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

Like anything else when contemplating about doing the right thing......better late than never.

Texas Attorney General claims Gov' employees can refuse gay marriage licenses

So even though the legalization of gay marriage in no way shape or form affects their personal life, or steps on any of their freedoms as Americans, they can still refuse to give out gay marriage licenses because of their religious beliefs?

So if I work at a grocery store, can I refuse to sell people Coca-cola or Marshmallows because I dislike the taste, or dislike the high amounts of sugar in them? Cause it's literally the same exact thing.

Denying people something because you morally disapprove of it.....

To the best of my knowledge, the Bible merely acknowledges slavery, and sets rules, but does not encourage it. A person could become a slave to another because of a debt, poverty, a crime, or even because a son who was not a firstborn wanted to start to build his own home and herds. The Bible set rules, so that slaves were treated humanely. It also said how to handle the treatment of slaves when they are released.

OK, Let's look:

1 Timothy 6: 1-2: All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. 2 Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare[a] of their slaves.

As I said, slavery was an institution throughout that part of the world, and in Israel, st that time. It was also a different institution in those days, as one Israeli could serve another, for a limited time (no more than 7 years, unless the slave decided he wanted to remain a slave forever) It was their system.

They did have slaves captured from other countries, just as the Israelis were slaves in other countries at several points in time. It was an institution at the time.

Anyway, it says, for Christians to respect those appointed over you, and to do your job well, and to do so even better if your master is a Christian. To me, there is nothing wrong or offensive about that, especially when you speak about the Israeli over Israeli slavery.

Now let's look at Exodus 21: 7-11 .....

“If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

A woman could be sold into slavery just as a man could. However, the institution of slavery was different than for men. A woman who was sold by her family could be sold as one of 2 ways. She could be a potential wife, or she might not be. If she was not, then, from what I have read, she was to be freed as a male servant was, at the end of 6 years. Such a girl might work within the home as a servant, cook, work the fields, or so on. She was not a sexual slave.

The other way a woman could be sold into slavery was as a potential wife for the man buying her. (similar to a family receiving a dowry) If a man married such a woman, she had very solid rights. She was entitled to the title of wife for the rest of her life. If a man bough t a woman for his son, and he married her, she was to be considered a daughter. If he did neither of these, then he could make a similar arrangement with another Israeli. If he did none of these, he was to return the woman to her family with her virginity intact. Either the woman was married off, or she was set free. (and without any demand of the money he paid being returned to him)

Also, from what I can find, slavery was fairly rare in Israel.



Jesus also said that we are not to judge. He ended the death penalty for adultery when he protected the woman found guilty of adultery from being stoned to death, and admonished the crowd to Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I have no idea how much changed in Jewish law following Jesus' time on earth, but Jesus told us how to treat such things. We, as individuals, were not to take the law into our own hands, and inflict punishment. Jesus did tell us what to do, and not do. We can help a person to see their sin, and warn them of penalties, but we, personally, are not to judge them as guilty, and condemn them. We can advise and warn, but that's it. We do not have to accept and encourage sin, and we can condemn sinful actions, but we should not condemn the sinner. That is God's job, not ours.



I am really curious as to what you find ambiguous. Please post a verse, and what you find unclear about it.
Eunuchs were not to be homosexual, they were to be non-sexual. Men with many wives had eunuchs guard them, because they would not be able to defile them, and they could protect them.

Daniel 1:9 says: Now God had caused the official to show favor and compassion to Daniel,

I checked 9:1 as well, but perhaps you can double check and give me the correct verse and I will try to answer your question.

You also mentioned Daniel 14:2, but Daniel only has 12 books.



