supreme court to take on gay marriage
- Thread starter Nautilus
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Some of the founding fathers were freemasons too, but that isn't important here. I wasn't talking about their faith or lack of faith. I just used them as an example that sometimes you have to 'fight' for the truths you hold dear. They fought for liberty and justice against a tyrannical government, we as christians should 'FIGHT' against 'gay marriage' for instance, even if it is legalized nation wide. That was my point. Even as citizen you don't have to accept anything the government decides for you. I DO know how it works, doesn't mean i have to like it. Btw i'm a citizen of another nation too, which is even more corrupt than the States, so... YAY!
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's GOD entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
But let's return to the topic...
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's GOD entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
But let's return to the topic...
A
You're right about the morality of homosexuality being immoral/wrong no matter it's causation.
But note that if you're going to try and extrapolate these findings over to the causation of serial killers (which really warrants its own study), then obviously serial killers would be made not born.
Knowing that also would be material, useful, and applicable to greatly reducing the number of future serial killers... an activity that would certainly be right and not wrong.
But note that if you're going to try and extrapolate these findings over to the causation of serial killers (which really warrants its own study), then obviously serial killers would be made not born.
Knowing that also would be material, useful, and applicable to greatly reducing the number of future serial killers... an activity that would certainly be right and not wrong.
T
Except for those things which are granted by governments -- civil rights, inheritance, visitation rights, etc.
No one here is asking God to give anything to gays, or forcing anyone to accept sin.
As long as you agree that the government is allowed to give secular rights to gays, we're on the same page.
No one here is asking God to give anything to gays, or forcing anyone to accept sin.
As long as you agree that the government is allowed to give secular rights to gays, we're on the same page.
T
True. Instead, it changed the entire purpose for marriage, the nature of it, from a business transaction to a religious ceremony.
Instead of trading a herd of cattle for 12 sex slaves, people decided marriage should be about mutual love and affection, not ownership.
When marriage was just about offspring and property rights, it made sense that gays could not marry. Gays can't have offspring, so there's no possibility of inheritance or anything. No purpose for the marriage laws to go into effect. But that's assuming that a marriage is DEFINED as a union for the purpose of creating offspring.
Under the previous definitions, gays and lesbians could have their lovers as much as they wanted. Many were in fact encouraged to do so, because there would be no offspring from such relations, and then they could be sure all the children were from the married couple, and not "bastard children," as might happen if the wife is having a heterosexual affair.
But now society wants to define marriage as being about love and commitment. Fine. I have no problem with that. But now, this does not exclude gays. Gays are quite capable of love and commitment, if they so desire. Sure, some don't want to, and those will continue not to get married, but some want that secular status, and there is no reason not to grant it. God has never been part of this process before, there's no reason do drag him through the mud now.
If you want to talk about the Rite of Holy Matrimony, then all of a sudden we're talking about a completely different subject. We're talking about fidelity, faithfulness to each other, and to God. I have no problem if a church refuses to allow a gay couple to get married through a religious service in their church. If the government ever tries to "force" churches to accept gays, or to marry them, I will be first in line to fight against said government. It has no right to tell churches what to do.
But neither do churches have any right to tell the government what to do.
Instead of trading a herd of cattle for 12 sex slaves, people decided marriage should be about mutual love and affection, not ownership.
When marriage was just about offspring and property rights, it made sense that gays could not marry. Gays can't have offspring, so there's no possibility of inheritance or anything. No purpose for the marriage laws to go into effect. But that's assuming that a marriage is DEFINED as a union for the purpose of creating offspring.
Under the previous definitions, gays and lesbians could have their lovers as much as they wanted. Many were in fact encouraged to do so, because there would be no offspring from such relations, and then they could be sure all the children were from the married couple, and not "bastard children," as might happen if the wife is having a heterosexual affair.
