U.S. Supreme Court declines stay 4 clerk refusing to issue gay marriage certificates

[Galahad]

I don't want to get into this only to say they BOTH have rolled in the mud. Because they are ALL sinners, not just the Democrats. And that my friend is Scripturual by most I intrepretations and to think they all have your best interests in mind because they hold a Bible or appeal to God is naive. So, so easy to manipulate a nation that judges by appearance and labels.

You brought it up. Deal with it.

Broad generalizations I already was aware of are duly noted.

Where did you get that from? Novel. Nope. Polly wants. You play games with the truth.

Republicans think taxes should go to businesses, corporate businesses, trickle-down. Democrats lean more towards entitlements. Both argue this is best for the economy of the nation.

Taxes go to businesses! Now that's new: Taxes go to businesses, Republicans. But Democrats lean more towards entitlements! Contradictions and your own generalities! You practice what you condemn.

Thank you.

High and mighty one, I am not the least bit interested in winning your approval or favor.

You mean you learn which can be trusted and which can't? Which to listen more closely to and which to kinda listen to?

This proves you are insincere with your Thank you.
Hey, your responses are not trustworthy. YOUR responses. That's YOU. About as honest as dishonesty itself.

Uh huh. Duly noted. Why must the "morals" of the Bible (nevermind showing compassion for people's struggles) be upheld?

If you have to ask! Why? That's an honest question. Right? For you the morals of the bible are optional. I already get that. Some of us do understand the plan of God.

Why does Jesus focus His message so much on worrying about your own sanctification, and improving your own morality? "So what happens to John, how does that affect you... follow Me Peter and don't you worry about him." And "we ought to obey God" lacks the following "and make sure everyone else obey too." Speaking of which, got any commands to enforce Christian values with the gov? Asking for like the third time now.

All part of your honest question! You are practicing what you are condemning. You don't see that. Read your response again. Read it slowly. Here it is: Why does Jesus focus His message so much on worrying about your own sanctification, and improving your own morality? "So what happens to John, how does that affect you... follow Me Peter and don't you worry about him." And "we ought to obey God" lacks the following "and make sure everyone else obey too."
Yours. Get it! Read it slowly and to yourself. To YOU!

Very interesting. Your knowlege is impressive. I did not know ANY of that.

Honest question, very interesting, you are adjectival. And general. Look up. I knew you could be impressed with the slightest bit. Just a smidgen. That's all it takes. A tiny bit.

I don't trust bomb throwers and people who dance around the problems in their platforms, won't answer questions directly (because it exposed an inconsistency - this happens on both sides) and won't compromise. Did you know we have issues now with reporters of the Free Press facing penalty for exposing fraud and scams? It's happening.

I would be more concerned about the Press being silenced for challenging the gov, or speaking freely about it, than a woman's opinion about who should sleep with who.

Well lah-dee-dah, dah dee day. Again, I am not concerned with what you are concerned about.
God is Sovereign. Not you. God's word is inspired, not you. God and His plan. There's the Christian's concern.

Are you related to Dude? He's the one I was responding to. Then you come along and mislead. You come along and deceive. But your morals are on the table. I got that.

 

[jamie26301]

Concerning the honest question portion, Crossnote has already addressed its implication, an implication that I too spotted immediately.

Ah, well, I get to a point after conversing with someone that I don't answer them anymore... I mean, you choose your battles.

It's fine if you want to assume I'm not being honest, but let's all bear in mind that we are discussing a very adversal subject, and that preconceived ideas we may have about someone who takes a certain side, or heaven forbid stands in the middle, a lot of times will color how we intespet their text. I'm no different, I try to work on it.

I am an individual, we all are... We need to examine eaxch other's words in light of what they say, not what we who we think they must be based on the position itself.

Where did either an Apostle or Jesus (let's avoid the whole Jesus "fulfilled the Law" controversy)... where in the NT are we ever commanded to teach or enforce Christian morals by force?

What do you mean by force?

I already defined force. The gov. Compelling at threat of penatly.

Are you asking, where are we commanded to put a sword to someone to obey God?

No.

Are you asking, where are we commanded to put the sword to someone with government authority to force someone to obey God?

