supreme court to take on gay marriage

[TheGrungeDiva]

Can you think of one ''standard of ethics'' this is not based off something God said was good?

Yup. The Hippocratic Oath comes to mind immediately. There are probably others if I took the time to think about it.

In order for this to be true you must have existed during man kinds formative years. Right? How else would anyone know where morality came from?

???!?!? huh ?!?!
What are you smoking?

So in order for us to say man has developed his own morality we would have to remove God from existance, because there is nothing about christianity that suggest mankind comes up with good ideas by himself is there? I mean I made a huge leap there but you can see the steps that it takes to reach that.

No, honey, I can't see the steps. I don't even see where you're starting, and I have no idea where you're going with this. As far as I can tell, you're using the words "morality" and "ethics" as if they had some other meaning that I could not even fathom a guess, but it is not what the rest of the world (or at least what the dictionary) says they mean.

You can't say that morality is from God because all of morality is from God. That's called circular logic. And I'm not even sure that's what you were saying. Again, you really need to take a step back and think before you hit that "submit" button.

If people followed God we wouldn't have to legislate them, but you know that most things we do consider sins are in fact illegal. Most, not all.

This is true. I'm not sure what it has to do with the price of tea in China, but it is true.

Pretty much again, we shouldn't have to make laws for man to do what God tells him to do is right or wrong.

This is exactly my point -- It is not the government's place to legislate God's law. Why do you insist on having "man" make laws to do what God says is right or wrong?

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

A marriage is supposed to reflect the image God created in the beginning, the union of man and woman.

No, God did not give us "marriage." God gave to us the blessed union of holy matrimony. "Marriage" is not a sacred thing. It never was, and for you to say it "should be" is an insult to God -- you're telling God to become part of man's world, and that seems rather haughty to me.

If same sex marriage was part of God's plan for a sacred marriage He would have joined two men or two women together at creation.

No one here is arguing that same-sex marriage was part of God's plan, or ever needs to be.

Capitalism wasn't part of God's original plan, either. Should we go back to a monarchy, or just jump right to communism?

Part of the purpose of marriage is procreation which cannot be fulfilled in same sex marriages.

And that argument only works if procreation is the ONLY purpose for marriage. If you want to limit marriage to opposite-gendered couples who are both fertile, you are certainly welcome to try and get that legislation passed. That means elderly people can't get married, once the woman is past a certain age. Or if a man or woman has any sort of disability which makes it impossible for them to have children, they're not allowed to get married. I have to say, I don't think you're going to get much support on that, but you're welcome to try.

 

[RickShafer]

Grunge said - " Marriage wasn't part of God's plan but Holy Matrimony".- (was)
The more she writes, the more I laugh.
Now the Koala can marry a mongoose.
(A good thing to know)

 

[Newluke]

Really two men getting married ruins the sanctity of marriage? Not the 50%+ divorce rate among married couples already both christian and non-christian? Not the fact that people marry for money, citizenship, or pregnancy? But it's that two guys get married? Thats what ruins the sanctity of marriage for you? Marriage is a joke in modern society. Outside of the small percentage of people that actually do marriage the right way why are you so tangled up in the 'sanctity' of it? Thats something between you and God, Other peoples marriages dont ruin the sanctity of yours at all.

You're right when you say that divorce ruins the sanctity of marriage, but we weren't discussuing that here. 'Gay marriage' does still defile marriage, maybe even moreso than the other things you mentioned, because it hits at the heart of what a marriage should be, namely a union between a man and a woman. Divorce, pregnancy etc doesn't make that any less true, one sin doesn't make another less serious.
"Gay marriage' is like the burning of the american flag in muslim countries. Does that make that flag of any less value? Well it does, as long as we allow people to defile the truths it stands for by doing so. If true christians are not outraged by 'gay marriage' they allow the sanctity of marriage to be ruined.

 

[Nautilus]

You're right when you say that divorce ruins the sanctity of marriage, but we weren't discussuing that here. 'Gay marriage' does still defile marriage, maybe even moreso than the other things you mentioned, because it hits at the heart of what a marriage should be, namely a union between a man and a woman. Divorce, pregnancy etc doesn't make that any less true, one sin doesn't make another less serious.
"Gay marriage' is like the burning of the american flag in muslim countries. Does that make that flag of any less value? Well it does, as long as we allow people to defile the truths it stands for by doing so. If true christians are not outraged by 'gay marriage' they allow the sanctity of marriage to be ruined.

well funny you should mention flag burning. You know flag burning is legal right? Its protected under the first amendment. Also freedom of religion is under that one too. So why are you encouraging forcing religion on people?

