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

Yea, why would God take those good people to eternal paradise and leave us behind? It just ain't fair!

so you're happy they died?

We should all be so lucky to be brutally murdered like that.

No ! it's a Christians antagonizing Question... It's A question posted by a non-Believer to antagonize a believer..

Matthew 5:45
That you may be children of your
Father who is in heaven. For he makes
his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and
sends rain on the just and the unjust.

If they refuse the job, they get sued.

Didn't you catch the earlier responses to this .... You Just LIE about your reasons for denying serves

Why are all of you so incredulous towards telling a white lie to avoid incriminating yourself and/or hurting others' feelings? Millions of Americans do it every day. Has anyone ever turned down a date by saying "You're not really attractive, you're poor, and you're annoying"? Did any of you Christians borrow money from a friend or family member to put down a loan for a house? Should you go tell the federal government that you falsified loan applications, because lying is wrong? I mean, come on. We're discussing all of this because a book advises it's followers to throw rocks at homosexuals until they're dead, but telling a white lie to avoid incriminating yourself? Well, now THAT is the last straw. If honesty is so important, then by all means, declare to the world that you're doing something illegal. Just don't act like it's a travesty when you get sued.

Supreme Court to use rare recall to reconsider gay marriage vote

By Robert Johnson


The Supreme Court announced this evening it will be using a rarely used court procedure as it will reconsider it's recent ruling on Gay Marriage.

=www Jack Tripper Says Its Ok To Lie.com

like your gardener story?

Uhm, you mean affirmative action, 40.

Or was it Roe v Wade?

Just looked it up, they're rehearing Texas affirmative action.

eh, affirmative action has probably passed it's time anyway. hopefully, of course...

Hopefully not as it's still very needed. Clarence will March the Conservatives to shut it down tho.

There are a lot of great books for you to read but they are expensive so I don't know if you want to get that involved in your answer.

The quick answer is to simply say that almost every major nation that falls follows the same pattern. A good article to read although it is lengthly would be:

Moral decline and it's effect collapse nations.

It's just simple common sense. A person has the best chance to succeed in life when they grow up in a loving family that provides a safe and normalized environment. Part of that normalized environment includes a clear set of morals and a clear idea of what is right and wrong. When a nation protects that family unit as its top priority the nation will prosper. When its stops then as the family unit falls apart so then does the nation.

One husband along with his wife properly raising their children is the greatest asset of any and all nations. Bar none.

And what exactly is so nation rotting about two husbands or two wives properly raising their children?

Because the next thing that will happen is polygamy, pedophila, and beastiality.....

and if you think about it the first 2 have been issues with various religions perhaps moreso than they would care to acknowledge.

With 1.206,192 abortions done per year and this new ruling, the final nail has been put into this country's coffin. The fall of Rome II.

This is a BS statement. The overwhelming academic literature on the subject indicates that there are no differences between kids raised by hetero or homosexual couples.

From the American Psychological Association - Link

A meta-analysis of 76 studies from Columbia - Link

No matter what anyone says, you want to disregard it. No explanation is good enough for you. You want to turn one debate into another endlessly. You want to say because (a), the (b) can't be .... when there is no correlation. It is like saying because the sky is blue, I can't see my reflection in the mirror. There is no correlation. You also disregard things Jesus did say, in verses I quoted.

In Luke 12: 35-48, Jesus said: Be dressed in readiness, and keep your lamps lit. “Be like men who are waiting for their master when he returns from the wedding feast, so that they may immediately open the door to him when he comes and knocks. “Blessed are those slaves whom the master will find on the alert when he comes; truly I say to you, that he will gird himself to serve, and have them recline at the table, and will come up and wait on them. “Whether he comes in the second watch, or even in the third, and finds them so, blessed are those slaves.

“But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have allowed his house to be broken into. “You too, be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour that you do not expect.”

Peter said, “Lord, are You addressing this parable to us, or to everyone else as well?” And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and sensible steward, whom his master will put in charge of his servants, to give them their rations at the proper time? “Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes. “Truly I say to you that he will put him in charge of all his possessions. “But if that slave says in his heart, ‘My master will be a long time in coming,’ and begins to beat the slaves, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk; the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and assign him a place with the unbelievers. “And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, 48but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.

