Supreme Court will take up Gay Marriage. Decision expected in June.

[Yecny]

Pardon?

Homosexuality is not the only "sin" I am opposed to. I find it immoral to commit adultery, to steal, to murder, to lie, to perjure, to defraud, to conspire to evil, to whore monger, to sell and use harmful drugs, to betray trusts, to commit treason against one's country, to procure an abortion, et cetera.

I don't know why you think I support these things and only hate homosexuality.

Christianity is not Judaism. Almost none of the dietary laws are binding upon Christians. Jesus himself begins to go against the laws, and St. Peter had a vision that denounced kosherite law.

And yes, okay: Christianity does not condemn slavery. Okay. I am not expecting a 2000 year old religion to condemn a perfectly reasonable human relationship at the historical period in which the Bible was written.

Again: I am not religious. I am simply saying that no reasonable reading of the Bible suggests that we cannot call people out for being awful people and discouraging them from continuing in that way. Hell, we can even set up laws to punish them, as is the entire purpose of government.

Romans does not support Jewish law, by the way. That's factually incorrect.

Huh?

 

[Gojujutsu]

I have never understood how we can keep the whole man + woman = marriage thing going under the first amendment.

1. It is a clear establishment of religious values by the state based upon the views of mainstream Christianity. It clearly runs contradictory to the beliefs of lgbts, polygamists of consenting age, and anybody else who desires a marriage between consenting adults that doesn't fit the traditional definition.

2. Marriage can be seen as one form of an expression of love. Marriage has been ruled as constitutional for inmates that don't even receive conjugal visits on the grounds that there is more to marriage than sex.

I personally don't feel the government really needs to have any place in defining relationships (other than for tax purposes), but I still don't see how this hasn't just resolved itself yet...oh wait..yeah, I do; homophobes.

 

[ripskater]

I have never understood how we can keep the whole man + woman = marriage thing going under the first amendment.

1. It is a clear establishment of religious values by the state based upon the views of mainstream Christianity. It clearly runs contradictory to the beliefs of lgbts, polygamists of consenting age, and anybody else who desires a marriage between consenting adults that doesn't fit the traditional definition.

2. Marriage can be seen as one form of an expression of love. Marriage has been ruled as constitutional for inmates that don't even receive conjugal visits on the grounds that there is more to marriage than sex.

I personally don't feel the government really needs to have any place in defining relationships (other than for tax purposes), but I still don't see how this hasn't just resolved itself yet...oh wait..yeah, I do; homophobes.

A long time ago our govt wanted to reward and encourage father, mother, children. It's the best environment to raise a child and the children are better off for it.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

I'm not a big fan of the gay lifestyle and the current gay agenda being shoved down everyone's throats, but I just don't see any reason why gay people should be stopped from being married. Canada has had gay marriage for 10 years and there hasn't been a problem yet. Though, Vancouver's gay population is currently suffering from an alarming increase in aids and syphilis.

 

[ripskater]

I'm not a big fan of the gay lifestyle and the current gay agenda being shoved down everyone's throats, but I just don't see any reason why gay people should be stopped from being married. Canada has had gay marriage for 10 years and there hasn't been a problem yet. Though, Vancouver's gay population is currently suffering from an alarming increase in aids and syphilis.

If I was not a Christian, I would say you nailed it. That is why you don't endorse dangerous disordered sexual behavior and call it marriage. You're gonna get more young men engaging in homosexual acts, they will get diseases that harm their health and will even kill them in the case of AIDS. Because govt and society says it's normal, healthy and ok now.


As a Christian, I also say that it's sinful so there are obvious physical and mental consequences, but also spiritual consequences that take us further away from God when we sin.

 

[ripskater]

The bible insists upon a whole bunch of nonsensical stuff. But you don't. You and rip aren't interested in the laundry list of moral sins the bible lays out in Romans.

Where is the Christian outcry against eating shellfish, or the abolishment of slavery (a practice the bible condones), or the failing to properly shave the throat of a sacrificial goat, or allowing a menstruating women inside your home?

All of these "sins" are mentioned in Romans. So why harp on one line of Romans and discard the rest?

Lying is a sin too you know.

