Are you an atheist? (1 Viewer)

[Galaxiom]

ok,I will bite, what would you have me do??????????????????

Nothing. Nothing at all, because affording same sex couples the same rights to marriage as heterosexual couples has zero effect on you.

 

[Galaxiom]

It is the law has been changed by judicial legislation, tearing the very fabric of the constitution.

Rubbish. The law has been changed BECAUSE of the Constitution. The majority of the judges found that the Constitution does not allow discrimination of rights on the grounds of sexual preference. Hence existing laws were in conflict with the Constitution.

 

[Frothingslosh]

For the love of God, Blade, get it through your head:

The "gay agenda", as you insist on calling it, is one thing and one thing only: to be treated like human beings. To have the same rights and acceptance as everyone else.

That's it.

That's the great evil you're opposing: the treatment of LGBT people as if they were real, live humans just as worthy of happiness as you.

***

You should also read the Bible for once in your life before going around calling "one man, one woman" 'Biblical marriage'.

In 2 Samuel 5:13 and 1 Chronicles 3:1-9 and 14:3, King David had six wives and numerous concubines.

In 1 Kings 11:3, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

In 2 Chronicles 11:21, King Solomon's son Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines.

In Deuteronomy 21:15: "If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons...."

Let's not forget that Deuteronomy 25 requires that a childless married woman whose husband dies is required to marry his brother. No exception is provided in case he is already married - according to Biblical law, they must marry regardless. In Matthew 22, Jesus confirms this, only stating that at the resurrection, there will be no marriage at all.

So this "one man, one woman" thing is purely a law of man, instituted by the Catholic church during the Early Middle Ages, and most emphatically NOT from the Bible.

Now back to lurking.

 

[Bladerunner]

Nothing. Nothing at all, because affording same sex couples the same rights to marriage as heterosexual couples has zero effect on you.

Does that include forcing the church and people who do not believe to marry them within its halls?

 

[Bladerunner]

Rubbish. The law has been changed BECAUSE of the Constitution. The majority of the judges found that the Constitution does not allow discrimination of rights on the grounds of sexual preference. Hence existing laws were in conflict with the Constitution.

Galaxiom........Does the Constitution prevent Gay Marriage??????NO

Does the Constitution allow Gay Marriage ????????NO

Does the Constitution allow any Marriage???????NO

Amendment 10 allows the states to write laws accordingly when the constitution or Federal Laws do not cover.

Question: can any state write a law that prevents a certain people from being served even though it is in the constitution....NO Why because it is covered by Fed. law.

Federal Law. Created by 400+ Congress men and 100 Senators. A voice of the people and by the people. All the people not just 13 million Gay but all 350 million.

What the judges did was 6 of them legislated through the bench and pronounced themselves semi-dictators. There was no law written, nothing...........

No these marriages do not affect me but the tearing down of America brick by brick does. In other words, if TN made a law (any law now) and somebody was not Cooooooomfortable with it, they could take it to a liberal legislating judge and get the law abolished even though the majority of people of the state voted it in. This is pure and simple socialism.

Again, I have not problem with the marriage or the people who are getting married. They have to answer to GOD for it, not me.

 

[Bladerunner]

For the love of God, Blade, get it through your head:

The "gay agenda", as you insist on calling it, is one thing and one thing only: to be treated like human beings. To have the same rights and acceptance as everyone else.

That's it.

That's the great evil you're opposing: the treatment of LGBT people as if they were real, live humans just as worthy of happiness as you.

Frothy........again does that include forcing non believers to become part of the wedding, Does it include forcing non-believing churches to allow this type of marriage withing their halls?

Does it include forcing non-believing ministers to partake in the marriage ceremony.

If the answer to these questions is YES>>>>> then we have a big problem in this United States and it is called.....................

 

[Bladerunner]

Frothy.......Matthew 19, 4-6:

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.


Jesus's words in the new testament.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Frothy........again does that include forcing non believers to become part of the wedding, Does it include forcing non-believing churches to allow this type of marriage withing their halls?

Does it include forcing non-believing ministers to partake in the marriage ceremony.

If the answer to these questions is YES>>>>> then we have a big problem in this United States and it is called.....................

I'm certain that some LGBT people are either so pissed off at religion or so desirous to make a point that they're going to try.

Those attempts will be thrown out of court, as American churches are under no legal obligation to conduct weddings of which they disapprove. The STATE (meaning the courts, in cases of marriage) cannot legally refuse, but churches can. That's part and parcel of Separation of Church and State. In fact, nowhere in Obergefell does it state or even IMPLY that churches must conduct weddings against its own beliefs - if you don't believe me, do what I did and download and read the entire ruling from SCOTUSblog.

