LeviF

Because that's not how vaccines work.

Sorry, but I'm all in with the statists on this one. Home school your kid if it's that important to you.

Regular lemonade is my choice. Never seen anybody actually buy a pink lemonade one.

p// I once woke up next to a girl who was over 120 pounds. end// Phew. Feels good to let go of the shame.

C'thulhu fhtagn.

Yeah, reasoning didn't die in the SCOTUS on Friday; it died on Thursday.

See here's my issue, and maybe it is just me, but if you're going to say, "lots of things in the Bible are subject to interpretation and could be allegory or symbolism but the resurrection and the virgin birth most definitely happened and are literal" then I can't deal. Who's to say that many things in the supposed life of Jesus aren't also symbolism?

How do we know the basis for God's judgment, then? How many things in the Bible are symbols or literary devices and what's actually true?

No, which is why I only said that, and why I supposed you were commenting on the Bible and not simply your own personal feelings on the matter, refuting the notion that you are the moral compass you're basing these things on. The Bible unequivocally states that the practice of homosexuality (along with other sexual sin, thievery, and lying) will keep one from getting to heaven. Undoubtedly, you know this, and so does birdog, assuming he's read the book. The Pope knows this as well. The litmus test that I tend to apply is this: "Do you believe that the Bible, in its original writing, is the inerrant word of God?" From what I understand about the Bible, if you don't believe one part the whole thing falls apart because the Bible speaks of and assumes itself as inerrant. Do you, or birdog perhaps, have a better litmus?

He's basing it on the Bible, I presume. You know, the bits about how those who practice homosexuality will be denied the kingdom of heaven (that is, they will go to hell). That's all he really commented on.

I drink the yellow ones, and I'm a caffeine fiend. Only 25 calories to a can and gives my brain a few extra RPMs. Coffee does nothing for me anymore when it comes to waking up, being energetic, etc. Fast living back in the day probably skews my perspective a bit, though.

Before lunch and after dinner: coffee, hot and cheap. Between lunch and dinner: Monster Rehab On top of that I tend to drink between 2 and 3 liters of water a day.

Why? He clearly has no idea how the judiciary in this country works, or why you said that the equal protection clause has been reinterpreted again, or why someone could possibly disagree with five lawyers in funny-looking outfits.

Ask that Wes Anderson-obsessed weirdo over in the other thread. Made me want to drill holes in my his head.

Can either of you make a case for taxing museums, hospitals, churches, schools, and charities that upends the longstanding reasoning against doing such a thing? I just got done getting lectured about how if the USSC says it, it must be a good argument, so take a look at Walz v. Tax Commission and get back to me.

This opinion of yours extends to charities and schools, I presume?

Undoubtedly, there will be attacks on the free exercise of religion coming in a few years, if not sooner. Very real challenges to tax breaks and tax-exempt status for religious organizations as well. But I doubt it'll start with churches and mosques and temples. I think para-church organizations, like independent religious universities and independent charities with strong religious ties will see their government help dry up very quickly due to their core tenets and beliefs. I'm thinking something along the lines of what happened to Bob Jones University back in the 70's with their discriminatory admission policies, only on a massive scale the likes of which we haven't seen before.

Yeah I was thinking about that. But the same thing applies even then: marriage in England, since England has had rule of law, has always been a religious establishment. Your point is well-taken, however. Anyway, more Scalia quotes: GodDAMN, Scalia, you're on a ROLL

What makes the constraints flawed? United States law has only existed for that long, and the SCOTUS only holds jurisdiction in the United States and only rules on United States law. I understand where you're coming from but believe that your constraints (or lack thereof) should have no bearing on a USSC decision.

My point was that marriage, in the United States (the only relevant time, then, being 1776-present. Maybe the early 1700s if you want to stretch it), has always been a religious concept. That it was co-opted by religion however many thousands of years ago is irrelevant to the conversation.

Despite today's SCOTUS ruling, I'm still pretty sure marriage in this case isn't allowed.

What does any of this have to do with marriage law in the USA (est. 1776)? My objections to the ruling in this particular case have nothing to do with religion, but I'm interested in hearing the answer anyway.

To ask the question is to answer it.

The Pope trolling jews. Who woulda thunk it?

You can't tell me you don't love this: The argument would be that the ruling does not extend freedom, that it instead limits it. Which, of course, is the longstanding argument regarding "judicial activism."