When the Supreme Court Approved Gay Marriage, What ALL Happened to the USA?

[JesusIsAll]

The issue that is most egregious is not the sin of homosexuality, though this sin is pointed out to be a "sin du jour" of the wholly reprobate. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is there any other time in history where marriage, God's ordinance for man and woman, and a similitude of the holy covenant between Christ and His church, has been so defiled?

You who are making this out to be just another political flap, an issue of sin common to man, should be getting scared, very scared, of what the Lord may find very indignant, if the likes of Sodom and Gomorrah are any measure. This is not small potatoes, rather open rebellion, institutional rebellion, against the Lord, in favor of a lifestyle that's an abomination in scripture. It's going to take a bigger can of whitewash, I fear, to slip this past the Lord! You think you can do the Sodom routine, in an era that has Christ, that should know a lot better than to do such evil?

Luke 12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

I totally agree. That is why the government should allow us our liberty but we should be teaching in our home (and amongst our brothers/sisters/friends/etc..) that even though we are blessed to live in a country with many liberties, to not abuse them and remember where our liberties ultimately come from, God.

Pre-marital sex is legal in all 50 states and it ought to be (as God gives us the free will to engage in it or not). However, I would tell my future children that even though we have the civil right TO engage in pre-marital sex, it goes against God's plan and we should abstain until marriage. I would NEVER mandate a law that restricts people from engaging in pre-marital sex as I think it goes against what God has given us (free will). We show our obedience and commitment to Him by being able to do it, but FREELY chooses to NOT do it. We don't prove it by being FORCED to submit to His standards.

I like and respect this explanation, Sub. I do not agree with the ultimate ends of your reasoning, but I admire the fact you uphold truth in your own home and rightly allow the sinner to be a sinner.

What I see as the end result of a unified Christian agenda such as this is that it undermines the moral fiber of the nation. Now I understand, that's unraveling as we speak. But by the same token, if there is resistance to these efforts to rip the morality right out of the heart of the nation, the heart of the nation continues to beat.

But if you destroy the things that made this country what it is, the country ceases to be what it has always been, a vital, democratic, about above all free nation where everyone can be what they want to be, even if other people see what they want to be as silly, lost, or evil. It is important that we have a basis for telling the silly, lost, and evil that they are, exactly, those things.

That is true whether we allow God to be given the credit for that foundation, or say that men of God built the foundation, or even deny that God or such men built anything. Without a moral compass, a nation is lost. It has been the catalyst for the downfall of every great empire since Hammurabi, and is no where better illustrated that in the tale of Solomon's Israel. The story can't just be told around the dinner table. It must also be told in corporate board rooms, the halls of Congress, and every church that dares speak the truth.

 

[VCO]

I totally agree. That is why the government should allow us our liberty but we should be teaching in our home (and amongst our brothers/sisters/friends/etc..) that even though we are blessed to live in a country with many liberties, to not abuse them and remember where our liberties ultimately come from, God.

Pre-marital sex is legal in all 50 states and it ought to be (as God gives us the free will to engage in it or not). However, I would tell my future children that even though we have the civil right TO engage in pre-marital sex, it goes against God's plan and we should abstain until marriage. I would NEVER mandate a law that restricts people from engaging in pre-marital sex as I think it goes against what God has given us (free will). We show our obedience and commitment to Him by being able to do it, but FREELY chooses to NOT do it. We don't prove it by being FORCED to submit to His standards.

Somehow I believe our FOUNDING FATHERS would totally disagree with you:

The relationships between the people who constitute a nation rest on a moral foundation. This foundation is an indispensable part of their association and its substance determines the character of the nation and of the government under which the people choose to live. Like our inherent and inalienable rights, true morality derives from the nature of man and his life on this planet. It is not possible to consider a political philosophy intelligently and adequately without also considering its moral implications.

• [SIZE=+1]"I consider our relations with others as constituting the boundaries of morality... Nature [has] implanted in our breasts a love of others, a sense of duty to them, a moral instinct, in short, which prompts us irresistibly to feel and to succor their distresses... The Creator would indeed have been a bungling artist had he intended man for a social animal without planting in him social dispositions. It is true they are not planted in every man, because there is no rule without exceptions; but it is false reasoning which converts exceptions into the general rule." --Thomas Jefferson to T. Law, 1814.[/SIZE]

“The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.” –

History of the United States, Noah Webster, ed. (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), p. 309, paragraph 53

“If thou wouldst rule well, thou must rule for God, and to do that, thou must be ruled by him… Those who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants.” – William Penn, Founder of Pennsylvania, 1668 (Penn was imprisoned for writing this tract.)

John Adams

Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Second President of the United States

• [SIZE=+1]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.

