recognized the spousal medical benefits whereas others did not. And in things such as life-long same-sex partners being able to make medical decisions for the other (according to their wishes) was allowable in some states but not others.

Because of interchangeable statehood, a discriminatory decision needed to be made on a national level. I live in NC but work for a company in MN. I am working at a company-owned facility as the company owns facilities in about 40 states or so. MN is a liberal state and would allow spousal benefits to same-sex couples but NC medical practitioners/providers (as a conservative state) may choose not to recognize those spousal benefits.

If the SC had gone with the term 'partnership' or 'civil union' instead of the term 'marriage', I would be fine with that, as long as those spousal benefits are federally recognized in every state.

So yes, there was a need for a federal decision, IMHO.

 

[LongGone]

Other than you saying it the question is why? You may not agree but the Supreme Court ruled it is a civil right and that states can not create laws that discriminate against gay marriage. The same basis as why slavery is not a state right.

The SC does not make law.  In fact, aren't there a few states taking a stand against that ruling?  I admit it's hard to keep track of who is doing what.

More states need to take a stand against the overreach of the Fed's.  But alas, I fear that there are too few with the b***ls to do that.  "Slavery" is taking a new form.

Smellin said it better than I did but no one said the Supreme Court makes law. They rule on the constitutionality of laws. We don't always agree with the rulings but the Supreme Court protects against states passing laws that the deem as unconstitutional.

 

[Twisted]

Other than you saying it the question is why? You may not agree but the Supreme Court ruled it is a civil right and that states can not create laws that discriminate against gay marriage. The same basis as why slavery is not a state right.

The SC does not make law.  In fact, aren't there a few states taking a stand against that ruling?  I admit it's hard to keep track of who is doing what.

More states need to take a stand against the overreach of the Fed's.  But alas, I fear that there are too few with the b***ls to do that.  "Slavery" is taking a new form.

Smellin said it better than I did but no one said the Supreme Court makes law. They rule on the constitutionality of laws. We don't always agree with the rulings but the Supreme Court protects against states passing laws that the deem as unconstitutional.

????  And what part of the Constitution regulates marriage?    The SC redefined marriage which they have no authority to do.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Other than you saying it the question is why? You may not agree but the Supreme Court ruled it is a civil right and that states can not create laws that discriminate against gay marriage. The same basis as why slavery is not a state right.

The SC does not make law.  In fact, aren't there a few states taking a stand against that ruling?  I admit it's hard to keep track of who is doing what.

More states need to take a stand against the overreach of the Fed's.  But alas, I fear that there are too few with the b***ls to do that.  "Slavery" is taking a new form.

Smellin said it better than I did but no one said the Supreme Court makes law. They rule on the constitutionality of laws. We don't always agree with the rulings but the Supreme Court protects against states passing laws that the deem as unconstitutional.

????  And what part of the Constitution regulates marriage?    The SC redefined marriage which they have no authority to do.

If the Constitution doesn't regulate it, the SC certainly didn't violate it with their decision. Tradition, sure, but the Constitution? Nope.

 

[Twisted]

Other than you saying it the question is why? You may not agree but the Supreme Court ruled it is a civil right and that states can not create laws that discriminate against gay marriage. The same basis as why slavery is not a state right.

The SC does not make law.  In fact, aren't there a few states taking a stand against that ruling?  I admit it's hard to keep track of who is doing what.

More states need to take a stand against the overreach of the Fed's.  But alas, I fear that there are too few with the b***ls to do that.  "Slavery" is taking a new form.

Smellin said it better than I did but no one said the Supreme Court makes law. They rule on the constitutionality of laws. We don't always agree with the rulings but the Supreme Court protects against states passing laws that the deem as unconstitutional.

????  And what part of the Constitution regulates marriage?    The SC redefined marriage which they have no authority to do.

If the Constitution doesn't regulate it, the SC certainly didn't violate it with their decision. Tradition, sure, but the Constitution? Nope.

Then what was the point of the SC ruling at all?  We all know the answer to that.  They've done it for decades.

The States are (sometimes) flexing their power afforded them by the 10th amendment.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Other than you saying it the question is why? You may not agree but the Supreme Court ruled it is a civil right and that states can not create laws that discriminate against gay marriage. The same basis as why slavery is not a state right.

The SC does not make law.  In fact, aren't there a few states taking a stand against that ruling?  I admit it's hard to keep track of who is doing what.

More states need to take a stand against the overreach of the Fed's.  But alas, I fear that there are too few with the b***ls to do that.  "Slavery" is taking a new form.

Smellin said it better than I did but no one said the Supreme Court makes law. They rule on the constitutionality of laws. We don't always agree with the rulings but the Supreme Court protects against states passing laws that the deem as unconstitutional.

????  And what part of the Constitution regulates marriage?    The SC redefined marriage which they have no authority to do.

If the Constitution doesn't regulate it, the SC certainly didn't violate it with their decision. Tradition, sure, but the Constitution? Nope.

Then what was the point of the SC ruling at all?  We all know the answer to that.  They've done it for decades.