I posted verses that were pretty clear. I have also checked multiple translations of the Bible, including the NIV (my favorite translation) that has been checked and cross checked by numerous Biblical scholars, and which was translated from the earliest possible manuscripts. (including 1st/early 2nd century manuscripts and fragments) There are also complete texts available from 200AD forward. You can doubt the Bible, and that's your choice, but the newest translations are done from the earliest possible available manuscripts, and are done by those fluent in the various languages of the Bible. (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek)

As far as polygamy, I won't speak for God, but I can only assume that it was because the earth needed to be populated, and possibly there were far more women than men? (likely, especially considering all of the wars that were fought in that region, during that time) That is my guess, anyway.

Say what you want, but the guy is right.....9 un-elected lawyers being the final say on anything that goes on in this country...thats not a democracy, and its not a republic, its a damn oligarchy.....

Scalia and Ginsburg are best friends. No joke.

Or just refuse the job.

As much as I like this Idea, I can not support the Federal Government usurping the Rights of the States once again.

I believe treating the Bible as literal vs allegorical creates many issues for ones belief. But the Bible itself says you should take it literally, so I can see why one would want to. I took the Bible as literal truth for many years myself. But there are many issues with that.

If you take the Bible literally, then you must question:

- Should women be prevented from being managers in companies or preachers in church?
- Are women second class to men?
- Should we burn non-believers?
- Should we force rape victims to marry their assailants?
- Should we kill homosexuals?
- Should we kill kids who curse at their parents?
- Should we kill nonbelievers?
- Should we kill women who aren't virgins on their wedding night?
- Should we be allowed to rape female POWs?
- Did Jesus lie when he said a believer can ask for anything in prayer and receive it?

If you take a literal view of the Bible, then you answer yes to all of these questions. To say no to any of them to is not believe in the Bible as literal.

And this is before we get to Bible Contradictions!

God is satisfied with his works
Gen 1:31
God is dissatisfied with his works.
Gen 6:6

God dwells in chosen temples
2 Chron 7:12,16
God dwells not in temples
Acts 7:48

Judging of others forbidden
Matt 7:1,2
Judging of others approved
1 Cor 6:2-4/ 1 Cor 5:12

Baptism commanded
Matt 28:19
Baptism not commanded
1 Cor 1:17,14

I can keep going but you see what I mean. If we take the Bible literally and inerrant then how do we rectify contradictions like this?

Bakers are getting sued for that now.

So...this is just one of many, many ways that the new law WILL affect people's personal lives (those who disagree with gay marriage).

They WILL be legally bound to go against their religious beliefs or risk losing their jobs.

That's quite a bit different than Coca-Cola, marshmallows, and sugar.

I see your point, however, too many people are making claims that this law will not change the lives of those religiously opposed to gay marriage...when it most certainly will.

Yes, for refusing the job on the grounds of their homosexuality. Had they just said "I'm sorry, we're booked through the end of the month", there would be no lawsuit to bring forth. It's when they say "no because you're gay" or "no because you're a mixed race couple", then you have a civil rights violation.

hmmm... Would you feel the same if the decision had gone the other way?
I doubt it. BUT I do agree with you on the supreme court, problem is they are like a tie breaker when things get to them. Had this been a popular vote decision, gay marriage would have won by a landslide. Sadly, we can not hold a popular vote on every issue even though we live in a high tech world where a simple internet connection would allow exactly that.

How are they being forced to go against their religious beliefs?

Yes Christians who follow the Book of Jack, It is okey dokey to LIE when faced with a moral decision.

I agree with you on that...however, I would support the effort to force the Supremes to look at the issue. They would be forced to follow the precedent they just created OR would be forced to own up to their own decisions that amount to legislating-from-the-bench.

Do I really need to spell that out? Isn't that the present topic being discussed?

The action of handing out a marriage license to a gay couple could be horribly offensive to certain people with certain religious beliefs.

I'm not saying that's what they should do. I was just pointing out that these people aren't being sued because they refused to provide a service. They're being sued because they were vocal about the fact that they were discriminating. Excuse me if I don't pity the person who was dumb enough to say "I don't serve your kind". If you confess your crime openly, guess what happens next? You face legal issues.

Whose civil rights are being violated?