Start a thread on dishonesty, lying, premarital sex, cheating on your spouse, etc. I will be sure to make a post.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

If I was not a Christian, I would say you nailed it. That is why you don't endorse dangerous disordered sexual behavior and call it marriage. You're gonna get more young men engaging in homosexual acts. Because govt and society says it's normal, healthy and ok now.


As a Christian, I also say that it's sinful so there are obvious physical and mental consequences, but also spiritual consequences that take us further away from God when we sin.

To be fair, it is not the act of homosexuality itself that is causing the rise in aids and syphilis. It's the unchecked, rampant promiscuity and relatively high drug abuse that the gay community is notoriously known for engaging in (though mainstream media and Hollywood doesn't seem to care to discuss those issues).

If anything, Marriage may help to curb some of that reckless behavior because it's an institution that, if taken seriously, promotes commitment and discourages promiscuity. I think the bigger problem is the current relaxed attitudes towards sex and the relatively unchallenged normalization of hook-up culture through movies and TV shows.

Even though I don't entirely share your views on gay marriage, I do understand your concern with the gay (and "progressive") agenda and it's attempt to demonize and destroy the traditional family unit.

 

[ripskater]

To be fair, it is not the act of homosexuality itself that is causing the rise in aids and syphilis. It's the unchecked, rampant promiscuity and relatively high drug abuse that the gay community is notoriously known for engaging in (though mainstream media and Hollywood doesn't seem to care to discuss those issues).

If anything, Marriage may help to curb some of that reckless behavior because it's an institution that, if taken seriously, promotes commitment and discourages promiscuity. I think the bigger problem is the current relaxed attitudes towards sex and the relatively unchallenged normalization of hook-up culture through movies and TV shows.

Even though I don't entirely share your views on gay marriage, I do understand your concern with the gay (and "progressive") agenda and it's attempt to demonize and destroy the traditional family unit.

Thanks. This is not an attack agianst you, but it's a pipe dream to think that the gay agenda will promote abstinence until gay marriage, and to not use drugs. Rampant drug and alcohol abuse and sexual promiscuity is just a big part of the culture. I have my theories as to why and they are spiritual and psychological issues.

My evidence would be cities like San Francisco where homosexuality is celebrated and encouraged. They have huge drug problems among the gays there and it's not because they don't feel accepted as couples into the community there.

 

[armbarboy]

Hey dudes
why are you so interested in same-sex marriages?
in fact I don't understand why are gays interested in same-sex marriages
it's everything strange to me

 

[Darkballs]

please list where Christianity promotes the practice of slavery. please post any NT verse doing so

Check your history, the abolishionists of england and usa WERE ALL CHRISTIANS.
FACT

So were all the confederates. Both sides of the slavery argument quoted scripture to back their claims. And yes, they were able to find versus that championed both positions. Now I get where you're going with the NT. You waiting for an OT quote so you can chime in with "but jesus and the NT totally replaced that." Without getting into that debate (for which the bible supports both acknowledging the OT as gospel, and suggesting that we do modify it based on the NT) you're missing the point.

The bible is chalk full of "sins." And yes, these sins are often contradicted in other portions. The hypocrisy comes in when you start pulling at every other verse to explain away a very direct and clear "...and this is a sin," but immediately declare a single passage in Romans to be stand-alone authority.

Which position are we taking? One in which we follow some overall picture of biblical messages or one where take the passages at their plain meeting?

I mean, is there any ambiguity that lying is not a sin in the bible? Then just be honest. You have a personal moral objection to same-sex marriage. Defend your stance on that ground. Don't try to invoke god in one place then dance away at the other.

now please shut the fuck up about religion

Very christian of you.

 

[ripskater]

Hey dudes
why are you so interested in same-sex marriages?
in fact I don't understand why are gays interested in same-sex marriages
it's everything strange to me

For me as a Christian, it bothers me when our govt supports sinful actions. It will end up promoting/endorsing actions that are bad for citizens mentally, physically and spiritually.

