This is just another case (like abortion) where the Supreme Court tries to hijack the issue, and prematurely declare the debate over.
The U.S. Supreme Court "ended" the debate on abortion with the Roe vs. Wade ruling in 1973. Is that debate over? Hell no. Polls now show that more people oppose abortion than support it.
Likewise, the gay debate is far from over, regardless of a single ruling. There is still no proof that homosexuality is an actual natural condition, and not an aberrant compulsive desire some choose to act on, like gambling, like pedophilia, like alcoholism or addiction.
This is a victory borne from decades of carpet-bombing the public with pro-gay propaganda, not a victory borne of science, facts or morality.
And as I've said before, gays can legally force these kind of rulings in the courts, but we will never accept in our hearts what we know to be wrong.
For me this is a bitter sweet victory. My guy passed away last year from a horrible form of cancer. We had been together just a hair under 25 years. He's in a better place now and left this one knowing he was loved more than ever. We were unable to officially get married but we truly were in our hearts.
No, you fetishize and lust after women--something that guy you claim to follow talks a lot about--while claiming to be the moral arbiter of the forums and the nation. It is sad, pathetic, and--ultimately--counter-productive to your salvation when your God spits you out for being lukewarm.
For me this is a bitter sweet victory. My guy passed away last year from a horrible form of cancer. We had been together just a hair under 25 years. He's in a better place now and left this one knowing he was loved more than ever. We were unable to officially get married but we truly were in our hearts.
Been away for awhile, MEM. Sorry to hear that. Will keep you in my thoughts and send good will your way.
No, you fetishize and lust after women--something that guy you claim to follow talks a lot about--while claiming to be the moral arbiter of the forums and the nation. It is sad, pathetic, and--ultimately--counter-productive to your salvation when your God spits you out for being lukewarm.
Says the atheist who despises Christianity. And has openly boasted of his delight in spitefully harassing Christians in the classes you teach.
The same spiteful venom you frequently display here.
For me this is a bitter sweet victory. My guy passed away last year from a horrible form of cancer. We had been together just a hair under 25 years. He's in a better place now and left this one knowing he was loved more than ever. We were unable to officially get married but we truly were in our hearts.
We don't agree much politically, M E M, but I've always liked you, and I'm deeply sorry for your loss.
It might surprise you, but I actually attended a gay wedding back in 2009. While it's clear that I don't believe in gay marriage, I still attended to support his choice to do what he felt would give him happiness. The key word there being choice. My choice. His choice. As opposed to forcing people of faith to comply with a gun of state power to their heads, with one-sided justice, where gays have a right to their beliefs, and people of faith do not.
My problem is the point where political correctness forces bakeries and photographers to endorse gay marriage against their will, and fines them out of business if they don't compromise their beliefs to do so. As Rich Lowry said on Megyn Kelly's program tonight, if this is allowed to stand, the courts will be going after churches in 5 years if they refuse to perform gay marriage.
since we're on the topic, I may as well share the facebook post that will most likely torpedo any remaining hope I had of ever working in an evangelical church again. worth it.
Originally Posted By: me, since not all of us are facebook friends
"pray for America, everyone!"
weren't you praying for America before? what changed?
I've heard several variations on this over the last few days, but it sounds like many of my fellow evangelicals are convinced that yesterday's Supreme Court ruling is a sign that God will "no longer favor" our country. so THIS is what it takes? so God was fine with us building our economy (southern plantations and northern textile mills alike) on the backs of slave labor, but not this? He didn't bat an eye at our little regime-influencing adventures in Central and South America and the Middle East, but this is just too much to ignore? the guy we say we trust on our almighty dollars was willing to sign off on us herding indigenous tribes onto dead-end reservations that have become pits of drunken hopelessness and herding blacks and latinos into dead-end housing projects and neglected school systems (and then somehow citing the inevitable epidemic of poverty and crime as something wrong with their culture), but a court deciding to let a bunch of SINNERRRRRRRRRRS sign the same legal contracts as us is a bridge too far?.
since you're sitting there waiting to unleash hell when I state my position anyway, I'll go ahead and give you the satisfaction. yes, the supreme court's ruling showed they define marriage differently. they're part of the government; as far as they're concerned marriage is another voluntary contractual agreement which is entered into by two consenting adults and endorsed by the state. the sanctity and sacrament of it are things we're thankfully free to publicly attach to it thanks to our First Amendment rights. the same provisions that allow us as the church to celebrate holy matrimony before God are, out of necessity, the same provisions that prohibit us from using our carefully cherry-picked points of doctrine to deny the simple legal contract to those who don't share all our beliefs. did they say anything about forcing churches to marry every gay couple who wants it? again, they're only concerned with marriage before the state; the church has always had the right to refuse to marry whichever couples they choose (there are just as many technicalities on which they could've refused to let my wife and I get married there too), and barring an absurdly creative reading of the First Amendment it's unlikely that'll change. besides, my experience convinces me evangelicals like us are more than capable of keeping folks we don't want in our churches out as it is, law or no law.