Could you point to the biblical edict that says Christians aren't to interact with or serve sinners in any capacity? Outside of making a Christian have homosexual sex, I fail to see what undue burden of sin is being put upon them.

Did you mean to put that bolded part in purple?

The person who is being refused service that is available to the general public because of their skin color, sexual orientation, religion, etc.

So now they have to lie. Another sin. On top of that, what's to say the gay couple doesn't go downtown and ask for the bakery's appointment book to be subpoenaed in order to see if they were telling the truth or not? These people could've just gone to another baker but because they got their panties in a bunch they had to go and ruin the lives of other people.

I don't know if these bakers faith was public knowledge before the couples went in or not. But I'd bet a couple bucks that if it was known, that's why they went there in the first place.

Why would my interpretation of the Bible on another person's religious beliefs be pertinent on a message board?

You can argue the Bible with others on this board who wish to do so. I'm simply stating that the act of supporting/approving/etc gay marriage will most-certainly be offensive to many people who have a certain religious belief/faith.

My point in all this is to highlight exactly how the law WILL affect people's lives. I'll let other people debate how or why or how it should/should'nt...but it WILL affect others' lives.

Yes Willie but they have already chosen to legislate from the bench on the GM ruling and have taken away more of the States Rights. This was wrong and I don't support it even when it concerns issues that I support. I would prefer they revisit their mistake and fix it.

If Christians really want this politically correct society where they are to be shielded from any form of sin, then perhaps the best course of action is to start a commune in the woods?

Not what I said, and in one of the more humorous passages in the Bible the apostle Paul speaks against that anyway. It's in 1 Corinthians somewhere, not gonna type it up now.

What I'm saying is your suggestion would require them to violate not one but two deeply held religious beliefs.

See, we're already sliding down the slope.

So that is the next legislation you and your kind will be pushing for?

My response is via editing your response in bold:

See how easy that was...here's the deal...a person cannot be forced to personally do something they don't want to do. It is the definition of freedom. It supersedes/trumps the right of another who wants something from you...regardless of the circumstances.

I agree again...but they aren't going to do it.

Gay marriage was a hot-button more so for the left...the Supremes overstepped their boundaries again IMO and I'd LOVE to see the right force them to either own up as legislators-from-the-bench or explain why one state's right could be overridden but not another. (Gun laws being the point here.)

It would highlight the political nature of their recent decisions and embarrass the Supremes...which is exactly what they need right now.

If the defense against slavery is it was part of that time period then the same defense can be used in support of homosexuality today. All I have to say is that homosexuality was discouraged back then and today it is not because we determined that it is immoral to prevent people from marrying who they want just like it's immoral to allow slavery. And saying that Jesus said nothing about slavery means he didn't encourage it is flat out false. If I discourage you from doing something I will say "you should not do this." Jesus was simply silent on the matter of slavery. He either found nothing wrong with it or supported it to some degree.



But even in the Bible that practice isn't always followed. 2 Chronicles 15:12-13 says that Azariah gathered up a number of people to Jerusalem and killed the non-believers. Romans 1 says that homosexuals should be put to death. Are these not the judgement of man?



In the ancient times some eunuchs were castrated, yet others were not, while still given the title of eunuch. Matthew 19:12 speaks of the various eunuch classes as well. In the case of the Bible, since Jesus spoke Aramaic, the equivalent word would be saris. But english translations retranslate saris into several things: eunuchs, chamberlains, officer, etc.

Other aramaic and greek texts at the time refer to eunuchs outside of the castration context as well. Eunuchs as a group were able to procreate unless they were modified in some way. Ancient texts of the area and others refer to Eunuchs as a "third type of sex" who were either transvestite, impotent, or homosexual. The Laws of Manu and the Kamasutra supports Eunuchs as homosexual, and the Talmud makes mention of eunuchs who can be natural or man-made. Why it's curious in the talmud is it asserts that natural eunuchs can be "cured" of their affliction. Interesting, no? There are also Greek stories and warnings of women to not be too comfortable around eunuchs, for they are able to have sex, just not willing to do so. Sumerian dream omens have associations between eunuchs and homosexual acts. The roman historian Quintus Curtius also noted that eunuchs were used for this purpose.