• 
  
  
  Daniel Webster“If religious books are not widely circulated among the masses in this country, I do not know what is going to become of us as a nation. If truth be not diffused, error will be; If God and His Word are not known and received, the devil and his works will gain the ascendancy, If the evangelical volume does not reach every hamlet, the pages of a corrupt and licentious literature will; If the power of the Gospel is not felt throughout the length and breadth of the land, anarchy and misrule, degradation and misery, corruption and darkness will reign without mitigation or end.” – 1823; Every Christian a Publisher, Ernest Reisinger, Free Grace Broadcaster, Issue 51, Winter, 1995, p. 17
  
  
  
  James Madison
  “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” – A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, June 20, 1785; The Papers of James Madison, Edited by William T. Hutchinson et al. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1962–77 (vols. 1–10); Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1977–(vols. 11–) Vol. 8
  
  
  [SIZE=+1]
  John Adams
  in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymen stating, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams
  [/SIZE]
  is a signer of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and our second President.
  Gouverneur Morris, Penman and Signer of the Constitution
  . "[F]or avoiding the extremes of despotism or anarchy . . . the only ground of hope must be on the morals of the people. I believe that religion is the only solid base of morals and that morals are the only possible support of free governments. [T]herefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God."
  "The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next. Continue therefore to read it and to regulate your life by its precepts." "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
  - John Jay: Co-Author of the Federalist Papers; First Chief-Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court
  Benjamin Rush
  , Signer of the Declaration of Independence said. "[T]he only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be aid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind."
  George Washington
  , General of the Revolutionary Army, president of the Constitutional Convention, First President of the United States of America, Father of our nation, " Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society."
  
  
  Benjamin Franklin
  , Signer of the Declaration of Independence "[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
  
  "Whereas true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness . . . it is hereby earnestly recommended to the several States to take the most effectual measures for the encouragement thereof." Continental Congress, 1778
  
  
  ETC, ETC.
  
  
  
  
  
  [/SIZE]
  

 

[Mitspa]

I totally agree. That is why the government should allow us our liberty but we should be teaching in our home (and amongst our brothers/sisters/friends/etc..) that even though we are blessed to live in a country with many liberties, to not abuse them and remember where our liberties ultimately come from, God.

Pre-marital sex is legal in all 50 states and it ought to be (as God gives us the free will to engage in it or not). However, I would tell my future children that even though we have the civil right TO engage in pre-marital sex, it goes against God's plan and we should abstain until marriage. I would NEVER mandate a law that restricts people from engaging in pre-marital sex as I think it goes against what God has given us (free will). We show our obedience and commitment to Him by being able to do it, but FREELY chooses to NOT do it. We don't prove it by being FORCED to submit to His standards.

We are not called to keep our moral principles hidden away at home and as good citizens, we have the right and moral responsibility to shape our society. Pointing to one sin to justify another is not sound biblical or even social logic... When the government begins to tell us we must promote and encourage premarital sex (protected by force of law) , then you will see the same response as you do on this issue.

 

[ORly]

No, now you are making a false assertion. I am not trying to derail the thread but rather correct a faulty correlation you made that I felt was material. Using your logic, you derailed the thread when you made the original faulty correlation and are continuing to derail the thread by not accepting responsibility for doing so after being corrected by someone who is academically qualified to correct you on this point.

JackH's lack of faith (if it actually exists) or anyone else's for that matter is not evidence that the standard OEC model is false. That is a logical fallacy that you continue to make. Faith does not validate nor invalidate objective reality but rather aligns or doesn't align with it. Simple.

An apostate Christian is not a powerful argument that the Christian worldview is not true and to assert so is a form of the genetic fallacy. Specifically, you have committed two fallacies:

1. Argumentum ad populum is a red herring and genetic fallacy that appeals on probabilistic terms. You claimed that because many OEC advocates demonstrate a lack of faith (may be true or false we'll assume it's true for the purpose of this example); therefore, this is evidence against the standard OEC model. This assertion is logically fallacious and therefore false.

2. A secondary type of genetic fallacy in which you assert that a perceived defect in the origin of a claim (e.g. lack of faith) can be taken to be evidence that discredits the thing itself. This is a logical fallacy and therefore false.

I have a silver bar here in my hand. It is 99.99% pure silver. I don't believe that it's silver; however, so using your faulty reasoning my disbelief that the 99.99% silver bar is not silver is actually powerful evidence that it is not silver. That's a logical fallacy. It's not any evidence at all that it's not silver. It's just me making a false assertion that fails to align with the truth and if a whole lot of people do it that's not evidence the bar is not silver either.

Simply stop engaging in fallacious reasoning, and I will stop correcting you.