and that's my real issue - this idea that everything was great but now God is giving up on America because of this? as mostly conservative evangelicals (I'm an evangelical libertarian - one really IS the loneliest number!), we've had an incredibly good run the past half century or so. we've had unprecedented political and material influence with which we could've accomplished just about anything we believed in. we could've been feeding and clothing the poor in our cities while we were busy building ruinously expensive new sanctuaries and trumpeting the gospel of prosperity from the safety of the suburbs. (when I say 'we' I mean the church, not government programs - I AM a libertarian after all.) we could've fought for the rights of persecuted people of all faiths while we were looking the other way as our government meddled with democratically elected regimes over the price of bananas. we could've spoken out against racial hatred rather than turn the evangelical church into what is still one of the most segregated institutions in America. we could've been a permanent and visible fixture making great positive changes to culture and society, rather than walling ourselves off into Christian bookstores where Christian radio stations play Christian music.
yesterday's ruling didn't prove that our country is disregarding us, it proved we've utterly disregarded our country. what should our stance be on gay marriage or on homosexuality in general? we were never instructed to bring the wrath of God down upon anyone we caught violating our [interpretation of] Christian doctrine, but we WERE in fact COMMANDED to love those around us and be the representation of Jesus Christ in our world with the understanding that IF someone is doing wrong, it's God who convicts them and guides them to reconciliation. I'm not challenging your right to be upset by this decision, and I'm not even going to tell you you're wrong for feeling conflicted about the issue; I quite frankly don't have the time or patience to go through the various Bible verses or points of doctrine in question at this moment, and I've already talked a lot as it is. my gripe is that if we'd paid a little more attention to what we were told TO do and spent a little less time wringing our hands over what we were told NOT to do, we could've been a positive cultural influence rather than just another lobbyist group. you can be as upset as you want over this; I'd just like to know where all that outrage goes when we're confronted by poverty, hunger, homelessness, racial division, broken homes, and many other global ailments besides.
last week, nine Christians were murdered because of their race in a brutal act of hatred not unlike what's going on in many parts of the world every day, and there was a momentary outpouring of sympathy. yesterday, the supreme court greenlit gay marriage in America, and we decided the end of western civilization is upon us and Jesus better come back soon to safely pluck us out of the imminent collapse of society. a sign that God will no longer favor America? or a sign that God no longer favors the church that would rather be a moral majority than a suffering servant?
For me this is a bitter sweet victory. My guy passed away last year from a horrible form of cancer. We had been together just a hair under 25 years. He's in a better place now and left this one knowing he was loved more than ever. We were unable to officially get married but we truly were in our hearts.
I don't why this was ever a debate at all. The United States of America is not a theocratic state...it should be a nation of laws, equally bestowed to all citizens. Legally, all a marriage was was a federally recognized contract between two consenting adults of the opposite sex that granted certain rights and privileges to both parties with agreed upon conditions, with both parties signing a contract and then have said contract made official by a state-licensed Notary. Why should that only be applied to heterosexuals? If a person also wants to be married "before God" then get married in a church that holds your theocratic viewpoint.
On the flip side, anyone who disagrees with the idea of homosexuality, or homosexual marriage, should not be labeled "homophobic". A person could find homosexuality morally objectionable but not treat a homosexual any different than anyone else. We have sexist and racist, we need a new "-ist" for homosexuality to define it as a prejudice. I, for one, don't approve of homosexuality but I don't hate them or treat them differently than anyone else, and legally I don't think they should be afforded any less rights than myself. If I have an opinion on a person, it's because of their personality. For instance I just think MEM is a dumbass because he is one, not because he's a dumb smelly homo (even though he probably is )
Yes, I personally detest people who are left-handed, too.
But I agree with your comments about theocracy. Marriage isn't exclusively a Christian institution. Nor is it exclusively a Muslim, Jewish, or Shinto institution. Its a legal institution.
I see Justice Scalia has been castigated by left-wing commentators for his dissent as being out-of-touch, and I think unfairly. I'm not naïve enough to think the judiciary doesn't have a political agenda on such issues, but reading Scalia's dissent, you get the impression that he thought he was doing the right thing in preserving a "government of laws and not a government of people".