 

[ripskater]

So were all the confederates. Both sides of the slavery argument quoted scripture to back their claims. And yes, they were able to find versus that championed both positions. Now I get where you're going with the NT. You waiting for an OT quote so you can chime in with "but jesus and the NT totally replaced that." Without getting into that debate (for which the bible supports both acknowledging the OT as gospel, and suggesting that we do modify it based on the NT) you're missing the point.

The bible is chalk full of "sins." And yes, these sins are often contradicted in other portions. The hypocrisy comes in when you start pulling at every other verse to explain away a very direct and clear "...and this is a sin," but immediately declare a single passage in Romans to be stand-alone authority.

Which position are we taking? One in which we follow some overall picture of biblical messages or one where take the passages at their plain meeting?

I mean, is there any ambiguity that lying is not a sin in the bible? Then just be honest. You have a personal moral objection to same-sex marriage. Defend your stance on that ground. Don't try to invoke god in one place then dance away at the other.








Very christian of you.

If you want an opinion on moral issues, how can you not expect people to mention what God says about it in the Bible?

 

[Yecny]

For me as a Christian, it bothers me when our govt supports sinful actions. It will end up promoting/endorsing actions that are bad for citizens mentally, physically and spiritually.

So? We cant cater to every religion. All have different beliefs. There is no proof christianity is right or wrong, there is a reason church and state are supposed to be separated.

I live in the Bay Area and ive been around "the gays" and while some of their behavior is disgusting and trashy, its no moreso than digusting trashy behavior ive seen when i was in similar heterosexual situations in other places. Also abstinence has been proven time and time again to be a terrible sex deterent.

I respect you, and I repect your religion, maybe you should do the same for other people out there. I have a younger brother who is the only gay son out of 4 brothers. I cant imagine being in a family where he was made to feel like an oucast. Hes is also FAR less promiscuous than myself and my other 2 heterosexual brothers.

 

[Strychnine]

I'm a follower of Jesus and his teachings, here's my take.

Do I think Homosexuality is against the Bible? Yes.

Should there be a law against it? No.

No government should pass laws to regulate what two consenting adults do with one another. That's tyranny and downright Orwellian. It may not be "right" or even moral, but if that's how they choose to roll, then that's them.

If we're to have "A right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", then SCOTUS can't tell one group of Americans "You can get married" and tell the other group "You can't get married."

 

[Rod1]

When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."

^ this is a great quote no doubt. no one is wanting to put gay people to death.
it is just the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman

two guys marrying is an insult to the institution of marriage

i think gays should be able to have a civil union and get tax benefits and 20% off DudeWipes

No, its a quote about man not having the moral ground to judge another man morality.

Matthew 7:2-4

2"For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. 3"Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4"Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye?

 

[ripskater]

I'm a follower of Jesus and his teachings, here's my take.

Do I think Homosexuality is against the Bible? Yes.

Should there be a law against it? No.

No government should pass laws to regulate what two consenting adults do with one another. That's tyranny and downright Orwellian. It may not be "right" or even moral, but if that's how they choose to roll, then that's them.

If we're to have "A right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", then SCOTUS can't tell one group of Americans "You can get married" and tell the other group "You can't get married."

We aren't talking about legislating what people do in their bedroom though. We are talking about redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships also.

 

[Strychnine]

No, its a quote about man not having the moral ground to judge another man morality.

Matthew 7:2-4

2"For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. 3"Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4"Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye?

 

[Rod1]

P
Again: I am not religious. I am simply saying that no reasonable reading of the Bible suggests that we cannot call people out for being awful people and discouraging them from continuing in that way. Hell, we can even set up laws to punish them, as is the entire purpose of government.

Romans does not support Jewish law, by the way. That's factually incorrect.

Really? thats like the basis of Christianism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisee_and_the_Publican

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mote_and_the_Beam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son

Most christians are just mindless sheep, unable to even understand the theology behind christianity.

 

[ripskater]

No, its a quote about man not having the moral ground to judge another man morality.

Matthew 7:2-4

2"For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. 3"Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4"Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye?

 

[Rod1]

We aren't talking about legislating what people do in their bedroom though. We are talking about redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships also.

Such a law wouldnt be forcing religions that forbid same-sex marriage to marry either.

So your point is moot, marriage is a legal contract with rights and obligations and thats pretty much it.