Trust me, if a judge were to ever rule that your church MUST marry a gay couple regardless of the church's teachings, I would be just as outraged, but it won't happen. (Well, I can see it happening in one situation: the judge is intentionally trying to force the case to go back to SCOTUS, and doesn't care if he gets removed from the bench.)

 

[Frothingslosh]

Frothy.......Matthew 19, 4-6:

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.


Jesus's words in the new testament.

I SO knew you were going there. Luckily, I had already found a rebuttal that I'll just copy and paste here. Also, nice job taking your verses out of context. Leaving off verses 1-3 changes the meaning fairly dramatically. What you are presenting as an argument of one man, one woman is actually an argument against divorce.

There is not a single verse from the New Testament that prohibits polygamy. Christians usually mistakenly present the following verses from the Bible to prove that polygamy in the New Testament is not allowed:

Matthew 19:1-12 "1. When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to
the other side of the Jordan.
2. Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.
3. Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
4. "Haven't you read," he (Jesus) replied, "that at the beginning the Creator `made them male and female,'
5. and said, `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ?
6. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
7. "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
8. Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
9. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
10. The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
11. Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.
12. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

In the above verses, we see that Jesus was approached with a question about whether or not it is allowed for a man to divorce his wife in Matthew 19:3. Jesus immediately referred to the Old Testament for the answer in Matthew 19:4. He referred to Adam and Eve, one man and one woman. The Old Testament does talk about the story of Adam and Eve as one husband and one wife. However, the Old Testament which Jesus had referred to in Matthew 19:3 does allow polygamy.

Also, when a man becomes a one flesh with his wife in Matthew 19:5-6, this doesn't mean that the man can't be one flesh with another woman. He can be one flesh with his first wife, and one flesh with his second wife, and one flesh with his third wife and so on.... To further prove this point, let us look at the following from the New Testament:

Matthew 22:23-32 "23. That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question.
24. "Teacher," they said, "Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him.
25. Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother.
26. The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh.
27. Finally, the woman died.
28. Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?"
29. Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.
30. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.
31. But about the resurrection of the dead--have you not read what God said to you,
32. `I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob' ? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."

In Matthew 22:24-28, the Jews referred to Deuteronomy 25:5 from the Old Testament where it states that if a woman's husband dies, and she didn't have any kids from him, then she must marry his brother regardless whether he had a wife or not. When the Jews brought this situation up to Jesus in Matthew 22:24-28, Jesus did not prohibit at all for the childless widow to marry her husband's brother (even if he were married). Instead, Jesus replied to them by saying that we do not marry in heaven, and we will be like angels in heaven (Matthew 22:30).

So in other words, if Jesus allowed for a widow to marry her former husband's brother even if he were married, then this negates the Christians' claim about the Bible prohibiting polygamy. A man can be one flesh with more than one woman. In the case of Matthew 22:24-28, the man can be one flesh with his wife, and one flesh with his deceased brother's wife. Also keep in mind that Exodus 21:10 allows a man to marry an infinite amount of women, and Deuteronomy 21:15 allows a man to marry more than one wife.

So what about all those verses I quoted earlier showing the Bible approving of polygamy?

 

[Bladerunner]

I SO knew you were going there. Luckily, I had already found a rebuttal that I'll just copy and paste here. Also, nice job taking your verses out of context. Leaving off verses 1-3 changes the meaning fairly dramatically. What you are presenting as an argument of one man, one woman is actually an argument against divorce.



So what about all those verses I quoted earlier showing the Bible approving of polygamy?

no where in there did I see it said man can lay with man or woman can lay with woman.

 

[Bladerunner]

I'm certain that some LGBT people are either so pissed off at religion or so desirous to make a point that they're going to try.

Those attempts will be thrown out of court, as American churches are under no legal obligation to conduct weddings of which they disapprove. The STATE (meaning the courts, in cases of marriage) cannot legally refuse, but churches can. That's part and parcel of Separation of Church and State. In fact, nowhere in Obergefell does it state or even IMPLY that churches must conduct weddings against its own beliefs - if you don't believe me, do what I did and download and read the entire ruling from SCOTUSblog.

Trust me, if a judge were to ever rule that your church MUST marry a gay couple regardless of the church's teachings, I would be just as outraged, but it won't happen. (Well, I can see it happening in one situation: the judge is intentionally trying to force the case to go back to SCOTUS, and doesn't care if he gets removed from the bench.)