He also spoke of slaves or servants in parables. (which is, largely, how Jesus taught)


I am only going to address one other thing. Jesus said that sin was for God to judge and punish, and that we should help people to turn from their sins, and turn Him. You (and others) keep anting to put people to death, when that was an old law, under the Old Covenant. That Covenant no longer exists. Jesus abolished that Covenant, and established a new one, when he sacrificed Himself on the cross, and died for our sins. Thus, there is a barrier between the Old and New Testaments with regard to the Old Covenant. God's Commandments stand, but the religious laws, the ceremonial laws, and so on no longer exist, unless affirmed by Jesus, or one of the Apostles.

Then why is any and every gay marriage debate littered with quotes from Leviticus and other Old Testament edicts?

The consensus of this board is alarming. The majority of you are happy about something that will eventually be your ultimate damnation.

You can almost feel the ground quaking with the anger of the gods.

Rabble rabble rabble!

Which rights of yours are infringed upon by gay marriage? Were you able to pray on Friday after the announcement of the court's opinion? Were you able to make it to church on Sunday? Did you have to go to a gay marriage ceremony? Did you have to get gay married?

People with a similar point of view as yours said the same thing when the slaves were freed, when women were allowed to start voting, when African-Americans got civil rights, and now gay marriage. These view points have shown time and time again to be on the wrong side of history. In 2o years, the people that protested gay marriage will be looked at with scorn, much the same way we look at pictures of people holding confederate flags during de-segregation in the south. Society will continue to progress and we will continue to drag the people with your points of view along with us.

Have I done so, even once?

The only Old Testament item I have used (at least that I can recall) is the 10 Commandments, and these were specifically affirmed by Jesus in the New Testament in verses I quotes and posted..

I was speaking in a generality, not at you specifically. You appear to take time and consideration to explain your position thoughtfully. So consider my questions not as a reflection of you, but as you being a message board spokesman for your tribe. That can be unfair, but let's face it, if you identify yourself as X, you carry the weight of X for all it's ill and good. Anyway, you can't deny that there's an odd disparity between quoting scripture of the Old Testament when it's convenient, and pretending that it's null and void when it isn't. That absolutely occurs, and no more so than in discussions on homosexuality, which has a scant presence in the Bible. There's more edicts against being wealthy in the New Testament than there is against being gay.

But this verse still does NOT explain Jesus' position on slavery as being against it. Maybe I'm dense (totally possible!) but I read that passage 3 times and found no mention of Jesus saying slavery is wrong. I don't mind Jesus or others talking about slavery period, I just find it curious that the Bible does not condemn the act.

To go back a touch, I would like to question why you think i disregard everything. In a prior discussion we had on this, I agreed with you that Jesus made it fairly clear that marriage is for man and woman only. I may find concern with with the eunuch portion as it reads during that time period but the marriage portion is pretty hard to repudiate. I also question how literal we should take the Scripture, but I understand those who wish to do so. I've been in that position before.

To tie the slavery bit into the marriage bit (without going into the BIble itself), may I pose a philosophical question? I do believe as I mentioned earlier that the church will adjust itself in time (say 20 years) to be accepting of gay marriage so as to stay with mainstream society. If the church does this, as it has done with so many other "positions" at odds with traditional faith, does this mean that those believers will not truly be saved? Will christianity die off in essence because of the Church's attempt to stay mainstream? Will a gay couple, being saved and believing in their salvation, be sent to hell instead? What about 100 years from now, long after the majority of us are dead?

We can even apply this question to divorce, right? I mean if a man and women get a divorce and then remarry, they commit adultery in the eyes of God. But you don't find many churches today asking how many times you've been married before you are allowed into the church.



I have no desire to send people to death. And I don't source my work solely on the Old Testament. Romans 1:32 makes it clear that those who perform the acts Paul mentioned are deserving of death. We can "translate" it to mean that they don't actually be put to death, but governments have used this chapter in the Bible to list homosexuality as a capital offense. I have been fairly careful to limit my digging on the Old Testament due to the New Covenant.

