Now that we're back in power, can we turn the tide on the war on marriage?

You do not have a right to dictate marriage rights. That is fascism in it's purest.

 

and neither do you, That's pure Nazism to tell me what a marriage is since 98% of the rest of the world disagrees with you

 

False. If you would actually read the scripture I provided you. Jesus references THREE different types of eunuchs. One of which is the eunuch who was made a eunuch by someone else... that's the traditional meaning of eunuch. Another is a eunuch who made HIMSELF a eunuch... meaning he's celibate. And the third is a eunuch who was born such from their mother's womb. Now you may want to claim that's a "birth defect" but the statistical probability of someone being born without testicles is less than 1/10 of 1% of the population. To assert Jesus is talking about people born without testicles... not only flies in the face of statistical probability but of basic logic.

Why would the person with the birth defect be better off not to marry? The ONLY rational conclusion one can come to if they accept that premise is that they're not capable of procreating which is an imperative part of the marriage paradigm which would STILL mean that homosexuals would be better off not to marry a female.

But regardless, Jesus made it UNDENIABLY clear that he marriage is between a MALE AND FEMALE. I'm sorry you don't like that.

You have no idea what you're talking about do you? Judgment refers to telling them they're going to hell. We can't tell the homosexual (or anyone else for that matter) that they're going to hell because we don't know their heart and whether or not tomorrow that homosexual is going to repent of their sin and never do it again. And if he does so, then he will see the kingdom of heaven. So we can't judge by telling an individual that they're going to hell.

However, with that being said, we have every right and in fact we have an OBLIGATION to tell the individual who is engaging in homosexuality (or any other sin) that their behavior is sinful and that sin will send someone to hell. Jesus did it over and over and over and over again. Jesus told us to do so as well.

 

I'm not telling anyone to ignore context. I'm claiming that within the context of one answer there can be multiple issues addressed. You don't want it to be addressed because you don't like the implications of what it means.

Because while Jesus says that a homosexual male can get married, he makes it clear that it must be within the confines of the marriage paradigm he references one verse earlier. Furthermore, the quote was originally provided to show the other person that Jesus spoke about homosexuality.

No see that's where you're wrong. There IS a right answer. Truth is not subjective. If I make a claim about something Jesus said and you make a contradictory claim about the same saying... there are only 3 possible answers. Either I'm right and you're wrong. Or you're right and I'm wrong... or we're both wrong. But we both CANNOT be right. That is an impossibility.

As I've stated before, given that undeniable truth, I believe that the bible is logical and that an interpretation can either be proven or disproven through context and cross referencing. The fact that you're incapable of providing evidence for your interpretation elsewhere simply shows that your interpretation MUST be wrong.

No Jesus told them that they CAN divorce for sexual immorality. But regardless you ignore his reasoning as to why. Jesus' reasoning as to WHY they get married is because God made them male and female. Now is there ANYTHING, ANYWHERE in the ENTIRE bible from genesis to revelation that would indicate that God EVER made them "male and male" or "female and female"? If not, then the interpretation that Jesus is ONLY discussing the heterosexual marriage paradigm is ludicrous.

The reason it's ludicrous is because put that question to Jesus referring to a homosexual couple. If he provided the EXACT same answer that they can get divorced because of sexual orientation... he could NOT provide the same REASONING for why that's the case. He could not then come back and say "Have you not heard that God made them male and male?".

Therefore, your interpretation that Jesus is only responding to a narrow question and that I'm just being a bigot by claiming the more expansive interpretation is wrong.

 

But that's not what the definition of marriage said. The definition of marriage said that one man and one woman can get married. If they can simply change the definition of the word to fit their particular perversion and claim its to prevent discrimination, then why can't every other pervert do the same?

Neither of which was occurring.

Discrimination based upon gender would be saying that a man and a man can get married but a woman and a woman cannot get married.

Discrimination based upon sexual orientation is saying that the only valid marriage is one under the heterosexual paradigm (male and female).

But why can't that be changed? The definition of marriage was that one male and one female can get married. The homosexuals changed it now to one male and one male or one female and one female or one male and one female can get married.

Why can't the polygamists change it to say any amount of males and any amount of females can get married?

I mean, you wouldn't want to deny them their right to marry the ones they love would you?

 

No no no... incest does NOT lead to genetic issues all the time. Only in some cases and in fact a relatively small minority of cases. While the risk is higher than in non-incestuous couples... it's still relatively low.

Are we advocating for discriminating against the whole because of the POTENTIAL for negative effects? If so then we need to get back to talking about homosexuality.

 

I'm of the opinion that government ought to get out of the marriage game entirely. There are only a few legitimate state interests in marriage: the extension of certain tax benefits, and the establishment of certain legal institutions (for instance, your spouse being able to make medical and legal decisions on your behalf if you are incapacitated).

As to the first, I don't see why the government should reward a decision that actually increases taxpayer burden. People should be taxed as individuals, not as family units, and there is no logical reason to provide special benefits to those who decide to have a family or get married.

As to the second, that can be handled using other contractual means.

That said, if the government is going to be involved in marriage, it is clear to anyone with a lick of sense that it ought not concern itself with how marriage has traditionally been defined, but should instead reflect the reality of all citizens, irrespective of their religious or social opinions. I see absolutely no reason to deny a marriage license to an incestuous or polygamous couple. Of course I'm not a sexually moralizing dickhole - beyond making sure consent is real and informed, I could care less what people do in the bedroom.

 

if a man can marry a women and a women can't do the same thing, that is gender discrimination

there is no group today that can marry more then one person, I just gave an example of where a man can marry a women, thus a women should be able to do the same... equal rights, not addl rights

.

