DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Same-Sex Marriage Ruled Constitutional

You are spot on here Pit. It is their JOB. If they don't want to do it they can quit or do something they are morally and religious opposed-to. Both of those options suck...but it is what it is.

Furthering the point that this decision WILL affect the everyday lives of many people.

Bingo!

They're not asked to assist in or support it. It's law. they don't have to do business with those they disagree with, but they must expect and anticipate the negative press they'll receive for being behind the times. The American public will vote with their dollars. It's already been shown to be the case.

Why is there a constant persecution complex from conservative Christians? You don't hear this outcry from other religious groups in this country.

That's a real shame that so many are willing to let it.

If you believe God's Word then this is wrong and this is another sign we are in the last days, if you don't believe His Word then I guess you don't mind this decision ... I BELIEVE THE WORD OF GOD ... JMHO

The same was said about getting rid of Segregation.

Both segregation and the ban on same-sex marriage were based on oppressing a minority group from their civil rights as bestowed upon them by The Constitution of The United States of America. That sounds like a similar thing.

Individuals are born, without choice, of the skin color and sexual orientation they have. Science confirms all of this. No theological book should take precedence over facts as proven by scientific research, or by the framers who wished every citizen in this country have the same liberties as everyone else. Keep your faith, but "give unto Cesar" as directed by Christ.

These founders were by no means modern day social conservative Christians, either. They were deists who didn't follow Christianity. Their concept of a higher power is much different than what Christianity preaches.

It effects those who make the choice to let it effect them.

Are court clerks now performing wedding ceremonies? No they are not. They are simply doing their job in selling them a piece of paper which grants them the right to get married after that point if they so choose.

This issue is not one of religion no matter how some wish to make that point. It's a matter of everyone in our nation having the equal rights of others. As much as that pains some, that's what the law of this nation is based upon.

I don't envy those with which this law causes a conundrum in their daily life. I do sympathize with Christians that find this law goes against what they believe in. However the fact still remains that the bottom line in all of this is the fact that religion has no place in law. The fact is laws in our nation are supposed to protect equal rights for all citizens.

That's what this law does.

And for those espousing the Bible as their reasoning for not following this law, I suggest they read Romans 13:1-14 about obeying the law of the land.

Get over it people, it's the law now. Deal with it, or work on changing it. Good luck.

Really? Interracial marriage and gay marriage aren't even close to the same thing? Religious groups in the 60s decried interracial marriage as an affront on religion and cited scripture to support their position. As is no surprise, today we find that Christian leaders say those verses mean different things no so as to not come off as racist or bigoted.

When I was really young and in Baptist Church, the preacher said something that really stuck with me. He said that the Baptist Church (and most religions in general) were not truly traditional but rather just stuck 20 years behind secular society. That things that were regarded as supported by God (slavery, interracial marriage, etc) took a short bit of time to go away in the mind of the church so that the church would not appear too far out of touch with mainstream society. The whole point of the Nicene Creed in the early days of Christianity was even about "conforming" Christianity to the customs of the time. This is why the Sabbath got moved to Sunday and Jesus is born on Dec 25th, among other things.

I find no reason not to believe that in 20 years the church will make no mention of gay marriage and instead "reinterpret" the words of Jesus to say that man and woman is allegorical, not literal. If the Church is willing to bend its principals and teachings in the face of secular society in cases of slavery and interracial marriage, why not for gay marriage? Correspondingly, if the Church is willing to bend its principals, what good are these principals in the first place?

And for you Christians out there, that was a preview from the Book of Pit. Never mind the Sin, just do your job.

As much as you seem to know your Bible actually I don't think you understand very much of it.. we do not live by the Old Testament all though alot of the things in it got carried over to the New.
I don't have the time to go back and forth with the Books some of you write on here. But I will try t answer a Few...
We are not told to execute those that commit Adultery or have Homosexual Lives..Ytown does a pretty good Job explaining most of the statements I've made..
I really can't figure out why people try to defend Homosexuality if they proclaim to be a Christian..Seriously! I'm only speaking about if you claim to be Christian..I'm not judging as that is for God to do..I'm just making an honest to God statement.
Do you Really think God condones Homosexuality. As my son made the comment yesterday when he said "take God out of it, It's not even Biologically right..you can't produce offspring in a homosexual relationship so if you're a Christian it's pretty safe to state God does't condone it.. He didn't condone in the Old and there are place not condoning it in the New..