Whether it's old or new testament the overall message is the same. Don't sin, obey God, accept Jesus and go to heaven OR eventually you will face God's wrath. It doesn't say to be cruel or hateful towards each other but to love each other. If you love your brother then you will seek to save him from the eventual consequences of sin.

Sex is for a husband and wife. That's it. No exceptions. Accepting any other kind of behavior is showing a lack of love because you're giving them up to the consequences of sin. We can't always control how we feel but we CAN control our actions and behaviors.

Empowering and accepting sinful acts of any kind is wrong and very harmful. Everyone has their favorite sin they commit or that they are weak to. They are not OK just because you're weak to it. Your only forgiven when you repent and STOP giving in to it.

Yes, it is true that society which members of churches are part of are gradually hardening their hearts and accepting more and more sinful acts as normal and OK. That doesn't mean those acts are OK it just means those churches choose mankind instead of God and will no longer have his blessing.

Just because you were born does not entitle you or anyone else a justification to go to heaven. It is a rare few that will accept Christ as their savior and actually follow his teachings. Most of the people born on this planet will simply cease to exist once they die and their name is not written in the Book of Life. If people want their name in that book they better wake up fast because tribulation is coming sooner rather than later and when we stand before God for judgement excuses won't be accepted.

You can believe me or not. It's not my problem. The only thing I care about really is that when you stand before God you can't complain if only Razorthorns had told me ... Well you were told so its on you now

Jesus does not say slavery is wrong. That was my point. He said that slavery is much like any other position in life, and if we are a Christian, and a slave, then we should be the best slave we can be.

We do not know why Gd puts us in certain positions. In the Old Testament, *disclaimer* He put Joseph into slavery, so that he could eventually rise to a position of power within Egypt itself. We do not know God's reasons for things.

As far as whether the church changes things, I would hope not. If the church ever ceases teaching that sin is sin, and what sin is as described and defined in the Bible, then they will have lost their way. The church can change their focus, but sin is such a vital aspect of the teaching that it should never be lost.

If, for example, the church allows a change in the Bible to change the meanings, then the Bible itself tells us that such people will have to answer for their crime. We have Bibles today that are translated from the earliest possible sources, to try and be as faithful as possible. However, we may not consciously go in and change what God says without bringing consequences upon ourselves. (and I do expect pressures to do just what you propose within a few years, as the government tries to tell churches what they can believe, teach, and preach, but that is a topic for another time) We may concentrate on certain areas, but that does not negate the rest. Slavery is not taught today because there is no slavery (at least not open and legal) in our country. If the Biblical message, that slaves should obey their masters, because God had a purpose for them, then I don't see that as wrong. We can, on a secular level, oppose slavery, and since God never says that slavery is to be forever and ever, then that is fine. However, if we are Christians, and are also a slave, then we are to be the best slave we can be, as long as our actions do not violate God's law.

As far as the verse in Romans, have you read the rest of that section? We are not to put them to death, but rather they risk death at judgement. The heading of this section is "God's wrath against sinful humanity". The final line is this section is really telling, but it is the final penalty for all that went before it: Romans 1: 32 says: Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. The rest of the section talks of God's wrath against sinful behavior.It does not change to say, at the end, "Oh, and man, go kill sinners too". That would be inconsistent with the rest of the message.

So, God's wrath will not only fall on those who do such things, but also on those who approve of such things.

As far as divorce, the Bible, and Jesus, say that we should not do it, and that it is a sin to divorce for any reason other than adultery and then remarry. I have written about divorce quite a bit too. I believe that marriage should not be entered into without a commitment for a lifelong union, and that divorce should happen only after counselling. I do not know whether remarriage is an eternal sin, (not supported by the idea that the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit) or one that ios a sin when the marriage takes place, but then the union is joined, and not to be broken. I do not know. I would assume that if a couple does marry after a divorce, and then truly repents of the sin of adultery caused by their marriage, then they can be forgiven. The marriage, except for the original sin, is within the standards set by God. It could be the same for gay marriage, in that the marriage itself could be forgiven, as God would not recognize it anyway. However, ongoing homosexual sexual behavior cannot be forgiven unless repented of, and that means turning away from that sin. So, the married gay couple would have to turn away from having sex with one another. That is how I understand it anyway.