 

[Newluke]

well funny you should mention flag burning. You know flag burning is legal right? Its protected under the first amendment. Also freedom of religion is under that one too. So why are you encouraging forcing religion on people?

I didn't talk about the burning of the flag in the US, but in muslim countries. I'm sure they don't care about the first amendment there, or about freedom of religion for that matter. Maybe it's your legal right to burn a flag, but why would you do so? You would be defiling the truths it stands for, the same truths you are so full about: liberty and justice. And if you think gays should have the freedom should have the FREEDOM to marry, and that it's a JUST cause, think again. The US is still also one nation UNDER GOD, and if i read my bible correctly that same God isn't that happy with 'gay marriage.' I know the version of the Pledge of Allegiance WITH the addition 'UNDER GOD' is a later version, but it's still the official one. Once 'gay marriage' is legalized nation wide, i'm sure they will scratch it though. But that wouldn't change the fact that God's Truth is above the laws of mankind.
Let's not make this topic about flag burning though, i just used it as an example. Just like burning the flag defiles the truths it stand for, 'gay marriage' defiles the sanctity of marriage.

 

[BillyTheKid]

I think we can all agree that the Bible teaches us that homosexuality is a sin. I also think that our decision will be based on what point of view we are using . I think from a Christian ppint of view, yes it is wrong and against what the Bible teaches us. From the citizen point of view, dont go on and on about how this is a free country then deny rights to some, but grant it to others. please understand this,, I DO NOT AGREE WITH HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE!! I do however believe in civil rights in a country that was based on the idea of freedom for all. Contrary to popular belief the people that founded this nation were not ALL Christian. It was a group of men that wanted everyone to havethe right to be free. I think it just depends on what angle you are looking at it. ,*watches for stones*

 

[lil_christian]

According to whom?

Who gets to decide what marriage "should" be?

The English word "marriage" is not owned by God. It was an institution developed by humans, initially for the purpose of inheritance. It had nothing to do with love, and nothing to do with fidelity. For the first several centuries of the use of the word "marriage," and for several centuries before that in post-Roman western civilization, the concept of marriage did not even apply to anyone who didn't own property. The lowest classes paired off into family units, and various cultures had various ceremonies about it, but "marriage" was not really there. So, according to history and tradition, "marriage" is a vehicle for inheritance.

In Scripture, the few times the Hebrew and Greek words for "marriage" are used, they are spoken of in terms of a man purchasing a woman from the woman's father for a set price. There is no mention of love or fidelity on the man's part. The woman is supposed to remain faithful, but the man does not have the same requirement. If the woman is not a virgin (a widow, for example), she costs less. Is this what marriage is "supposed to be"?

What marriage is "supposed to be" is what marriage is: a legal contract between two people. The word has never had any sort of religious or holy connotations.

Now, if you want to talk about a union between a man and a woman, blessed by God as holy, based on mutual love, respect, and fidelity, and bound by a vow made before each other, God, and friends and family, you're talking about a specific church rite known as "Holy Matrimony." Yes, this is a sacred institution, and the government has no right to tell any church who may or may not be wed in matrimony. That is entirely up to God.

"Marriage" has always been a secular institution, and will continue to be so.


Actually, this does matter, if the wife bears a child that is not the husband's. For most of the English-speaking world for the last 5-10 centuries or so, it was rather assumed that men and women would have lovers on the side, it was just important that no children result from said trysts, because the children would not be able to inherit either from their biological father or from their mother's husband.

In fact, it was relatively recent that the Roman Catholic Church demanded celibacy from its priests. For some time, priests were expected to remain single, but that did not mean they wouldn't have relations with women. As long as any children resulting from said relations could not rightfully claim any property, and the property therefore remained with the church, that's all they cared about.


Wha? Where do you get this?

This is clearly wrong, because the woman's rights are clearly being violated. Duh!


So did you not understand my post, or are you willfully pretending it wasn't written?

You think I was pretending I didn't see what you wrote? What do you call getting tripped up on the word "Marriage" and centering your whole argument on word origin? As much as I like Etymology myself, word definitions have changed now. And you don't need to be technical.