But now society wants to define marriage as being about love and commitment. Fine. I have no problem with that. But now, this does not exclude gays. Gays are quite capable of love and commitment, if they so desire. Sure, some don't want to, and those will continue not to get married, but some want that secular status, and there is no reason not to grant it. God has never been part of this process before, there's no reason do drag him through the mud now.
If you want to talk about the Rite of Holy Matrimony, then all of a sudden we're talking about a completely different subject. We're talking about fidelity, faithfulness to each other, and to God. I have no problem if a church refuses to allow a gay couple to get married through a religious service in their church. If the government ever tries to "force" churches to accept gays, or to marry them, I will be first in line to fight against said government. It has no right to tell churches what to do.
But neither do churches have any right to tell the government what to do.
T
I think you may have misread the article. My understanding is that, according to the authors of this article, it is a combination of both nurture and nature, and also other factors that are as of yet unknown. (Church lady might say, "Could it be SATAN?")
Wow, now I KNOW it's the end of the world. This is the 2nd time in one year Jimmy Diggs and I have agreed on something!
I TOTALLY agree with this comment, Jimmy.
Wow, now I KNOW it's the end of the world. This is the 2nd time in one year Jimmy Diggs and I have agreed on something!
I TOTALLY agree with this comment, Jimmy.
D
If you want to cut out that parts of my argument that made my point because you think they aren't applicable then that's your prerogative. When I don't understand someone point I may be a bit testy at first but I'll try to wrap my mind around it, you are just flat out dismissive since you apparently hold all known positions on the board. Very well then. Carry on.
T
As I have been saying throughout this thread, rights, and the protections thereof.
I would say just about anything that does not hurt another citizen (besides him or herself) and/or take away from the rights of another citizen should be lawful.
For example, many states have motorcycle helmet laws. I am against that. I think if a person wants to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, they obviously don't have any brains to protect anyway, so let them. Good for the gene pool, too, because they're more likely to die and not reproduce. Seriously, the only person that person is going to hurt is him or herself. Some states don't require it, but if you are in an accident and you're not wearing a helmet, there is a limit to what insurance will pay. That's even better.
I used to be against seat belt laws for the same reason, but I did see a study that showed wearing your seat belt actually helps prevent accidents, not just protecting the person in case of an accident. If you have to swerve suddenly to avoid something, and you're not wearing a seat belt, you could be thrown by the force away from the driver's seat, and lose control more easily of the vehicle. Whereas if you are wearing the seat belt, you're more likely to stay in place, and in control of the vehicle. So, since it actually prevents accidents (which could hurt other people, not just the driver), I am in favor of seat belt laws. But not helmet laws. Again, I always wear a helmet ... because I have brains to protect. But if a moron wants to risk it, let them.
Similarly, yes, I understand that a gay person is "risking their eternal soul" by getting married. I've got news for everyone: a gay person is going to be sinning, whether or not gay marriage is legal. Allowing a gay person the right to visit his significant other in the hospital, or to live in the home they bought together after one has passed away, or any other of the more than 1,000 secular laws that are automatically given to married couples but not to "domestic unions," is not going to harm you or me.
Every study I've seen shows that in fact legalizing gay marriage will help the economy (through increased tax revenues ... I'll find a link if anyone's curious). So by fighting to keep it illegal, you're actually working against the poor and needy, against what Jesus commanded.
Seriously, folks, this isn't rocket surgery
I would say just about anything that does not hurt another citizen (besides him or herself) and/or take away from the rights of another citizen should be lawful.
For example, many states have motorcycle helmet laws. I am against that. I think if a person wants to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, they obviously don't have any brains to protect anyway, so let them. Good for the gene pool, too, because they're more likely to die and not reproduce. Seriously, the only person that person is going to hurt is him or herself. Some states don't require it, but if you are in an accident and you're not wearing a helmet, there is a limit to what insurance will pay. That's even better.