As I stated before there has been another lawsuit that removes the tax exemption and lawsuit protection from Churches here in the US. It is only a matter of time. Now that the proverbial cat is out of the bag, what keeps the very liberal scotus to allow this under some ambiguous notion. Nothing NOW..

Regardless of whether you would be mad or not it is too late.


Just heard about two ministers that were peacefully protesting with signs. They were attacked by (supposedly) gay mob and beaten. No tolerance here,,,only violence.

 

[Vassago]

I hope we are not getting out of line here trying to keep it civil.

I have no problem with these people getting married. It is in the agenda of the movement that bothers me. The normal couple will get married at the clerks office (by the way,,,this is what my wife and I did as well), and be happy. THen there are some that want a church wedding. This is fine if the Churches decide to marry them. now, the problem will be when they tap a church that says NO,,,then the case of the CAKE becomes apparent. Under the FED Law now, the gov. will remove the churches tax exemption and protections from lawsuits if they still refuse to marry the couple. Lawsuits will then follow for those churches that still resist, the legal cost will bankrupt the church with the government idly watching.

Certainly a civil discussion.

Saying you are against something that hasn't happened is silly. Do Christians typically go into a Hindu temple to marry? No! But you make it sound as if they did, and were denied, they would be surprised? I think this is nothing more than a convenient excuse to be against gay marriage.

As for the tax exempt status, I won't even go there. When I see multi-million dollar statues outside of churches, it grinds my gears enough.

What we have here is because 6 judges by pasted the constitution and threw away the 10th amendment, opened up the door for religious persecution not seen since the late 1700s. If you think not then why is there already a lawsuit filed to do away with all churches tax exemption and lawsuit protections.

If this thing had been handled through the normal channels and allowed to progress naturally, there would have come a time when all states would have permitted gay marriage by way of the people voice. These 6 Judges threw 320 million people voices out the door and now we cannot get it back.

The point is, the people CANNOT vote for or against something that provides federally recognition and rights that go along with it. These become civil rights at that point. Votes do not matter. This is a 14th amendment issue.

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens"

If marriage provides federally recognized rights and privileges, no state can pass laws that specifically exclude certain individuals.

This was where I said something about the Gay Christian being an oxi-moron. A gay person knowing that it is against all the teachings of the Bible (Gods Word) yet, believes in Jesus and redemption. I'll leave it at that without debate.

You didn't answer the question. Wouldn't this make any Christian an oxymoron? By your definition, you say being gay is a sin and because it's a sin, you can't be Christian. But, the Bible clearly says all people are sinners. Since all people are sinners, then no one can be Christian?

Leviticus is full of laws for the Hebrew people as well as is Deuternomy. There are several scriptures in the New Testament dealing with the same subject.
. Matthew 19:1-8.....Romans 1:18-32 .......several more. Romans scripture deal with the female

Right, but since you quote that specific passage from Leviticus as a way of stating this is why you are against gay marriage, shouldn't you follow all of it? How do you decide which to follow and which not to? Wouldn't no following all of it be going against God?

I didn't see anything in Matthew 19:1-8 that even sounded like it spoke of marriage, only about divorce between a man and a woman. It didn't state anything about defining marriage as ONLY between a man and a woman. He was answering a specific question with a specific answer. How can this be interpreted any differently. This is like reading a sports magazine that mentions Michael Jordan being a great basketball player and assuming he should be good at all sports.

The Romans passage likewise seems to open-ended. I've seen many different translations of this passage. The one thing I do see is that it sounds more like it's about the acts of unfaithfully going from person to person. I think this is the better interpretation of this passage, moreso, than specifically being against a monogamous couple, regardless of the sexes of the pair. It also doesn't mention marriage in any sense. It seems your interpretation is again one of convenience, and one built upon a specific translation at that.

 

[Vassago]

Just heard about two ministers that were peacefully protesting with signs. They were attacked by (supposedly) gay mob and beaten. No tolerance here,,,only violence.

There are going to be violent people in any group of people. Are you stating this doesn't exist in Christianity? (LOL) The few do not speak for the many.

Being gay or not gay doesn't define your ability to be violent or non-violent.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Just heard about two ministers that were peacefully protesting with signs. They were attacked by (supposedly) gay mob and beaten. No tolerance here,,,only violence.

See also Matthew Shepard, who died in (I think) Wyoming, having been bound in barbed wire and left to die because of [IRONY] Christian tolerance. [/IRONY]

Blade, the Christian side of this argument ALWAYS comes back to the straw man about forcing churches to perform gay marriage ceremonies - but it was the Religious Right that pushed for even civil gay marriages before a justice of the peace to be disallowed. You ALWAYS deflect the argument from the real issue - that your group enjoyed moral high ground for a long time, but now it has been shown that your moral high ground resulted in denial of civil rights.