Being a homosexual is not a sin. We all have sinful desires and temptations. It is acting on sinful desires that creates sin in our lives, no matter what form that sin takes.

I hope that answers things for tonight, because my back is killing me. I also skipped around a great deal in this post, so I hope that I did not leave an idea unfinished. If I did, I will try to fix such things in a new post tomorrow.

This was a powerful read to me:

An Evangelical Minister Explains Marriage to Rick Santorum, Dr. Moore and Mike Huckabee

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-nicho...kusaolp00000592

With its historic ruling on Marriage Equality Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court finally caught up to the movement of the Holy Spirit.

That's right. I said it.

While many in the church are wringing their hands in a panic, believing the sky is falling and the country has tumbled down the proverbial slippery slope on its way to moral doom, I'm not one of them.

I am an evangelical Christian pastor (and proud of it) and I believe that the freedom bell of love and justice just pealed a little louder and the arc of history is bent a little closer to justice.

When it comes to marriage equality in the United States, the church too often has been woefully behind and on the wrong side of history. It's hard not to believe that when evangelicals, such as Southern Baptist leader Russell Moore, shout defiantly:


And as the line between church and state strains gossamer thin as the presidential election season swings into high gear, religious and political reactions from would-be heads of state have come fast and furious. Take, for instance, Rick Santorum, who echoed Moore when he tweeted:


Mike Huckabee believes SCOTUS has committed an egregious sin by redefining marriage, writing in USA Today:

No man  --  and certainly no un-elected judge  --  has the right to redefine the laws of nature or of nature's God. Government is not God. The purpose of marriage is to socially and biologically unite a man and a woman to create the next generation and to train the next generation to become their replacements. Marriage is a sacred covenant, not just another social contract.
Now, I think that Dr. Moore is providing some bona fide leadership on racial reconciliation in this country. And Sen. Santorum and Gov. Huckabee are leaders in the fight against extreme poverty. But they're dead wrong about the Bible and about their commitment to Marriage Exclusion.

My conviction is that we have nothing to fear except for not catching up to the winds of change. Wind -- what the Greeks called pneuma or breath  --  is what many of us believe is led by the Holy Spirit itself.

Too often, religious conservatives will claim that marriage equality not only redefines holy matrimony, but is against biblical marriage. But the Bible has curiously malleable, sometimes contradictory, dramatically heterodox definitions of marriage.

There is the traditional understanding of marriage between one man and one wife, as gleaned from Genesis 2:24: "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh." (NIV)

This traditional view of marriage is rooted in the story of Adam and Eve, with an invitation to all their spiritual descendants to cling together and become one flesh.

But upon closer examination of the Scriptures, the very notion of "Biblical marriage" becomes a thorny mess. There's the definition of Biblical marriage in which a man must marry his deceased brother's wife. This idea of "Levirate marriage" is a strong tradition in ancient tribal family structures and makes it mark in early Jewish and even Muslim contexts. The mandate to marry one's dead brother's wife is all about promoting the family line, love be damned, and is found in Deuteronomy 25:5-6:

If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel. (NIV)
Then there's the Biblical marriage definition that mandates a raped woman to be wed to her rapist, but only after the rapist pays the raped woman's father 50 coins: "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." (Deuteronomy 22:28-29, NIV)

Then there's the complicated story where Moses and the Israelites conquer the Midianites and divide the spoils, including property, livestock and women, marrying conquered Midianite women off to the victorious soldiers. Sound like Game of Thrones? It's in the Bible (see Numbers 31).

The Bible also defines marriage and family rules when it comes to slave ownership: the married slaves may eventually go free, but the children of that union must stay enslaved. And if you are now holding your head in your hands and wondering does the Bible really say this, then I invite you, dear reader, to read the complicated, inspiring and sometimes contradictory story of the Book of Exodus, the second book of the Bible.