Yes I was alluding to "the soldier doesn't bear the sword in vain." I am bad about not referencing verses. I figure if someone wants to honestly discuss, they will inqire where it is.

Or are you asking, where are we commanded to put the sword in the government's hand to force others to obey God?

Not sure what the difference is.

Or are you asking, where are we ever commanded to vote for laws that align themselves with the values and virtues of the teaching of Jesus Christ?

Voting is conventionally how laws are passed, it seems... That was implied.

The changeup from the concrete sword to the parenthetical abstract (gov) lacks specificity. Literal sword? If not, then what is the sword? The government?

I mean threat of penalty, not literally using a weapon, but will use it if resistance is met. I don't death sentence.

Christians are never commanded to put a sword a gun or any weapon to an individual to get them to comply to the commands of God.

Exactly so it doesn't make sense to support someone who says they will.

My question is: Why would you ask these questions? What led you to ask such?

You think I have an ulterior motive? I asked because it applies to the offshoot topic of homosexuals allowed to "pevert" society.

Perhaps if you answer that, I might be able to decipher your honest question, or honest questions.

Does not the question stand for itself? Why do you need more than that to answer?

Why would Someone who teaches against retaliation (turn the other cheek) approve of forcing people to behave a certain way?

Mom spanked me when I disobeyed. Or is that not what you have in mind? Well, spare the rod spoil the child. Proverbs mentions something about that. But is that not what you have in mind?
Again, don't know what you are asking.

Retaliation, not corporal punishment. When one sues you for your shirt, give him your tunic as well kinda thing.

Furthermore, instead of slapping your interpretation of turn the other cheek onto me, you ought to ask what I believe it means.

That's true. I'm sorry.

Since we are drawing all these things from God's word, surely you can point to where this is commanded, of even encouraged?

With your sarcastic surely you can point to where this is commanded, of even encouraged you have just contradicted yourself. Honest question! Your question is not honest.

I was being honest... I mean that to support such issues on the foundation of God's word, you should be able to point to such. I am getting a irrated, I admit, esp when someone over the net who never even met me insinuates my heart and motives... and besides, that would change the question itself how? The question that has been evaded mulitple times?

Your question (questions) are misleading, suggestive, and present inferences not supported from any response of mine. What is implied by my responses is not as what you present in your inferences.

So you would rather "put it to the man?" That's what it looks like.

And And I don't accept Romans 13, because the context does not lend to that notion.
More proof that your honest question is not honest.You put out there I don't accept.

Because I have already examined it, but you are free to refute that instead of attacking me personally.
I honestly think I know that Romans 13 is not supportive of a theocracical gov (where specific morals are enforced). Again, all you have to do is say you believe I'm mistaken and ASK ME if I'd be open to reconsider. Since not assuming someone's beliefs is so important here.

Please write one question with clarity.
Please do not slap your interpretation of a verse onto me.
Please do not label a question as honest if the question is suggestive and misleading.
Please do not do what you condemn, as you write I do not accept.
Please be honest and sincere in your search for truth.

I will keep all these assumptions upon my posts in mind.

 

[Galahad]

Why is it good ? Was it good for sodom? This is just sexual perversion and why anyone would think that's healthy for a society is just insane to me.

Mitspa, you're talking to a Mifflin. He really is a mifflin. At least that's the official diagnosis. He affirms it. Things will only get muffled if you keep trying.

 

[Galahad]

Ah, well, I get to a point after conversing with someone that I don't answer them anymore... I mean, you choose your battles.

It's fine if you want to assume I'm not being honest, but let's all bear in mind that we are discussing a very adversal subject, and that preconceived ideas we may have about someone who takes a certain side, or heaven forbid stands in the middle, a lot of times will color how we intespet their text. I'm no different, I try to work on it.

I am an individual, we all are... We need to examine eaxch other's words in light of what they say, not what we who we think they must be based on the position itself.


I already defined force. The gov. Compelling at threat of penatly.


No.

Yes I was alluding to "the soldier doesn't bear the sword in vain." I am bad about not referencing verses. I figure if someone wants to honestly discuss, they will inqire where it is.

Not sure what the difference is.

Voting is conventionally how laws are passed, it seems... That was implied.