A wall of text and it still didnt prove me wrong. Just because an argument is fallacious doesnt mean it isnt powerful. Again, ask nonbelievers and you will see the genetic fallacy doesnt matter in the real world. Ask a non-believer if they care that it is a genetic fallacy to lump all christians in with the bad ones.

 

[Sub-Zero]

Somehow I believe our FOUNDING FATHERS would totally disagree with you:

The founding father's aren't great men of moral character to me though. They stated all men are created equally, yet hypocritically had slaves (some even impregnated their slaves).

Whether they agreed or disagree with me wouldn't change the validity that in latter times, there is a clear distinction between the government's laws and God's laws. It also wouldn't change the fact we currently live in a society where we have the liberty to do what we want provided no one else's liberty is taken away in the process. Also, the founding father's meant "God" in a generic sense that could be blanketed to Satan if someone chose to worship him as their God. This is further evidence to suggest that God and our government mix like oil and water.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Just because an argument is fallacious doesnt mean it isnt powerful.

Synonyms for "fallacious" ...

"erroneous, false, untrue, wrong, incorrect, flawed, inaccurate, mistaken, misinformed, misguided; specious, spurious, bogus, fictitious, fabricated, made up; groundless, unfounded, ill-founded, unproven, unsupported, uncorroborated; informalphony, full of holes."

And you would still insist it is "strong"?

That's hilarious. Really. "Bad" Christians, failing Christians, apostates (never believed and now claim to be "former" Christians), etc. do nothing to negate the testimony of Christ, who is the Focus of our faith, not what we do, how we act, or what we say. Or for that matter, what others who only claim to be Christians do, act, or say.

 

[Sub-Zero]

We are not called to keep our moral principles hidden away at home and as good citizens, we have the right and moral responsibility to shape our society. Pointing to one sin to justify another is not sound biblical or even social logic... When the government begins to tell us we must promote and encourage premarital sex (protected by force of law) , then you will see the same response as you do on this issue.

You're mistaking (yet again) allowance for promoting. We both agree God doesn't promote sin (He merely allows us to exercise free will).

Also, I agree that we are to shape society and bring people closer to the Savior. We don't just do it by teaching in the home, that is merely the primary source morality should be taught. We can do it in any and all ways minus MANDATING it via legislation. Not everyone believes what we do. This country was founded on religious freedom as well as freedom FROM religion.

Want to look at modern day countries where religion is their government? What do you think about them? How would you feel if you lived in an Islamic state?

 

[Nautilus]

I mean America thrived when we slaughtered Native Americans, took their land and shoved them into reservations, we also thrived while we bought and sold blacks as slaves to work our fields, heck we thrived when we made blacks less than whites with segregation. So the fact we let two guys get married is the reason God is going to send his wrath? If we didnt deserve it then, Im not sure I can see why we deserve it now. At least this time we aren't killing people because their skin is a different color. And even if you want to bring up the com[arison of Sodom and Gomorrah God saved the faithful, Lot, so shouldn't we be fine?

 

[Sub-Zero]

I mean America thrived when we slaughtered Native Americans, took their land and shoved them into reservations, we also thrived while we bought and sold blacks as slaves to work our fields, heck we thrived when we made blacks less than whites with segregation. So the fact we let two guys get married is the reason God is going to send his wrath? If we didnt deserve it then, Im not sure I can see why we deserve it now. At least this time we aren't killing people because their skin is a different color. And even if you want to bring up the com[arison of Sodom and Gomorrah God saved the faithful, Lot, so shouldn't we be fine?

Wow... you hit the nail on the head...

 

[Mitspa]

You're mistaking (yet again) allowance for promoting. We both agree God doesn't promote sin (He merely allows us to exercise free will).

Also, I agree that we are to shape society and bring people closer to the Savior. We don't just do it by teaching in the home, that is merely the primary source morality should be taught. We can do it in any and all ways minus MANDATING it via legislation. Not everyone believes what we do. This country was founded on religious freedom as well as freedom FROM religion.

Want to look at modern day countries where religion is their government? What do you think about them? How would you feel if you lived in an Islamic state?

I disagree almost completely ..all law is based in morality and reflect the moral principals of the society. The Christians principal that liberty and freedom must be balanced with other moral precepts. Clearly now, the court has cross the line from the balance of liberty to the promotion and enforcement of sexual perversion. I don't live in an Islamic state, im a Christian who lives in a constitutional republic formed upon Christian principals. I intend to uphold liberty and social morality for the good of the society God has blessed me to be a part of.