I have several other resources used to back this stuff up, but the bottom line is that in ancient times eunuchs and homosexuals were often times one in the same. So applying that to Jesus's comment in matthew 19 means that perhaps we are not as sure of the Bible as we claim to be.



Daniel 1:9 is the correct verse, but the KJV edition.



NAB edition.



Yet what of other texts of the time period? What of greek and indian and roman historical correspondence? We take an understanding of a culture from one verse and apply it to a general term we have for it today, when in actuality it would be like us saying homosexuals are eunuchs today. We split the term up to better define the differences.



It's possible. It is important to distinguish that the Bible only allowed men to have more than one wife. Women could not have multiple husbands because they would be violating the laws of Leviticus/Deuteronomy/Romans.

And where was Scalia's opinion during Citizens United?

You and I are on the same page bro, clinging to our Guns and Bibles.

You know you are debating with a liberal when - after the emotion is boiled out from the argument - some wild and ridiculous claim is thrown out there in an effort to derail the debate from moving forward.

I think of it like a wild animal backed into a corner.

How come ultraconservative Muslims can't institute Sharia Law? A country without Sharia is considered a sin to some. Should we institute Sharia Law just because some Christians are behind the times on equal rights for American citizens?

See my response right above your post.

I thought this was a pretty good explanation:

Why doesn't the word "homosexual" (or any word where that set of letters includes) appear in any Bible written before 1964?

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20150503074254AA7c7OT

The King James Authorised Version of the Bible translates the Greek word 'arsenokoitai' in 1 Corinthians 6:9 as "effiminate."

In 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 Paul lists some sinful lifestyles that give evidence that a person is not saved: “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men . . . will inherit the kingdom of God.”

The phrase “men who have sex with men” (translated “homosexuals” in the NASB) is a translation of the Greek word arsenokoitai. Those who object to this translation say that arsenokoitai does not refer to all homosexual relationships but only to those involving abuse, coercion, or unfaithfulness. They say the word does not refer to “loving, faithful” same-sex relationships.

Arsenokoitai is a compound word: arseno is the word for “a male,” and koitai is the word for “mat” or “bed.” Put the two halves together, and the word means “a male bed”—that is, a person who makes use of a “male-only bed” or a “bed for males.” And, truthfully, that’s all the information we need to understand the intent of 1 Corinthians 6:9.

The word meaning “bed” carries a sexual connotation in this context—the Greek koitai is the source of our English word coitus (“sexual intercourse”). The conclusion is that the word arsenokoitai is referring to homosexuals—men who are in bed with other men, engaging in same-gender sexual activity.

There are other places in the Bible where certain types of sexual conduct are condemned, and regardless of whether the word 'homosexual' is used or not, the meaning is clear enough. See the article in the link below.

Back in the 1950's and 1960's the English word 'gay' had a completely different meaning to what it does now. But the Greeks and the Romans were not ignorant of what we now call homosexual behaviour. Doesn't matter what you call it - the Bible has never condoned the act of men having sex with men or women having sex with women. No change there within Christianity, as far as I can see.

That's all the proof I need Willie! Thanks for beating the truth out of the bushes for us.

Where are the ridiculous claims? You're arguing of instituting a Christian theocracy over rights guaranteed by the Constitution of The United States of America.

This subject is an easy one. Your job is to follow the law and give the services allowed by the law. That's the very description and job you are paid to do. If you can not do your job, find another job.

Where is the ridiculous, debate-derailing claims you ask?

Did you or did you not suggest that we compare implementing Sharia law to a religious person having issue with being forced to assist-in or somehow-support gay marriage?

Again I say, whose rights are being harmed here? The person who wants something but can't have it? Or the person forced to personally do something they do not want to do?