The argument about whether the SCOTUS decision on marriage infringes on your religious rights is based on the straw man that you have the right to interfere with the lives of others because of your religion's instruction to "spread the word of the Lord." Just because your religion says you need to be able to smoke a humongous marijuana cigar doesn't mean you have the right to do so. Just because your religion demands retribution in the form of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, or a life for a life does not mean you have the right to exact that retribution. Just because your religion demands burnt offerings doesn't mean you can burn a carcass in sacrifice. (Note, however, that I explicitly exempt holiday and party barbecue pits from this, where the intention wasn't really to burn the hell out of the meat, it just happens...)

We keep on coming back to the Will Rogers definition of USA freedom - Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins - and you guys STUPIDLY INSIST that your actions aren't the legal equivalent of swinging your fist at someone else's rights. You say that gays don't have the right to dictate to churches what they must do, but then CHILDISHLY insist that churches do, indeed, have that right over gays.

Well, we just took your little toy away from you so that others could share the rights they should have had all along - and now you are the petulant child (like your big boss in the sky) who simply refuses to forgive others for being human but different than your warped image of humanity. Grow up, Blade. Learn to think critically about yourself for a change and stop concentrating on how others are doing things you don't like. It's called LIFE and you don't get to define its details.

 

[Frothingslosh]

As I stated before there has been another lawsuit that removes the tax exemption and lawsuit protection from Churches here in the US.

Good. Churches in no way, shape, or form deserve tax-exempt status.

Just heard about two ministers that were peacefully protesting with signs. They were attacked by (supposedly) gay mob and beaten. No tolerance here,,,only violence.

Assuming you're telling the truth for once, then they got off easier than Matthew Shepard, didn't they?

Edit: DAMMIT, Doc, you had beat me to the wire, didn't you?

 

[Bladerunner]

There are going to be violent people in any group of people. Are you stating this doesn't exist in Christianity? (LOL) The few do not speak for the many.

Being gay or not gay doesn't define your ability to be violent or non-violent.

I agree with you here, It has always been the few (activists)that have pushed things passed the breaking point. However, once it gets past that point, it becomes 'mob mentality' or 'mob rule'. We have seen that in Fergusen and Baltimore of late.

 

[spikepl]

Why do we need to get into such discussions and subjective opinions? Let's hear it from the horse's mouth.

So, god, you are on. A post here in this thread would be just fine. But you can still call me on my cell if you are shy. I encouraged you already a few times, so please don't chicken out this time.

 

[Bladerunner]

Certainly a civil discussion.

Saying you are against something that hasn't happened is silly. Do Christians typically go into a Hindu temple to marry? No! But you make it sound as if they did, and were denied, they would be surprised? I think this is nothing more than a convenient excuse to be against gay marriage.

As for the tax exempt status, I won't even go there. When I see multi-million dollar statues outside of churches, it grinds my gears enough.ow..

OK we will see what happens from here on.

Those tax exempt dollars go to the needy. Yes, the churches (some of them) are large but is a rich fellow going to go to a country church???? It all about getting those bucks so their programs can continue to grow. The churches of these United States do more charity than all the others put together. Are you going to shut that down because of your mind set on churches?


QUOTE]

The point is, the people CANNOT vote for or against something that provides federally recognition and rights that go along with it. These become civil rights at that point. Votes do not matter. This is a 14th amendment issue.

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens"

If marriage provides federally recognized rights and privileges, no state can pass laws that specifically exclude certain individuals..

[/QUOTE]

There was no Federal law for marriage either way and to piggyback the Gay movement on the backs of the Black civil rights movement in this country is ludicrous It was all state laws and the judges simply struck them down and in effect said, you can no longer make laws concerning marriage, This is a gov. entity now.........Is that not scary??????NO.........


QUOTE]

You didn't answer the question. Wouldn't this make any Christian an oxymoron? By your definition, you say being gay is a sin and because it's a sin, you can't be Christian. But, the Bible clearly says all people are sinners. Since all people are sinners, then no one can be Christian?..

[/QUOTE]

ok, let me make a stab at it. Hope I can word it right if there is a right way. Jeffery Dahmer who committed ra**, murder, disemberment of men and boys during the 70s to the 90's. It is told that he accepted Jesus Christ and repented. Let me let you think about that a minute............. A murder and raper of man going to heaven!!!!!!!