When you try to make statement about the Old and how we don't kill people today who commit Adultery or other offenses you really just don't get it .. If you understood the Bible you would understand the difference between the Old and the New and how it relates to our life..
If you're a Christian you would understand.

If you're a Christian you would spend less time trying to pick apart the things in it and just accept that it's the inspired word of God.

If you're a Christian you can't honestly think God is going to provide us with a fallible Book that we are supposed to pick and choose what we are to believe and what are just fairy tells..
Honestly if you're a Christian the decision you've made to pick and choose is pretty dangerous way to live in, how do we know what we are to believe and what we are to think is a mistake.
What are you going to say at Judgement Day.. Sorry God! I didn't think you really meant that Literally!
I know you're going to pick apart the things I've wrote ..Go ahead ..I'm ready to defend my statements I've made here to God .. I would say it's pretty safe way of thinking as I just follow what is written.. Think of it this way ..What if you're employer gave you an Employee handbook on conduct..could you violate a rule and use the excuse ..Sorry! I didn't think you meant that Literally

That is absolutely your freedom to believe God's word.

Nobody is trying to take that away from you.

Wow! All I can say is Wow!

I guess you missed the part where I posted that in the Bible it plainly states you are supposed to follow mans law?

You might wish to go back and read that part.

And it's true. If you can't do the job you are getting paid to do, find another job. Disobeying the law is not an option.

Why wow?

Isn't it said, give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's?

Well that marriage license is Caesar's. So give them their license and move on.

Their job - for those with jobs rather than personal services providers - has now changed and will require them to deal with something that they are religiously opposed-to. Their everyday lives will be affected...it's not hard to see that.



That's how it SHOULD be...not how it is at the moment in many cases. The debate is what happens when someone IS forced to do something they don't want to do.



Another liberal debate tactic - debase the other person's belief as somehow not being 'enlightened' enough ("behind the times" as an example). People are allowed to believe what they wish...the fact that you disagree with them doesn't make them less aware, intelligent, hip, or enlightened. Suggesting that one's religious belief is simply "behind the times" is ridiculous.

Why should 'they' "expect and anticipate that they will receive negative press"? Due to their religious beliefs? That sounds like religious persecution. Believing that gay marriage is wrong based on a person's religious beliefs and asking to be respected for that belief is ironically no different than the gay marriage effort itself...just wearing another's shoes...which is exactly what gay marriage supporters are asking for. Now it's their turn to 'wear the shoes' of the religious person who disagrees with them and respect their right to believe as they do.


Ultimately...yes...and the government needs to keep their noses out of it.



You are being dramatic. Try and stick to the debate and stop with the over-the-top, debate-derailing claims.

So according to your religion I can open a house of prostitution to provide a nice place for the prostitutes to work and I can just ignore the sin, do my job, and rake in that wonderful cash.

Wow.

That's an easy one. If someone smoked weed in the past 30 days, they can be fired. It's against the law. If you can not, or refuse to do your job, you can be fired. It's a basic concept. You can and will either perform the legal duties of your job, or you can't/won't.

If a person refuses to do the job they are getting paid to do, then they aren't suited to do the job. Now you can insert excuses for why they won't or rely on your religion as a reason not to follow the law, but in the end, you're not performing the job required of you. You're breaking the law. At that juncture, is it not criminal no matter your religious beliefs?

I am very familiar with the New Covenant of Jeremiah and attended baptist churches for over 20 years. I have also read the Bible several times both with and without the assistance of a concordance to gain stronger understanding of the original manuscripts contained therein. But if we just hand wave away the Old Testament then why are there still Christians who preach Leviticus as anti-homosexual? Why are there still Christians who believe in Genesis as having literally occurred? I don't think it is prudent to dismiss unsavory portions of the Word of God just because we don't like what they mean today, unless we decide to willingly adapt to modern life. But is that not conditioning ourselves to secularism?



It is far less important to ask why God would or would not condone homosexuality as it would be to ask why God would condone slavery, capital murder for crimes ranging from adultery to nasty children, supporting genocide, etc. To assert you disprove of homosexuality on Biblical grounds means you must either approve of the other acts that God describes, or perform mental gymnastics to hand wave them away. As for your sons explanation on same sex relations, ask why these relations occur in nature then. Japanese Macaques perform same-sex acts. If we are to claim homosexuality to be against nature then we must account for the more than 1,500 species that perform these acts as well.