 

[Mitspa]

I mean America thrived when we slaughtered Native Americans, took their land and shoved them into reservations, we also thrived while we bought and sold blacks as slaves to work our fields, heck we thrived when we made blacks less than whites with segregation. So the fact we let two guys get married is the reason God is going to send his wrath? If we didnt deserve it then, Im not sure I can see why we deserve it now. At least this time we aren't killing people because their skin is a different color. And even if you want to bring up the com[arison of Sodom and Gomorrah God saved the faithful, Lot, so shouldn't we be fine?

So because some Americans sinned before we should now promote more sin and become as Sodom...this is not sound logic and its sure not logic based on Christian truth.

 

[Sub-Zero]

So because some Americans sinned before we should now promote more sin and become as Sodom...this is not sound logic and its sure not logic based on Christian truth.

It's clear you're not understanding the point he's making. He isn't making the case that because they sinned back then it's okay now. You're putting words in his mouth.

 

[Sub-Zero]

I disagree almost completely ..all law is based in morality and reflect the moral principals of the society. The Christians principal that liberty and freedom must be balanced with other moral precepts. Clearly now, the court has cross the line from the balance of liberty to the promotion and enforcement of sexual perversion. I don't live in an Islamic state, im a Christian who lives in a constitutional republic formed upon Christian principals. I intend to uphold liberty and social morality for the good of the society God has blessed me to be a part of.

Please understand the difference between "based on morality" and "could be argued moral". Many laws contain what you and I would say "reflect Christian morals". However, this is mere coincidence as the government doesn't legislate entirely on morals and morals alone. That is NOT the independent variable in how our government legislates. For this reason, the US allows for activities (sins) that our God says to avoid altogether. The independent variable is "protecting individual liberties". That takes precedent over "God's morals" to our legislators. You can't possibly argue with this, can you?

 

[Nautilus]

So because some Americans sinned before we should now promote more sin and become as Sodom...this is not sound logic and its sure not logic based on Christian truth.

Never once did I say I promote. Youre putting in things that werent even hinted at. I was saying that out of all the atrocities we have committed its not like this is the one that is going to destroy us as a country because it honestly pales to slavery and genocide. Is it right? no, but its also not the worst we have done.

 

[ORly]

Synonyms for "fallacious" ...

"erroneous, false, untrue, wrong, incorrect, flawed, inaccurate, mistaken, misinformed, misguided; specious, spurious, bogus, fictitious, fabricated, made up; groundless, unfounded, ill-founded, unproven, unsupported, uncorroborated; informalphony, full of holes."

And you would still insist it is "strong"?

That's hilarious. Really. "Bad" Christians, failing Christians, apostates (never believed and now claim to be "former" Christians), etc. do nothing to negate the testimony of Christ, who is the Focus of our faith, not what we do, how we act, or what we say. Or for that matter, what others who only claim to be Christians do, act, or say.

I know the definition of fallacious but humans arent always logical, the supreme court decision should be a testament to that. Ask non christians what the the reason for them not considering christianity is and many of them will cite bad christians and the unchanged lives of many christians. You can ridicule if you would like but it doesnt change the facts.

As we talked about in the other thread we know you dont evangelize, but i do. One of the things i e had to talk about with nonbelievers is how a "christian" treated them in the past. You may think being emotionally retarded and simply saying "thats a fallacy" works but you would be wrong as that shuts them down. Perhaps if you spoke to nonchristians more often about your faith you would know that.

 

[Mitspa]

Never once did I say I promote. Youre putting in things that werent even hinted at. I was saying that out of all the atrocities we have committed its not like this is the one that is going to destroy us as a country because it honestly pales to slavery and genocide. Is it right? no, but its also not the worst we have done.

So again your pointing to other sin to seem to say sin is ok? Sure does sound that way to me?

 

[Mitspa]

It's clear you're not understanding the point he's making. He isn't making the case that because they sinned back then it's okay now. You're putting words in his mouth.

No Im putting things in context of sin being approved and promoted by the supreme court...and I think anyone can see he is trying to say this sin is not as bad as other sin...so yes it appears my response was correct.

 

[crossnote]

Last Friday's gay marriage ruling was simply an out and out attack against God's Word and had no Constitutional merit.
You don't ignore the Owners manual and expect the product to last long, especially if you operate contrary to His manual.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Yes I did. You're either too ignorant to understand that it did or too recalcitrant to admit it. Either way, you are wrong. Proceed directly to your nearest university and take a logic 101 class for further guidance on why you're wrong. Perhaps hearing it from a professor, where I first learned it, will help you understand better why and how you are wrong.

A wall of text and it still didnt prove me wrong. Just because an argument is fallacious doesnt mean it isnt powerful. Again, ask nonbelievers and you will see the genetic fallacy doesnt matter in the real world. Ask a non-believer if they care that it is a genetic fallacy to lump all christians in with the bad ones.