The Bible allows for polygamy, too. Many heroes of the faith like Moses, Solomon, Jacob and David all had more than one wife. Unless they just had one wife and one concubine, like Abraham.

Redefine marriage? People of faith have been wrestling with this for years in our holy books and in our Spirit-led convictions.

A dozen years ago, I was a seminarian at North Park University, part of the Evangelical Covenant Church, on Chicago's North Side. The University had just fired an out-lesbian professor for being in a committed, long-term relationship.

Her alleged sin? Being born gay.

That's when I began to rethink my own long-held, traditional views on same-sex marriage and orientation.

Why would we single out a faithful, monogamous woman and not single out others for perhaps more deadly sins such as greed, avarice or gluttony?

Why were we so hung up on LGBTQ matters while children were dying for lack of basic health care in Africa and we were sending young American women and men into wars in the Middle East for dubious reasons?

As I explored Scripture, had many late-night and early-morning conversations with friends and neighbors (many of whom also happened to be gay) and leaned into prayer, I heard the Holy Spirit's call loud and clear: I am doing a new thing in your midst. Come. Taste and see.

These, of course, are the words of the Psalmist, who writes: "Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it."

I switched my position on LGBTQ matters, not knowing what it would mean for me, my future ministry or any prospects for a career in the church. As I quietly, but intentionally, voiced my convictions to my denominational leaders, they assured me I was not alone, and that one day the church, and our larger society, would come around.

Fast-forward to 2015, when that dream for inclusion came crashing to a halt in February when the Evangelical Covenant Church -- my faith family for nearly 20 years  --  severed ties with me and our new church plant in Portland, Oregon. They cut us off from our support system, our broader community and two years of promised funding and coaching. They kicked us out because of some inclusive language on our congregation's website and because of my personal convictions on LGBTQ matters that they said were not "compatible" with the denomination.

It was utterly heartbreaking.

It was I, this time, who found myself singled out, not because I was gay, but because (like so many other evangelicals) I believed it was time to fully welcome and include our LGBTQ sisters and brothers in the life of the church. I even was willing to compromise as our denomination discerned what it might look like for us to navigate the emerging frontiers of marriage in this country as a larger faith community.

Because we are in dire straights as a country and society when it comes to marriage.

A 2014 Baylor University study found that nearly 17 percent of white conservative Protestants (read: evangelicals) are divorced, which is 3 percent higher than the average rate for Americans.

As a pastor, I always am looking to ensure that no one goes through life alone, but that we journey through life's joys and tragedies, challenges and triumphs, together with God. We need each other to figure out how to live life to the fullest.

In fact, I often wonder if the LGBTQ community might help us reimagine and recover marriage in this country.

I was having coffee with a friend recently when he shared with me his hopes for his own future marriage. Divorced, with three beautiful kids in tow, my friend was living life freely and out of the closet. He is one of the most spiritual, committed men I know. He's a great father, who happens to be gay and in love with another man.

My friend remarked that he has paid a great price for his orientation, losing friends, family and his church.

"So many people think I live some sort of over-sexualized, debauched life," he confided in me. "I live a really simple life and I just feel that God wants me to have a life-long committed husband to journey through the rest of life together. This isn't about being gay. This is about being a faithful Christian."

I need friends like him to help me be a better husband to my wife, to walk with me as we strengthen each other's relationships, which, in the end, will strengthen our communities, neighborhoods and country.

Today is one of those days where the light shines a little brighter and the winds of change feel like a cool breeze on a sweltering summer day. While many religious leaders, politicians and institutions collectively echo Chicken Little, so many more of us  --  the ostracized and vilified, marginalized and abandoned because of our prayerful hope that love does, actually, win  --  are breathing deeper and lifting a toast to God.

SCOTUS has ruled in favor of marriage equality, yes. And for me, it's just another confirmation of this wild, beautiful loving God calls us forward into new terrains, day by day, and with each passing moment. All of us. Every single one of us. Equally.

As Justice Kennedy wrote in his opinion accompanying the decision: "No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were."

Sounds strangely like the words of Jesus, who taught us that "love is the higher law."