I have witnessed far too many deacons and pastors twist the "just accept it" stance into manipulating people and their congregation into their ways. To just accept something even if your very own mind finds issue with the content there-in is to deny your own humanity. To believe in God is to try and understand him. To claim to believe in God yet also claim to not want to understand his purpose for mankind sounds at best willful ignorance and at worst in contradiction to the purpose God has as set out by the Bible. If you don't want to understand God then why even read the Bible?



I agree, yet the Bible commits so many obvious contradictions (numbering into the thousands) that the Bible by its own content is fallible by logical fallacy.



I don't consider myself Christian anymore largely because I don't believe the God of Abraham is who anyone witnesses him to be. I think the number of contradictions in the Bible story is the result of man trying to create a monotheistic God to trump all others, especially with the polytheism that was rampant in the day.



Well whats the point of engaging in forum discussion if you don't want to discuss, right? I can just dismiss your concerns as that of a rousing bigot like so many people are wont to do, but I do not wish to do so. I wish to share my opinions and findings on the Bible because I truly believe that the misconduct of a few has led to aggression by the many. That Christians have been manipulated by those who wish to twist the Scripture into following unholy acts.

It depends on the laws where you live. Prostitution is illegal almost everywhere, so no. And I've never heard of anyone forcing a Christian to work at brothel. Just like they're not forced to be a clerk of court. They have a choice that's legal to work elsewhere. They don't have a right to refuse to do their job they're being paid to do by the taxpayers.

Just like gay marriage is legal. You can not legally discriminate against gays on the basis of religion. That's illegal.

*Sigh* Some slavery verses in the New Testament.

Read Matthew 12:45-48, a parable about slavery.

Read Matthew 18:25

Read Luke 12: 45-48

Read Ephesians 6:5-9

Read Colossians 4:1

Read 1 Corinthians 12:13

Read Galatians 3:28

Slavery is addressed in the New Testament.

So is homosexuality, in the New Testament.

I have a question. If Jesus felt that gay marriage, something not done in His time on earth, was fine .... then why didn't he specifically say so? Why didn't he specifically remove the ban on homosexual sex? Why didn't He say: I have discussed this with the Father, and we feel really bad that so many have been put to death a mistaken idea about homosexual sex, so we want to make it perfectly clear that homosexual sex is just fine with us? Why didn't He? Because that isn't the way it is.

That said, I also want to clear something up. A homosexual is as much a child of God as everyone else. Being a homosexual will not condemn a person at all. We all have sinful urges, and homosexual urges are no different. It is the act that is sinful, including the act of lusting for another. We all have sinful urges of one kind or another. How we handle those urges and temptations is what matters. Jesus was tempted for 40 days and 40 nights. Temptation isn't the problem. It is how we handle those temptations. It is whether we resist sin, or whether we give into sin.

Daniel 1:9 can be answered here better than I can:

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/daniel/1-9.htm

As far as Daniel 14 ..... that book is not included in the Protestant Bible that I know of. I really can't comment on it.



Here is a link to the translators and editors, and their qualifications. If you wish, I am sure you can find their email addresses and ask them their qualifications.

NIV Translators and Editors
http://www.bible-researcher.com/niv-translators.html



And I gave a reasonable explanation for this.

Good Luck!

Except that it isn't. It's only addresses in the sense of "what to do when one finds themselves a slave." No where in the Bible does God or Jesus or any Prophet say "slavery is wrong." They don't even say "slavery is wrong except for indentured servitude." To claim that the Bible speaks against slavery is to extrapolate what isn't there.



Replace gay marriage with anti-slavery and we'd be having a similar interesting discusion, no?



Well according to Paul those who do what is written in Romans chapter one (commonly worded as homosexuality) should be put to death, as it is God's penalty. So why are we complaining about gay marriage? Why aren't Christians arguing that homosexuals need to die? Why are Christians cherry picking the severity of God's Word?



This is at odds with the New Testament as claimed by Christians. If you believe that Romans 1 regards homosexuality then you must also believe that the penalty is death. Condemnation indeed.



It is not about lack of qualification, it is about modern interpretation of the Bible interpreting words with a modern context. We don't consider eunuchs to be homosexuals today because we have a word for it now. The English language didn't even have a word for homosexual until sometime in the 1880s. In the time of Jesus eunuchs held many meanings, including homosexuality. It is less the fault of NIV translators and more the interpretation of preachers applying modern linguistics to ancient translations.

