Christian Leaders Threaten Civil Disobedience Pending SCOTUS Gay Marriage Ruling
- Thread starter crossnote
- 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.
T
You're comparing two adults capable of consenting to a relationship to an adult and a prepubescent child who's not capable of doing so. That's the line of demarcation: ability to consent.
A plausible solution, which is also more of an anti-statist solution, would be to keep government out of marriage altogether, except for the enforcement/settlement of contracts. If adults want to enter into a marriage contract wherein they share assets, denote inheritance, and the like, then allow them to do so without interference from the government, whether they're gay, straight, bi, or polygamous.
V
I'm guessing you're not Southern Baptist, right? Or any other conservative denomination, for that matter.
The United States Constitution says nothing about marriage. The issue of what relationships government recognizes as marriage is a political question, not a constitutional one. States have always been able determine who may legally marry in their states.
There are many limitations in the right to marry, including those concerning consanguinity. First cousins are prohibited from marrying in most states, but permitted in others. Some states recognize as valid cousin marriages performed elsewhere, but other states deny them legal recognition.
If states have the power to limit marriage to relationships that are not too closely related by blood, surely they have the right to codify the intrinsic male/female nature of marriage.
The United States Constitution says nothing about marriage. The issue of what relationships government recognizes as marriage is a political question, not a constitutional one. States have always been able determine who may legally marry in their states.
There are many limitations in the right to marry, including those concerning consanguinity. First cousins are prohibited from marrying in most states, but permitted in others. Some states recognize as valid cousin marriages performed elsewhere, but other states deny them legal recognition.
If states have the power to limit marriage to relationships that are not too closely related by blood, surely they have the right to codify the intrinsic male/female nature of marriage.
A
In Western Civilization, the government has been in the "marriage business" since long before the Bronze Age (c.2500-1100 BCE).
Interestingly, ancient pagan Rome grappled with the same situation modern Western culture. Here's how events transpired for them:
5 century BC: Roman civilization is a strong patriarchy, fathers are liable for the actions of their wife and children, and have the primary authority over the family.
1 century BC: Roman civilization blossoms into the most powerful and advanced civilization in the world. Material wealth increases. They have running water, baths and import spices from thousands of miles away. The Romans enjoy the arts and philosophy; they know and appreciate democracy, commerce, science, human rights, animal rights, children rights and women become emancipated. It is at this period that no-fault divorce is enacted and quickly becomes popular by the end of the century. Homosexuality propagates.
1-2 century AD: The family unit falls into rapid decline. Many men refuse to marry and the government tries to revive marriage with a “bachelor tax” to compel them to marry but to no avail. Children are growing up without fathers. The wealth and power of women grows very fast while men become increasingly demotivated. Non-martial sex and homosexuality become widespread during this time with the latter (e.g. homosexuality) politically championed.
3-4 century AD: A moral and demographic collapse takes place, Roman population declines due to below-replacement birth-rate. Immigration is increased to try and compensate; however, it's immigration from non-loyal people groups who have no patriotism for the Roman Empire and often are former enemies. There is extreme economic, political and military instability as twenty-five successive emperors in half a century are crowned (many end up assassinated). The Empire is ungovernable and on the brink of civil war and crime and corruption increase. The bright spot is that a new Catholic Religion teaching a very different normative morality has been gaining power amidst the chaos.
5 century AD: The Empire is ruled by an elite of military men that use the Emperor as a puppet; due to massive debts and financial problems, the Empire cannot afford to hire foreign mercenaries to defend itself (Roman citizens have long ago been replaced by mercenaries in the army), and starts “selling” parts of the Empire in exchange for protection. Eventually, the mercenaries figure out that the “Emperor has no clothes”, and overrun and pillage the Empire.
After the Western Roman Empire "collapses," in the 5th century, the new Catholic religion provides the moral foundation needed for restoration. The pillaging barbarians are converted and the elevation of marriage to a holy union begins to restore family and society (a fact even the anti-Christian historian Edward Gibbons states clearly in his work). Christian marriage gained preeminence when theology began to influence legislation as well as actual practices amongst the general population which realized it's benefit for producing and raising children; promoting mutual fidelity; and uniting man and wife in a bond of love derived from God.