It doesn't matter where the word marriage originally came from. What matters is what it stands for today.

And marriage in Scripture was still something blessed by God. So I don't wanna be hearing that marriage wasn't blessed back then. That is a bunch of nonsense and doesn't hold any water.

Marriage is still a union between a man and his wife, and God should still be in the center of it.

But seriously. You knew what point I was trying to make, no matter how much you get hung up on one word, or how much you scrutinize every detail of it. I wasn't saying those things were right. But if marriage is just something legal done, then what's the importance? What difference does it make? If a gay couple was already sleeping with each other before, what difference will it make after they're married?

I can't stand any more of this "Marriage is just something legal done." or "It's just a piece of paper." when it's so much more. I'm out.

 

[lil_christian]

Now the Koala can marry a mongoose.
(A good thing to know)

That would be a marriage that wouldn't last long...

 

[djness]

Yup. The Hippocratic Oath comes to mind immediately. There are probably others if I took the time to think about it.

Oh Ok good....so an oath taken from people who believed in not one but many Gods and specifically Apollo the healer god that goes a little something like

I swear by Apollo the physician, and Asclepius, and Hygieia and Panacea and all the gods and goddesses as my witnesses, that, according to my ability and judgement, I will keep this Oath and this contract:

To hold him who taught me this art equally dear to me as my parents, to be a partner in life with him, and to fulfill his needs when required; to look upon his offspring as equals to my own siblings, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or contract; and that by the set rules, lectures, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to students bound by this contract and having sworn this Oath to the law of medicine, but to no others.

I will use those dietary regimens which will benefit my patients according to my greatest ability and judgement, and I will do no harm or injustice to them.

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

In purity and according to divine law will I carry out my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, even upon those suffering from stones, but I will leave this to those who are trained in this craft.

Into whatever homes I go, I will enter them for the benefit of the sick, avoiding any voluntary act of impropriety or corruption, including the seduction of women or men, whether they are free men or slaves.

Whatever I see or hear in the lives of my patients, whether in connection with my professional practice or not, which ought not to be spoken of outside, I will keep secret, as considering all such things to be private.

So long as I maintain this Oath faithfully and without corruption, may it be granted to me to partake of life fully and the practice of my art, gaining the respect of all men for all time. However, should I transgress this Oath and violate it, may the opposite be my fate.

Sorry but that does not go back far enough...I asked you were the morality came in the formative years but even then they took to their ethical code as given down by their Gods...oh and it happens to be real similar to what GOD himself commands men to do...but you still think man is basically good right? Contrary again to biblical evidence which I already showed.

???!?!? huh ?!?!
What are you smoking?

I don't smoke. It's pretty clear what I said, you need to look back further into mankinds upbringing and show were he came up with something good on his own. Because again, IF you don't remove God from existance then at no point did man come up with any sort of morals or any ethical way of living. Man is bent on doing evil. The thing you cannot come up with any point in history where mankind said something like murdering is wrong or stealing is wrong or whatever is wrong by himself . Whether you believe in Odin or Apollo or Jesus or the Buddha mans morality came from something other then himself. And since you are a christian you must know that our definitions of right and wrong as a race came from God. Or again do you think man has come up with this on his own?

No, honey, I can't see the steps. I don't even see where you're starting, and I have no idea where you're going with this. As far as I can tell, you're using the words "morality" and "ethics" as if they had some other meaning that I could not even fathom a guess, but it is not what the rest of the world (or at least what the dictionary) says they mean.

I love the dictionary
mor·al
/ˈmôrəl/
Adjective
Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
Noun
A lesson, esp. one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience.
Synonyms
adjective. ethical - ethic - virtuous
noun. morality - morals - ethics - morale - lesson


eth·ic
/ˈeTHik/
Noun
A set of moral principles, esp. ones relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct: "the puritan ethic".
Adjective
Of or relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing with these.
Synonyms
noun. ethics - moral - morals - morality
adjective. ethical - moral

synonyms plural of syn·o·nym (Noun)
Noun
A word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language, for example shut is a...
A person or thing so closely associated with a particular quality or idea that the mention of their name calls it to mind.

You can't say that morality is from God because all of morality is from God. That's called circular logic. And I'm not even sure that's what you were saying. Again, you really need to take a step back and think before you hit that "submit" button.