The bottom line for me, the crux as it were, is that to apply ancient teachings to today's society means we need to make sure women are servants to man, that slavery is at the very least acceptable for Christians to take part in, etc. I am more than willing to accept an allegorical view of the Bible if it means that Jesus did not speak of slavery because during that time it was acceptable. But to do so means that we must take a fully allegorical view of all Scripture. To cherry pick the Bible is to adapt Christianity to secularism. It is wrong.

Do you believe that Jesus Christ is God made flesh?

Well according to Paul those who do what is written in Romans chapter one (commonly worded as homosexuality) should be put to death, as it is God's penalty. So why are we complaining about gay marriage? Why aren't Christians arguing that homosexuals need to die? Why are Christians cherry picking the severity of God's Word?





Deserving of Death.. There are a lot of things deserving of death.. Doesn't mean we are to put them to death.. God will put them to death if he sees fit.. Just like all other sins.. Spiritual death
Romans 1:32 (KJ2000) Who knowing the judgment of God, that they who commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Not to contradict that kind of thinking but why did God feel the need to let those nine Church goers get shot up in his own house a few weeks ago?

For a long time I did, without question or hesitation. Today? It's much muddier. I'll be honest: most of my questioning of faith has only really borne itself out in the last 2-3 years. Jesus existed to the extent that history shows us.

I just keep going back to my old pastor and his 20 years mainstream commentary on Christianity. And I do truly believe that in 20 years mainstream Christianity will relegate gay marriage and homosexuality debate to the dustbin so as not to lose followers. We have seen it with slavery, interracial marriage, and to a lesser extent abortion. But the Christian Church has done this so many times before. It makes me wonder if the modern interpretation of Christ is even a valid way to get to heaven anymore. Even among the churches there is inconsistency as to redemption getting you into heaven, versus not committing certain acts, to believing in Jesus as your Savior, etc.

We can reduce ourselves to saying "well my Christian Church is right and the others are wrong" but how does one know this for sure? Is it just a matter of faith? We are so quick to denounce Islam and Mormonism and Methodist and Buddhist and what have you because we apply rational thought to those religions yet we disregard the same when applied to our own beliefs.

Absolutely, and there is even debate as to whether capital crimes in the Old Testament were the intention of the Masoretic Text. There is evidence in ancient Israel that all but premeditated murder allowed someone to pay a fine in lieu of being put to death. But this adds further caution to taking the Bible as literal.

One of the overarching stories of the Bible is about Love. For God so loved the world. It teaches us to love one another. The New Commandment! But when we confuse sin with legality, it becomes a problem. Gluttony, marriage after divorce, envy, lying are all sins. Yet they are all legal. So why do we single out homosexuality as a sin that should also be illegal? Give unto Caesar what is Caesar, right? If the law and the Word of God are separate, then why the hubbub over marriage as defined by the state? Does getting a piece of paper in a court of clerks make you then, and only then, married in the eyes of God? I don't believe so.

Why Don't you ask him when you see him..Only thing is I think you're going to have other things to worry about when the time comes.

What was the last part of your reply supposed to even mean?

I'm genuinely not sure.

It's the kind and gentle Christians way of telling you that you are going to hell because you disagree with him. So heartwarming.

Agreed. Though it doesn't often seem that way, religious dogma is fluid. We're seeing that now with the Vatican and the "radical" Pope. What I find interesting with that is you see a lot of political dogma trumping religious dogma. Several Roman Catholic Republican officials have come out and more or less said "The Pope doesn't know what the hell he's talking about", which is somewhat unheard of in a historical context. Hell, people feared Kennedy would take his marching orders from the Pope.

Thanks for telling me what I meant. Guess I don't have to answer then! I'm not saying anyone is going to Hell.. I'm saying Why don't you ask him.. I fell I know the answer to why. Google is your friend ..You're not the first to ask this question.. I love how you said not to contradict.. then you did!

I might ask what exactly your question has to do with what I said.

Do you want to do business in this country?

Do you believe the constitution allows businesses to discriminate?

If you don't to do business with gays then don't business.

On the other hand business is business and if you put your hatred away you may earn a new and wealthy clientele.

I think it's time for christians to do what they've been asking gays to do for so long.

Keep your beliefs in the closet.

You're only disturbing others who have to witness your perversions.

Why ask me a question like that.. Do you really not know .... when you make a statement like that it's clear you're not a Christian..I'm not playing your game ..answering questions that clearly meant to try and make fun of Christianity ...

I'm sorry, but "Why would a loving and omnipotent God allow nine of his flock to be gunned down by a crazed racist?" isn't a joke about Christianity, nor is it a "Gotcha!" game. It's a very legitimate philosophical question.