I mean threat of penalty, not literally using a weapon, but will use it if resistance is met. I don't death sentence.


Exactly so it doesn't make sense to support someone who says they will.


You think I have an ulterior motive? I asked because it applies to the offshoot topic of homosexuals allowed to "pevert" society.


Does not the question stand for itself? Why do you need more than that to answer?


Retaliation, not corporal punishment. When one sues you for your shirt, give him your tunic as well kinda thing.


That's true. I'm sorry.


I was being honest... I mean that to support such issues on the foundation of God's word, you should be able to point to such. I am getting a irrated, I admit, esp when someone over the net who never even met me insinuates my heart and motives... and besides, that would change the question itself how? The question that has been evaded mulitple times?


So you would rather "put it to the man?" That's what it looks like.


Because I have already examined it, but you are free to refute that instead of attacking me personally.
I honestly think I know that Romans 13 is not supportive of a theocracical gov (where specific morals are enforced). Again, all you have to do is say you believe I'm mistaken and ASK ME if I'd be open to reconsider. Since not assuming someone's beliefs is so important here.


I will keep all these assumptions upon my posts in mind.

You sure have changed your tune. I don't waste my time with baiters and liars and deceivers. Nor with those who practice what they condemn in others. It's not honest.

Now you go get Dude. You and he might be able to stand on one leg for the truth. That's a long shot. But stranger things have happened.

 

[jamie26301]

Your question (questions) are misleading, suggestive, and present inferences not supported from any response of mine. What is implied by my responses is not as what you present in your inferences.

So you would rather "put it to the man?" That's what it looks like.

"Against the man" is the correct term. Mistake.

 

[Galahad]

Quote ...BE ALLOWED TO PERVERT OUR SOCIETY??? well Mitspa... where have you been??? Queers have been perverting society for... well.... A LONG TIME NOW!

Maybe but homosexuality hasnt changed our laws until now.And this is just the beginning.Pastors get ready,you're next to be put in jail

Yes, I was thinking the same thing. Sin perverts. No matter the sin. Our society allows and condones and advances and promotes sin. Same sex marriage. The Lord destroyed the earth not because of some people's sin. No. The hearts of men were evil continually. How much so. There was only one man and his family that God would call upon to build an ark.
He also destroyed nations because of sin. Not because of some people's sin. But when the sin was full. Sin afflicts all, but when the majority support it as they are doing in this country, there's a mighty destruction ahead.

Genesis 15:16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.

Our country is on a path of destruction. It is just as those hateful Muslim nations, those impoverished Catholic nations, those atheistic Communist nations. They all have rejected God. Our freedoms and liberties were bible based. Now with the bible being disregarded by politicians and lawmakers and by the courts and by Christian hate groups, by teachers, parents...we eventually do lose those liberties and freedoms.

 

[Galahad]

It is, indeed, difficult to accept gay marriage. But then I come back to the idea that it is good for a person to love another person--good for both health and happiness. For society, it is better if people live in loving committed relationships. It makes for a more stable society. My limitations should not stand in the way of others' happiness.

Your ignorant limitations do not concern me, Mifflin. I want the truth.

Are you actually Dude with an AKA name? You both spew out the same ungodly ideas. It's all manure.

 

[Galahad]

How is it people call themselves Christians and yet can condone sin? There are folks here who say they are Christian but then support homosexuality.
I'm Christian. But lying is okay. Murder. Not always wrong. Leave them alone.

Jesus died on the cross because of sin. Sin is not insignificant with God. Sin...the cross!

Not only that, they demean God's plan of the family with I don't care, it doesn't affect me.Or, homosexuality is better if it's in a marriage relationship.

I'm I the only one who is angered at this garbage? This blasphemous trash. This slap in the face to God and His word.

Oh, but Galahad, we've read some of your posts. They are harsh.

You bet they are. When the "I am a Christian in word only" folk start to pervert what is right, I ain't one to give them cuddly little hugs. Oh, bless your heart. God loves you. Oh yes He does. Bless your heart. God loves you.

Sin folks. The cross. The crucifixion of Jesus the Christ the Lamb of God.