That's called closing the loop others are leaving open. I'm just telling you where the ability to know right and wrong came from:Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
When God says "I Am that I Am" would you say ''No God that is circular reasoning, you need to provide us with a little more insight and verification."?

This is true. I'm not sure what it has to do with the price of tea in China, but it is true.

It doesn't have anything to do with the price of tea in China or anywhere, it had to do with the conversation, in fact in direct response to your statement, but I have noticed each post you have become more insulting towards me and dismissive of actual responses...and believe me I spend a lot of time before I hit the submit button in order to not participate at that level. Even so I'm sure I've failed in some respects.

This is exactly my point -- It is not the government's place to legislate God's law. Why do you insist on having "man" make laws to do what God says is right or wrong?

What a broad brush....so I'll paint back even broader...maybe just get rid of all laws and let people do as they feel morally obliged?...OR..legislate what seems right by the guidelines of the one who shows us right and wrong.

I'm sure we can keep going back an forth on this with examples , you telling me I'm higher then Ben Franklins kite and just as close to being struck and me trying to be reasonable. HAH! Couldn't resist...

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

I think we can all agree that the Bible teaches us that homosexuality is a sin.

Well, I have heard arguments against it, but I will concede this point to you.

From the citizen point of view, dont go on and on about how this is a free country then deny rights to some, but grant it to others. please understand this,, I DO NOT AGREE WITH HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE!! I do however believe in civil rights in a country that was based on the idea of freedom for all.

Thank You!!!!

This is exactly what I have been trying to say.

Nautilus and I are not arguing that it is "morally" right or wrong. We are arguing that legality shouldn't be based on morals to start with.

Thank you thank you thank you!!!

*watches for stones*

Not even a pebble from here.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

It doesn't matter where the word marriage originally came from. What matters is what it stands for today.

Ah, so a society IS allowed to change the definition of a word over time? Hmmm. Then why can this not happen again?

If marriage has been re-defined in the past, why are you so dead-set against it being re-defined now? Since "marriage" has never in the past had any religious roots, why insist on adding those connotations, only to use it to deny civil rights to some people?

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Oh Ok good....so an oath taken from people who believed in not one but many Gods and specifically Apollo the healer god that goes a little something like <snip>

Doctors who use this oath today do not believe in the gods to whom the oath is ascribed. Some of today's doctors believe in the Christian God, some do not believe in any gods. And yet they still follow the oath, without any "god" dictating anything to them. That was my point.

Because again, IF you don't remove God from existance then at no point did man come up with any sort of morals or any ethical way of living.

Okay, I think I'm finally starting to understand what you're saying. You are arguing that even atheists, when they consider something "good," that "goodness" is ascribed by God, they just don't realize that it was ascribed by God. And vice-versa for the bad.

Is that your point?

If so, you are defining morality as "that which God ascribes as good or bad." Obviously, if you start with that definition, then sure, all morality comes from God.

If you start with the definition that a jellybean is a vegetable, then all jellybeans are vegetables.

Look at the definitions YOU provided. Did you actually read them or just cut-and-paste? Where is God mentioned in those definitions?

mor·al
/&#712;môr&#601;l/
Adjective
Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
Noun
A lesson, esp. one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience.
Synonyms
adjective. ethical - ethic - virtuous
noun. morality - morals - ethics - morale - lesson

eth·ic
/&#712;eTHik/
Noun
A set of moral principles, esp. ones relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct: "the puritan ethic".
Adjective
Of or relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing with these.
Synonyms
noun. ethics - moral - morals - morality
adjective. ethical - moral

That's called closing the loop others are leaving open.

No, it's called circular logic.

Sure, you're closing a loop, and leaving logic out, too. That's okay as long as you realize that's what you're doing.

 

[Newluke]

I think we can all agree that the Bible teaches us that homosexuality is a sin. I also think that our decision will be based on what point of view we are using . I think from a Christian ppint of view, yes it is wrong and against what the Bible teaches us. From the citizen point of view, dont go on and on about how this is a free country then deny rights to some, but grant it to others. please understand this,, I DO NOT AGREE WITH HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE!! I do however believe in civil rights in a country that was based on the idea of freedom for all. Contrary to popular belief the people that founded this nation were not ALL Christian. It was a group of men that wanted everyone to havethe right to be free. I think it just depends on what angle you are looking at it. ,*watches for stones*

The founding fathers started of as british citizens, but decided that the truths they held dear were more important than their citizenship of the UK. Sometimes fighting for a higher truth literally makes you an outlaw. In this case the higher Truth is of God.