His comments really came off as unnecessarily heated. He and his other two buddies will get what they deserve when they're looked at historically I think.
Thanks btw to everybody on the condolences. I know this isn't really the forum for it but with the supreme court coming down with this decision couldn't help sharing.
I don't why this was ever a debate at all. The United States of America is not a theocratic state...it should be a nation of laws, equally bestowed to all citizens. Legally, all a marriage was was a federally recognized contract between two consenting adults of the opposite sex that granted certain rights and privileges to both parties with agreed upon conditions, with both parties signing a contract and then have said contract made official by a state-licensed Notary. Why should that only be applied to heterosexuals? If a person also wants to be married "before God" then get married in a church that holds your theocratic viewpoint.
On the flip side, anyone who disagrees with the idea of homosexuality, or homosexual marriage, should not be labeled "homophobic". A person could find homosexuality morally objectionable but not treat a homosexual any different than anyone else. We have sexist and racist, we need a new "-ist" for homosexuality to define it as a prejudice. I, for one, don't approve of homosexuality but I don't hate them or treat them differently than anyone else, and legally I don't think they should be afforded any less rights than myself. If I have an opinion on a person, it's because of their personality. For instance I just think MEM is a dumbass because he is one, not because he's a dumb smelly homo (even though he probably is )
The second paragraph of your post is exactly the issue. It's not that gays can marry. It's the Political Correctness thought police, who make all dissent a crime. If it began and ended with gays doing whatever they want, even I would have no problem with it, despite my obviously not being a fan of gay marriage.
The huge problem is the criminalizing of all dissent, and forcing those who disagree (photographers, bakeries, and soon conservative churches and institutions) to participate in gay marriage against their will.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Yes, I personally detest people who are left-handed, too.
But I agree with your comments about theocracy. Marriage isn't exclusively a Christian institution. Nor is it exclusively a Muslim, Jewish, or Shinto institution. Its a legal institution.
I see Justice Scalia has been castigated by left-wing commentators for his dissent as being out-of-touch, and I think unfairly. I'm not naïve enough to think the judiciary doesn't have a political agenda on such issues, but reading Scalia's dissent, you get the impression that he thought he was doing the right thing in preserving a "government of laws and not a government of people".
But among all the religions you list, and even among agnostics and atheists who don't endorse gay marriage, there is a consensus that marriage is between a man and a woman.
More importantly, rather than letting both sides (gays and Christians/other religions) each practice what they believe, it forces Christians and those of other faiths to approve and participate in gay culture in diametric opposition to what they believe.
It's like forcing Jews and Muslims to eat pork. It's like forcing Muslims to draw cartoons of Mohammad. It uses public schools to indoctrinate all Christian children believe the opposite of what they are taught at home (i.e. Cultural Marxism)
It is tyranny of the American Left on everyone else. And gays will not stop there, the intrusions forced on conservatives will only increase.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Churches don't have to marry any heterosexual couples if they don't want too. That won't change with homosexual couples unless the church chooses to do them. This is fear mongering and that goes for the attempts to bring polygamy and incest into it ala G-man.
I see Justice Scalia has been castigated by left-wing commentators for his dissent as being out-of-touch, and I think unfairly. I'm not naïve enough to think the judiciary doesn't have a political agenda on such issues, but reading Scalia's dissent, you get the impression that he thought he was doing the right thing in preserving a "government of laws and not a government of people".
Indeed. His point was ultimately that the country was doing just fine debating same-sex marriagebefore the court trampled all over the process.
"Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best...The substance of today's decree is not of immense personal importance to me...It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today's decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court."
"Give up young Skywalker, turn to the Dark Side and take it up the ass!"
Charles Krauthammer explains to O'Reilly (June 29, 2015, Monday) how the Supreme Court ruling for gay marriage undermines the rule of law, and undermines American culture, leveraging secularism.
"March through the cultural institutions" = Cultural Marxism.
I see Justice Scalia has been castigated by left-wing commentators for his dissent as being out-of-touch, and I think unfairly. I'm not naïve enough to think the judiciary doesn't have a political agenda on such issues, but reading Scalia's dissent, you get the impression that he thought he was doing the right thing in preserving a "government of laws and not a government of people".
Indeed. His point was ultimately that the country was doing just fine debating same-sex marriagebefore the court trampled all over the process.
"Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best...The substance of today's decree is not of immense personal importance to me...It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today's decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court."
If he had stood on principle I could respect that but his record doesn't match his words. He's the worst kind of hypocrite. When the decision doesn't go the way he he wants than he essentially throws a tantrum and attacks the court.
)