 

[Mitspa]

Yes because two consenting adults is totally the same thing as an adult and a minor or an adult and an animal. Or maybe that slippery slope argument is comepletely ridiculous, because there are insane levels of difference in the situations. Personalyl what two consenting adults choose to do with each other is none of my business.

Two consenting adults can commit adultery or prostitution ..should we now approve and promote these things in our society and make these a protected class of people and make their sin a civil right?

 

[Galahad]

Yes because two consenting adults is totally the same thing as an adult and a minor or an adult and an animal. Or maybe that slippery slope argument is comepletely ridiculous, because there are insane levels of difference in the situations. Personalyl what two consenting adults choose to do with each other is none of my business.

Well Naughty, it's none of your business. If you have a girlfriend, are you going to tell her that? If your dad should cheat on your mom, butt out, it's none of your business.

Two consenting adults build a meth lab, yep, your neighbors. They invite adults in to collect it and sell it to other consenting adults, no big deal. Right. None of your business.

What's with the TWO. What if there are 3. Polygamy?

I know, the two consenting adults take their homosexuality outside in the backyard, no shame. They're both nudist and just love it outdoors in the night air. No problem with you, right. Oh, who cares if your family can see it. They two outside are consenting adults.

Two consenting adults does not neutralize the sin nor its affect.

We are talking about laws that change GOD'S PLAN. Marriage is from God. It is not for the homosexual. Family is from God. Homos want our society to change that plan. It's not theirs to begin with. Marriage of one man and one woman and goes back thousands and thousands of years. And now in come the homos. What do they want? Acceptance. How are they going to get? By making it look normal. Unsinful. We're married. It ain't so bad.

If sound families, led by God fearing fathers, husbands and wives teaching their sons and daughters about God were the majority our country would not be in the mess it's in today.

Now when you destroy the God given plan of marriage and the family, you destroy the very fiber of a healthy nation.

 

[BarlyGurl]

Oh and yes the battle has just begun .. God is on our side and the devil is on the other side.. which side are you on?

Here you err again.... My bible says the BATTLE IS ALREADY WON.. so if you think the battle is just beginning... I am not sure where You are standing...

 

[Mitspa]

Here you err again.... My bible says the BATTLE IS ALREADY WON.. so if you think the battle is just beginning... I am not sure where You are standing...

really? so you don't have to fight the good fight? or you don't have to choose between good and evil....maybe you need reread your bible, you seem to have missed parts of the truth?

 

[royalscot]

did she decline abortion too. why stand for part correct. stand perfect.

 

[Omni]

The way I see it, following a religion is a personal lifestyle choice. A religious person follows particular tenets of a philosophy they've made a conscious decision to; they go to church, they associate with other people of the same religion, they follow certain codes of conduct of their own volition. It just so happens that the religion in question here is Christianity, and Christianity contains a concept of "sin".

"Sins", are behaviors that the bible places restrictions on, and Christians make a daily effort to live within those restrictions, out of their own free choice. But everybody who has made a choice not to be Christian, is under no obligation to live by those same restrictions.

The "laws of God", the restrictions of sin, the righteous path, whatever you want to call following the laws contained in the bible -- it's not something that everybody wants to do, and it's not something that everybody has to do. And for anybody who leads their life by the bible to say that letting gay people get married is "condoning sin", well, that grossly over-inflates the extent to which they have any authority over other peoples' lives. It's not any Christian's place to "condone" it. Gay people don't require permission from any of the people on this thread to go out and live their lives in the way in which they choose.

If all of you guys do want to live by the Book, the Faith, the Laws of God, great, that's fine. But it doesn't give you moral authority over everybody who doesn't.

 

[kaylagrl]

It is, indeed, difficult to accept gay marriage. But then I come back to the idea that it is good for a person to love another person--good for both health and happiness. For society, it is better if people live in loving committed relationships. It makes for a more stable society. My limitations should not stand in the way of others' happiness.

Not according to the Bible...

 

[Omni]

Not according to the Bible...

Actually, Jesus never demanded that anybody follow him. He never forced anybody to walk his walk. He called for people who had a desire to follow, and he asked his disciples to go out and find such people, but he never, ever, told any of his disciples to force themselves on anybody.