I used to be against seat belt laws for the same reason, but I did see a study that showed wearing your seat belt actually helps prevent accidents, not just protecting the person in case of an accident. If you have to swerve suddenly to avoid something, and you're not wearing a seat belt, you could be thrown by the force away from the driver's seat, and lose control more easily of the vehicle. Whereas if you are wearing the seat belt, you're more likely to stay in place, and in control of the vehicle. So, since it actually prevents accidents (which could hurt other people, not just the driver), I am in favor of seat belt laws. But not helmet laws. Again, I always wear a helmet ... because I have brains to protect. But if a moron wants to risk it, let them.
Similarly, yes, I understand that a gay person is "risking their eternal soul" by getting married. I've got news for everyone: a gay person is going to be sinning, whether or not gay marriage is legal. Allowing a gay person the right to visit his significant other in the hospital, or to live in the home they bought together after one has passed away, or any other of the more than 1,000 secular laws that are automatically given to married couples but not to "domestic unions," is not going to harm you or me.
Every study I've seen shows that in fact legalizing gay marriage will help the economy (through increased tax revenues ... I'll find a link if anyone's curious). So by fighting to keep it illegal, you're actually working against the poor and needy, against what Jesus commanded.
Seriously, folks, this isn't rocket surgery
D
And you base this on what ? What determines what is hurtful to others? Common sense? What is it based off of?
Are we working off some sort of spontaneous big bang set of laws? What is the foundation of these laws that you as grungediva would suggest are equitable for everyone? I fully realize at this point it would very hard or you to say ''my own set of morals'' but seriously...what do you think you are baseing these arguments off of? Oh sound logic..right, again, based off what, what determines the what is it that determines what rights the citizens should or should not have?
I can appreciate the irony of the motorcycle example, I remember not to long ago reading about a guy riding a bike in a rally against bike helmet laws, he fell of his bike for some reason and died to head injuries.
However...
I cannot use the internet acronym for my response to this..but do you seriously think what I bolded in red?
Yes people may do dumb things...but seriously...is that what you really think..that is ..that's plain ridiculous.
I'm going to go ahead and throw a quite possibly fallacious question out there and ask do you think potentially stupid people should be aborted? I mean..you think they deserve to die and not reproduce. It would save on insurance right? It's reasonable right?
You are absolutely right it's isn't rocket surgery...and a few extra tax dollars from this, how does that compare to how God blesses people who walk in righteousness? You could provide a link to the economic upturn from those taxes and I'm sure we could produce bible verses saying that if you do what God says is right he will also bless you.....we are still allowed to use the bible for examples right?
Waiting breathlessly for you to set aside my logic.
Are we working off some sort of spontaneous big bang set of laws? What is the foundation of these laws that you as grungediva would suggest are equitable for everyone? I fully realize at this point it would very hard or you to say ''my own set of morals'' but seriously...what do you think you are baseing these arguments off of? Oh sound logic..right, again, based off what, what determines the what is it that determines what rights the citizens should or should not have?
I can appreciate the irony of the motorcycle example, I remember not to long ago reading about a guy riding a bike in a rally against bike helmet laws, he fell of his bike for some reason and died to head injuries.
However...
I cannot use the internet acronym for my response to this..but do you seriously think what I bolded in red?
Yes people may do dumb things...but seriously...is that what you really think..that is ..that's plain ridiculous.
I'm going to go ahead and throw a quite possibly fallacious question out there and ask do you think potentially stupid people should be aborted? I mean..you think they deserve to die and not reproduce. It would save on insurance right? It's reasonable right?
Similarly, yes, I understand that a gay person is "risking their eternal soul" by getting married. I've got news for everyone: a gay person is going to be sinning, whether or not gay marriage is legal. Allowing a gay person the right to visit his significant other in the hospital, or to live in the home they bought together after one has passed away, or any other of the more than 1,000 secular laws that are automatically given to married couples but not to "domestic unions," is not going to harm you or me.
Every study I've seen shows that in fact legalizing gay marriage will help the economy (through increased tax revenues ... I'll find a link if anyone's curious). So by fighting to keep it illegal, you're actually working against the poor and needy, against what Jesus commanded.