 

[lil_christian]

Ah, so a society IS allowed to change the definition of a word over time? Hmmm. Then why can this not happen again?

If marriage has been re-defined in the past, why are you so dead-set against it being re-defined now? Since "marriage" has never in the past had any religious roots, why insist on adding those connotations, only to use it to deny civil rights to some people?

Because it didn't change whether a person could marry someone of the same gender! *Sigh*

As I said, I'm out. There IS NO USE arguing.

I know what I know, and I know what God thinks about this all. And I know that He doesn't appreciate me arguing. So I'm just gonna stop where I am and be done with it. You can reply if you want, but this lil C isn't going to.

 

[BillyTheKid]

The founding fathers started of as british citizens, but decided that the truths they held dear were more important than their citizenship of the UK. Sometimes fighting for a higher truth literally makes you an outlaw. In this case the higher Truth is of God.

I think you are misunderstanding the posts. No one here is saying that it isn't a sin. No one is condoning homosexuality. My point is from a CITIZEN point of view its different. A large majority of the people that founded this country were Deists. Some of them were Atheists. And some of them were Christians. I am not sure how your argument is valid? The argument isn't whether homosexuality is wrong. We know that answer. The argument is whether it is right or wrong for the U.S. Government to base laws that only give rights to a certain percentage of people. If laws were based on Christian ideas and morals then we wouldn't have abortion legalized in the U.S. or Methodone Clinics where people get free drugs to support their habit.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

If laws were based on Christian ideas and morals then we wouldn't have abortion legalized in the U.S. or Methodone Clinics where people get free drugs to support their habit.

A lot of members here think these things should be illegal, too. I agree with you, but I think your examples may not be the best in this situation.

Jesus told us, "If you have two coats, and your neighbor has none, give him one of yours." He didn't say, "but only if your neighbor submits to a drug test and is willing to work." And he certainly didn't say, "Let the man with two coats buy more at a discount, so that he might be able to offer a job to the man with none, if he feels like it, and the man with none may eventually be able to buy a coat in a few years."

If this nation were guided by Jesus' principles, we would have a 50% tax on the rich, just like Jesus commanded.

If this nation were to follow the principles set forth by God, as spoken by the Prophets in Scripture, orphans and widows, even those who did not work, would be cared for. Aliens would be welcomed rather than shunned.

If this country were to change its laws to be more in line with the Gospel, and force its citizens to comply to said teachings, rich people would have to give all they own to charity and follow Jesus.

I can't speak for others, but I, for one, might consider living in a nation that did this. I would be willing to give up my right to marry a woman, have an abortion, or get meth at a clinic (none of which I want to do anyway) to live in a community that really lived as followers of Christ. It would have to be some other country than the U.S., though, because the U.S. has the first amendment.

 

[jimmydiggs]

Because it didn't change whether a person could marry someone of the same gender! *Sigh*

Actually, the objective nature of marriage didn't change at all. A worldly government might claim two men or two women to be "married" but the recognition of marriage is only from God, and in this case, there will be no delivery of the desired package.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

"The hereditary link of homosexuality has long been established, but scientists knew it was not a strictly genetic link, because there are many pairs of identical twins who have differing sexualities. Scientists from the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis say homosexuality seems to have an epigenetic, not a genetic link."

Scientists May Have Finally Unlocked Puzzle of Why People Are Gay - US News and World Report

This is exactly what most Christians have been asserting all along... nurture not nature.

 

[jimmydiggs]

"The hereditary link of homosexuality has long been established, but scientists knew it was not a strictly genetic link, because there are many pairs of identical twins who have differing sexualities. Scientists from the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis say homosexuality seems to have an epigenetic, not a genetic link."

Scientists May Have Finally Unlocked Puzzle of Why People Are Gay - US News and World Report

This is exactly what most Christians have been asserting all along... nurture not nature.

It really doesn't matter whether or not we are born with a proclivity to sin, homosexuality, drunkeness, pride, gluttony, etc.. Scripture testifies to the fact that we are born with a proclivity to sin, that is the doctrine of Original Sin. Just because we're born with a proclivity to sin, does not then mean we are free to sin.