Previously, I've shared at CC historical research studies produced at Harvard, Yale, Cambridge, etc... (including one from the founder of the anthropology department at Harvard) which documented the benefit of absolute monogamy to every major culture in history that utilized it and chronicled the decline of every major culture that abandoned the practice. They are epic sweeping socio-anthropological historical studies that make for fascinating reading.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” -George Santayana
Interestingly, ancient pagan Rome grappled with the same situation modern Western culture. Here's how events transpired for them:
5 century BC: Roman civilization is a strong patriarchy, fathers are liable for the actions of their wife and children, and have the primary authority over the family.
1 century BC: Roman civilization blossoms into the most powerful and advanced civilization in the world. Material wealth increases. They have running water, baths and import spices from thousands of miles away. The Romans enjoy the arts and philosophy; they know and appreciate democracy, commerce, science, human rights, animal rights, children rights and women become emancipated. It is at this period that no-fault divorce is enacted and quickly becomes popular by the end of the century. Homosexuality propagates.
1-2 century AD: The family unit falls into rapid decline. Many men refuse to marry and the government tries to revive marriage with a “bachelor tax” to compel them to marry but to no avail. Children are growing up without fathers. The wealth and power of women grows very fast while men become increasingly demotivated. Non-martial sex and homosexuality become widespread during this time with the latter (e.g. homosexuality) politically championed.
3-4 century AD: A moral and demographic collapse takes place, Roman population declines due to below-replacement birth-rate. Immigration is increased to try and compensate; however, it's immigration from non-loyal people groups who have no patriotism for the Roman Empire and often are former enemies. There is extreme economic, political and military instability as twenty-five successive emperors in half a century are crowned (many end up assassinated). The Empire is ungovernable and on the brink of civil war and crime and corruption increase. The bright spot is that a new Catholic Religion teaching a very different normative morality has been gaining power amidst the chaos.
5 century AD: The Empire is ruled by an elite of military men that use the Emperor as a puppet; due to massive debts and financial problems, the Empire cannot afford to hire foreign mercenaries to defend itself (Roman citizens have long ago been replaced by mercenaries in the army), and starts “selling” parts of the Empire in exchange for protection. Eventually, the mercenaries figure out that the “Emperor has no clothes”, and overrun and pillage the Empire.
After the Western Roman Empire "collapses," in the 5th century, the new Catholic religion provides the moral foundation needed for restoration. The pillaging barbarians are converted and the elevation of marriage to a holy union begins to restore family and society (a fact even the anti-Christian historian Edward Gibbons states clearly in his work). Christian marriage gained preeminence when theology began to influence legislation as well as actual practices amongst the general population which realized it's benefit for producing and raising children; promoting mutual fidelity; and uniting man and wife in a bond of love derived from God.
Previously, I've shared at CC historical research studies produced at Harvard, Yale, Cambridge, etc... (including one from the founder of the anthropology department at Harvard) which documented the benefit of absolute monogamy to every major culture in history that utilized it and chronicled the decline of every major culture that abandoned the practice. They are epic sweeping socio-anthropological historical studies that make for fascinating reading.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” -George Santayana
Last edited:
M
See the following link below. Is it possible that gay marriage will be legalised but religious
organisations cannot be forced to perform the ceremonies?
Q&A: Gay marriage - BBC News
organisations cannot be forced to perform the ceremonies?
Q&A: Gay marriage - BBC News
T
OK, so we'll just let anyone marry anyone else -- or anything else.
Letting government dictate marriage parameters
Letting government dictate religious freedoms (or the lack there of)
Forcing those in love to bow to and feed the state
Government in pretty much all it's iterations
And heck why not, supporting policies that go against your own best interests (and I'm not just singling out the gay thing, I'm also including supporting Ben Carson in that one) is EXTREMELY
Letting government dictate religious freedoms (or the lack there of)
Forcing those in love to bow to and feed the state
Government in pretty much all it's iterations
And heck why not, supporting policies that go against your own best interests (and I'm not just singling out the gay thing, I'm also including supporting Ben Carson in that one) is EXTREMELY
Homosexual and lesbianism is based upon lust not love......the bible is clear...those who practice such activities have been given over to a reprobate mind void of judgment and this type of activity is based upon pure lust, not of God and has nothing at all to do with real, genuine love according to the word of God....either receive it or reject it....period!