 

[Sirk]

The way I see it, following a religion is a personal lifestyle choice. A religious person follows particular tenets of a philosophy they've made a conscious decision to; they go to church, they associate with other people of the same religion, they follow certain codes of conduct of their own volition. It just so happens that the religion in question here is Christianity, and Christianity contains a concept of "sin".

"Sins", are behaviors that the bible places restrictions on, and Christians make a daily effort to live within those restrictions, out of their own free choice. But everybody who has made a choice not to be Christian, is under no obligation to live by those same restrictions.

The "laws of God", the restrictions of sin, the righteous path, whatever you want to call following the laws contained in the bible -- it's not something that everybody wants to do, and it's not something that everybody has to do. And for anybody who leads their life by the bible to say that letting gay people get married is "condoning sin", well, that grossly over-inflates the extent to which they have any authority over other peoples' lives. It's not any Christian's place to "condone" it. Gay people don't require permission from any of the people on this thread to go out and live their lives in the way in which they choose.

If all of you guys do want to live by the Book, the Faith, the Laws of God, great, that's fine. But it doesn't give you moral authority over everybody who doesn't.

Following the bible is a worldview not a lifestyle choice....trying to equate it with what gender you identify with today or the next day is...well....what I wanna say I won't. Lol

 

[kaylagrl]

Actually, Jesus never demanded that anybody follow him. He never forced anybody to walk his walk. He called for people who had a desire to follow, and he asked his disciples to go out and find such people, but he never, ever, told any of his disciples to force themselves on anybody.

You are certainly correct.But this is what the poster said...

It is, indeed, difficult to accept gay marriage. But then I come back to the idea that it is good for a person to love another person--good for both health and happiness. For society, it is better if people live in loving committed relationships. It makes for a more stable society. My limitations should not stand in the way of others' happiness.


The Bible doesnt agree with this.Im assuming the poster is talking about the Christian view.People outside the church will do what they do but we dont agree with it.We dont agree that "its good for a person to love another person" so its ok to be gay. We disagree with that view because the Bible disagrees with that view.

 

[Mitspa]

Actually, Jesus never demanded that anybody follow him. He never forced anybody to walk his walk. He called for people who had a desire to follow, and he asked his disciples to go out and find such people, but he never, ever, told any of his disciples to force themselves on anybody.

Well of course He did...if they wanted life.... and refusing to accept sexual perversion and standing against those that promote it has nothing to do with forcing faith on anyone... No one (Christian or not) should accept that deviant and perverted sexual lust is a protected civil right.

 

[Galahad]

The way I see it, following a religion is a personal lifestyle choice. A religious person follows particular tenets of a philosophy they've made a conscious decision to; they go to church, they associate with other people of the same religion, they follow certain codes of conduct of their own volition. It just so happens that the religion in question here is Christianity, and Christianity contains a concept of "sin".

"Sins", are behaviors that the bible places restrictions on, and Christians make a daily effort to live within those restrictions, out of their own free choice. But everybody who has made a choice not to be Christian, is under no obligation to live by those same restrictions.

The "laws of God", the restrictions of sin, the righteous path, whatever you want to call following the laws contained in the bible -- it's not something that everybody wants to do, and it's not something that everybody has to do. And for anybody who leads their life by the bible to say that letting gay people get married is "condoning sin", well, that grossly over-inflates the extent to which they have any authority over other peoples' lives. It's not any Christian's place to "condone" it. Gay people don't require permission from any of the people on this thread to go out and live their lives in the way in which they choose.

If all of you guys do want to live by the Book, the Faith, the Laws of God, great, that's fine. But it doesn't give you moral authority over everybody who doesn't.

Omni, go back and read the posts. Please.

What you must realize is that bible principles played a major part in the establishing and forming of our country, you might understand the issue. But not just that. You also must realize that the careless attitude toward sin and it being given the green light by our government is not going to benefit this nation. God destroyed such nations in the past.

So if China - that mighty world power - should come a stomping through your country...it launches missiles. It launches a most powerful attack. Us Christians here in the US should be silent. I mean, killing innocent lives is China's business. It's what they want to do. China doesn't require permission from the US to go in and conquer your country. Who cares if they do?

On what basis would you argue otherwise?

No. Don't answer that. I'm fed up with the foolishness that's soaked this thread.