You ask, how can that be. God/Jesus looks at all sins as equal. Murder is one sin, Adultery is another but all equal. The question concerning Jeffery is: Was he Genuine in his repentance of his sins. If he was, Jesus tells us all is forgiven. With the Gay couple they wear a coat of sin 24-7 (so to speak). The sin is according to the Bible (God's word) not mine. How can you be genuine in your repentance if you are living in it 24-7.

As far as I am concerned, They are people and deserve all respect that is afforded to all other people Their lifestyle is theirs AND Gods business. I will not judge them but it seems hypocritical to live in sin and exclaim you are a Christian.

NOW, one other word, there are a lot of people out there that are hypocrites that go to church , proclaim their faith and love, yet through their daily lives continue to commit one Bible sin after another. Are they really genuine about repentance. Only God knows what is deep down in your heart, There are no secrets from him. Now this is my opinion on that.

A lot of God's laws to the Hebrew people state that adultery and other sins be dealt with death. These were laws for man kind at that time. Rem, Mankind had no laws back then. Anything while not acceptable had no or very little consequences.

QUOTE]

Right, but since you quote that specific passage from Leviticus as a way of stating this is why you are against gay marriage, shouldn't you follow all of it? How do you decide which to follow and which not to? Wouldn't no following all of it be going against God?.

[/QUOTE]

Yes I am against Gay Marriage as a Christian, I believe it is a sin!!!!!!! However, if the laws of man allow it, I have no problem with gays being married by the state.(believe I stated that before) and as you correctly stated it is no skin off my nose. You Said: "Saying you are against something that hasn't happened is silly." but I stated this was going to happen six months to a year ago and part of it has been fulfilled. The activists NOT the good people will continue to drive wedges between us and will continue to disrupt state and federal laws through Judicial legislation. I believe that during this eruption of PC, the church and it parishioners will bare the brunt of these actions. I guess we will just have to wait and see. As I stated to Frothy: Once it happens, no matter how angry you or I get about it, it cannot be put back to it original.

I quote scripture that best makes a statement against the part I am debating against. The laws of God have to be taken in their entirety which is why there is so much dissention out there .


QUOTE]

I didn't see anything in Matthew 19:1-8 that even sounded like it spoke of marriage, only about divorce between a man and a woman. It didn't state anything about defining marriage as ONLY between a man and a woman. He was answering a specific question with a specific answer. How can this be interpreted any differently. This is like reading a sports magazine that mentions Michael Jordan being a great basketball player and assuming he should be good at all sports.

The Romans passage likewise seems to open-ended. I've seen many different translations of this passage. The one thing I do see is that it sounds more like it's about the acts of unfaithfully going from person to person. I think this is the better interpretation of this passage, moreso, than specifically being against a monogamous couple, regardless of the sexes of the pair. It also doesn't mention marriage in any sense. It seems your interpretation is again one of convenience, and one built upon a specific translation at that.

[/QUOTE]

I don't think the Bible has the word marriage in it. It does state Husband and wife, Man and Woman and of course divorce. Marriage is Mans word for the union of a man and a woman into one.

Everyone who reads scripture has an opinion based upon their lifestyle about the scripture. Good or bad it is your opinion that counts to you, Rightly so, There are those that cannot bring themselves to accept the FREE redemption of all the sins (Bible) they had done over their life time enabling them to enjoy everlasting life after this earthly death for one reason or another. This too is controlled by ones opinion.

One other topic....before the end of times begin, there will a one church (one religion for all) established. This may have already happened or may not have. Again, my opinion of gay marriage is a sin against God. However, since it is now a pseudo law of the land, I accept the governments right to marry these people and actually have no problem with it since it is not my call. The gay people in my opinion are good people just misled, kind of like lost sheep. Yes there are those that are not lost but for the most part, people of these United States have good hearts.

Having said that, IF I were a minister, I would not marry under God, a gay couple even under the threat of Death......Boy Howdy,,IF we get that far, it is all over anyway.

 

[Brianwarnock]

There are those that cannot bring themselves to accept the FREE redemption of all the sins (Bible) they had done over their life time enabling them to enjoy everlasting life after this earthly death for one reason or another. This too is controlled by ones opinion.

My problem with this is that some may not have the opportunity to repent, death maybe sudden, how can that be right?

Brian

 

[Bladerunner]

My problem with this is that some may not have the opportunity to repent, death maybe sudden, how can that be right?

Brian

Exactly!!!!!!! Therefore "treat everyday as if were your last!" Up until your death, you still have a choice, after death you have NONE!