Seriously, folks, this isn't rocket surgery
Every study I've seen shows that in fact legalizing gay marriage will help the economy (through increased tax revenues ... I'll find a link if anyone's curious). So by fighting to keep it illegal, you're actually working against the poor and needy, against what Jesus commanded.
Seriously, folks, this isn't rocket surgery
Waiting breathlessly for you to set aside my logic.
T
Um, yes. If you cause someone pain, that is hurtful. If you run over someone with a car, or hit them in the face, or otherwise cause bodily damage, or take personal property from them without permission, that is hurtful. Come, now, djness, you are not that thick. Even 4-year-olds know what is "hurtful."
Are you familiar with "the darwin awards"? It's dark humor, but as with all sorts of humor, there's a bit of truth behind it. So no, I'm not serious in the way you're thinking. It's swiftian humor, lost on most.
Look. If someone wants to do something stupid, that might get them killed, and it gets them killed, I really don't think it's the government's job to be everyone's baby sitter. The only time the government should step in is if and when another person is in danger. Like drunk driving. If you want to drink yourself into oblivion and die of alcohol poison, go for it. Just don't get behind the steering wheel where you might take someone else out with you.
On the other hand, the government absolutely SHOULD step in when another person is at risk. That drunk driver absolutely MUST be stopped, because otherwise a lot of innocent lives can be lost. If someone's going around randomly shooting people (like happened today at a mall in my area ... horrific) it is absolutely the government's job to protect others.
And if someone is being robbed, burgled, or otherwise cheated out of their possessions, yes, the government -- in the form of police -- needs to step in and "protect and serve."
And if a whole race of people are being denied their civil rights just because another person doesn't like the color of their skin, the government needs to take whatever steps necessary that will protect that race, and restore their rights.
Not sure why you're being obtuse about this. Even my 3-year-old understands this, so I know you do.
Are you familiar with "the darwin awards"? It's dark humor, but as with all sorts of humor, there's a bit of truth behind it. So no, I'm not serious in the way you're thinking. It's swiftian humor, lost on most.
Look. If someone wants to do something stupid, that might get them killed, and it gets them killed, I really don't think it's the government's job to be everyone's baby sitter. The only time the government should step in is if and when another person is in danger. Like drunk driving. If you want to drink yourself into oblivion and die of alcohol poison, go for it. Just don't get behind the steering wheel where you might take someone else out with you.
On the other hand, the government absolutely SHOULD step in when another person is at risk. That drunk driver absolutely MUST be stopped, because otherwise a lot of innocent lives can be lost. If someone's going around randomly shooting people (like happened today at a mall in my area ... horrific) it is absolutely the government's job to protect others.
And if someone is being robbed, burgled, or otherwise cheated out of their possessions, yes, the government -- in the form of police -- needs to step in and "protect and serve."
And if a whole race of people are being denied their civil rights just because another person doesn't like the color of their skin, the government needs to take whatever steps necessary that will protect that race, and restore their rights.
Not sure why you're being obtuse about this. Even my 3-year-old understands this, so I know you do.
D
You are right I do, because I was taught it, same as if somebody was taught the opposite , that hurting people wasn't bad, they would have a 180 opinion. Ever read Lord of the Flies? You still have no basis for why these things are hurtful other then just because or common sense...but I keep asking what you are basing them off of, how do you determine those things are hurtful other then oh you just know it is stop being thick. That's hurtful. Even a 4 year old knows that.
I think jokes about death are best lost on most...
But at this rate I'm just logging on here to argue something with no end in sight....now I don't like those people who shut the door so that the other person cannot have a say, so I'm just going to stay on this side of the door but not respond to this back and forth anymore.
I think jokes about death are best lost on most...
But at this rate I'm just logging on here to argue something with no end in sight....now I don't like those people who shut the door so that the other person cannot have a say, so I'm just going to stay on this side of the door but not respond to this back and forth anymore.