The States are (sometimes) flexing their power afforded them by the 10th amendment.

The reason for the decision is because spousal benefits were being denied to a same-sex couple, even though their local state recognized the marriage. To the SC, it wasn't about an agenda but rather civil rights. They made the right call.

 

[Twisted]

Other than you saying it the question is why? You may not agree but the Supreme Court ruled it is a civil right and that states can not create laws that discriminate against gay marriage. The same basis as why slavery is not a state right.

The SC does not make law.  In fact, aren't there a few states taking a stand against that ruling?  I admit it's hard to keep track of who is doing what.

More states need to take a stand against the overreach of the Fed's.  But alas, I fear that there are too few with the b***ls to do that.  "Slavery" is taking a new form.

Smellin said it better than I did but no one said the Supreme Court makes law. They rule on the constitutionality of laws. We don't always agree with the rulings but the Supreme Court protects against states passing laws that the deem as unconstitutional.

????  And what part of the Constitution regulates marriage?    The SC redefined marriage which they have no authority to do.

If the Constitution doesn't regulate it, the SC certainly didn't violate it with their decision. Tradition, sure, but the Constitution? Nope.

Then what was the point of the SC ruling at all?  We all know the answer to that.  They've done it for decades.

The States are (sometimes) flexing their power afforded them by the 10th amendment.

The reason for the decision is because spousal benefits were being denied to a same-sex couple, even though their local state recognized the marriage. To the SC, it wasn't about an agenda but rather civil rights. They made the right call.

According to your thinking, the SC will next grant "benefits" to horses who have sex with men.  It amazes me (no, not really) what Christians will do to support the most anti-biblical, deviant "lifestyles".  I mean, I can relate to most libertarian viewpoints, but really.  Again, it's a states issue.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Other than you saying it the question is why? You may not agree but the Supreme Court ruled it is a civil right and that states can not create laws that discriminate against gay marriage. The same basis as why slavery is not a state right.

The SC does not make law.  In fact, aren't there a few states taking a stand against that ruling?  I admit it's hard to keep track of who is doing what.

More states need to take a stand against the overreach of the Fed's.  But alas, I fear that there are too few with the b***ls to do that.  "Slavery" is taking a new form.

Smellin said it better than I did but no one said the Supreme Court makes law. They rule on the constitutionality of laws. We don't always agree with the rulings but the Supreme Court protects against states passing laws that the deem as unconstitutional.

????  And what part of the Constitution regulates marriage?    The SC redefined marriage which they have no authority to do.

If the Constitution doesn't regulate it, the SC certainly didn't violate it with their decision. Tradition, sure, but the Constitution? Nope.

Then what was the point of the SC ruling at all?  We all know the answer to that.  They've done it for decades.

The States are (sometimes) flexing their power afforded them by the 10th amendment.

The reason for the decision is because spousal benefits were being denied to a same-sex couple, even though their local state recognized the marriage. To the SC, it wasn't about an agenda but rather civil rights. They made the right call.

Yet again, you misspeak.*
In Obergefell's majority opinion, Justice Kennedy specifically stated that the constitution granted gays that right. In his minority opinion, Justice Scalia stated that Kennedys opinion was a crock and had nothing to do with the constitution.

It is and was agenda driven....if not these poor old discriminated upon sodomites would just find another bakery to bake their wedding cake. But because it is an agenda, they must punish and close the bigoted baker.

*That actually means, What a low information democrat CROCK!

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Other than you saying it the question is why? You may not agree but the Supreme Court ruled it is a civil right and that states can not create laws that discriminate against gay marriage. The same basis as why slavery is not a state right.

The SC does not make law.  In fact, aren't there a few states taking a stand against that ruling?  I admit it's hard to keep track of who is doing what.

More states need to take a stand against the overreach of the Fed's.  But alas, I fear that there are too few with the b***ls to do that.  "Slavery" is taking a new form.

Smellin said it better than I did but no one said the Supreme Court makes law. They rule on the constitutionality of laws. We don't always agree with the rulings but the Supreme Court protects against states passing laws that the deem as unconstitutional.

????  And what part of the Constitution regulates marriage?    The SC redefined marriage which they have no authority to do.

If the Constitution doesn't regulate it, the SC certainly didn't violate it with their decision. Tradition, sure, but the Constitution? Nope.

Then what was the point of the SC ruling at all?  We all know the answer to that.  They've done it for decades.

The States are (sometimes) flexing their power afforded them by the 10th amendment.

The reason for the decision is because spousal benefits were being denied to a same-sex couple, even though their local state recognized the marriage. To the SC, it wasn't about an agenda but rather civil rights. They made the right call.

According to your thinking, the SC will next grant "benefits" to horses who have sex with men.  It amazes me (no, not really) what Christians will do to support the most anti-biblical, deviant "lifestyles".  I mean, I can relate to most libertarian viewpoints, but really.  Again, it's a states issue.

Only if one falsely assume that liberal socialist democrats are ashamed of being hypocritical and inconsistent. They are about 2 things...their power and their agenda...which is designed to give them power so they can push their agenda.