 

I certainly know that no matter how you want to spin it, the bible says not to judge others.

Romans 2:1-5English Standard Version (ESV)

God's Righteous Judgment
2 Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. 2 We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. 3 Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? 5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.

In other words, quit trying to do God's job and concentrate on your own salvation.

 

I certainly know that no matter how you want to spin it, the bible says not to judge others.

Romans 2:1-5English Standard Version (ESV)

God's Righteous Judgment
2 Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. 2 We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. 3 Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? 5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.

 

now, just a couple of posts back, you declared the OT to be outdated and replaced with a New Covenant, now we're back to the OT?
God has already declared those who practice homosexuality to be abominations. I'd say I'm just backing what He said up.........
Ergo, they are abominations.

 

Romans is new testament.

 

This nation faces tremendous economic problems, fiscal problems, so why don't we forget about these superficial issues for awhile and concentrate on our real problems. These distractions in social issues will not serve the republican party at all. We need to get our priorities into a sane list, and you don't go after gay marriage when the house is burning. Obviously you must have a job.

 

the NTO does not replace the OT. They are still abominations. They constitute about 2% of the world's population. They are an aberration, a pimple. IMO, they should be treated accordingly.

 

Just like those who eat shellfish or pork, right?

God spoke of the coming of the Savior and the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34
Jeremiah 31:31-34English Standard Version (ESV)

The New Covenant
31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

In Luke 22:20 Jesus confirms that he is the New Covenant from God: Luke 22:20
Embed

20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenantd in my blood, which is poured out for you.


Now take a step back and let Jesus handle Judgements.

 

The answer to your question is simply NO, you cannot. The elections did not give you that mandate nor do the majority of Americans support your war on gays. Reality must really bite for you.

- - - Updated - - -

LOVE IT, Always good when one of the Far Right shows their true colors and inner class for all to see. Psssst, it is 2014.

 

I believe we should ban frivolity in legal venues.

 

here's the deal. Christ cam back to show us a way to the FAther. Prior to Jesus, there was no way for redemption. When Christ died on the cross and was reborn, al those lost souls that were sentenced to eternal Hell were allowed to stand before God and be forgiven. The OT still stands because it is God's Word.
Christ has given you salvation, but it is on God's terms. You can repent and give up your sinning against God's Word or live in Hell for eternity.
But if you seek forgiveness from God, through Christ, you must still give up the sinful ways and repent.
Nope, if I follow your pre-school analogy, then we are no longer born with the original sin, and God is irrelevant.
You either believe or not..... There's no half-shot methods here.......

 

Bearing in mind that from a societal perspective marriage is about children first and foremost, such concerns are trivial compared to the necessity of providing a civil means of resolving custody disputes when marriages fall asunder before their time. This being the case, anyone who proposes to eliminate government involvement in marriage needs to provide a practical alternative.

You couldn't get further from the truth if you tried. Bearing in mind that the value of the traditional definition of marriage lies not in its history but in its conformance with natural law as it applies to human beings, it's clear to anyone with a lick of sense that no just government would ignore that definition, since any other definition is insane, and since the last thing justice can tolerate is insanity.

Maybe not, but you are a de facto advocate for child abuse. Enjoy.

 

From a "societal perspective?" You mean from your perspective. More and more people view marriage as completely unrelated to procreation, as is obvious to anyone who pays attention to birth rates, or even just gets out of their basement to talk with people about it. The practical alternative is prenuptial agreements that define what obligations each party to the marriage contract has.

"Natural law?" Oh, tell me, what does "natural law" say about the definition of marriage? Let me guess, it embodies your opinion, and nobody elses. Perhaps you'd care to link me to this law? Where can I read it?

A de facto advocate of child abuse? You're hilarious. Children can't consent, and therefore can't engage in sexual relations with those who can. Are there any other hilariously wrongheaded ideas you'd like to share?

 

You realize that Paul was referring to a SPECIFIC sin that those people were committing. He makes the assertion that if you're committing the same sin as someone else, you have no right to judge that person because you're doing the exact same thing. Regardless, judgment is about telling someone to go to hell, not telling someone they're committing sin.

If telling someone they're committing sin is judgment then EVERY SINGLE ONE of the disciples and Jesus Christ himself engaged in judgment without exception. Your "logic" is exceedingly specious.

 

No, I mean what I said. Of course I'm taking about a just society, but since you are clearly oblivious to justice anyway my failure to be specific in that regard is trivial.

And not coincidentally, more and more people are becoming selfish degenerates.

Actually there is no reason to believe that would do anything but increase government involvement, but any elaboration would be wasted on you.

It says marriage is between a man and a woman. You're welcome.

Yes, an "opinion" that happens to be perfectly consistent with objective reality.

Dunno who in Hell you think you're kidding, pilgrim.

It's accessible to every human worthy of the name without so much as millionth of the effort required for a mouse click; but most people of your mindset will spend the remainder of their life energy avoiding it like the plague.

Even if the last sentence were true, anyone who isn't an imbecile knows there are innumerable avenues of child abuse aside from sexual molestation.

 

What an adorable compilation of nonsense.

"More and more people are becoming selfish degenerates," and yet all violent and non-violent crime has been trending downwards for thirty years. If this is what becoming selfish degenerates looks like, we ought to really do it more often.

Government has always been involved in settling contract disputes, which is absolutely fine. What it shouldn't be involved in is discriminating who gets to sign them, beyond ensuring that each party is capable of consenting, and that the terms themselves are not flagrantly illegal. And I'm quite sure that your decision to not elaborate revolves almost entirely around inability rather than desire.

The truth is that "natural law" doesn't exist, has never existed, and is instead a convenient appeal for the mentally infirm. It has no objective basis in reality, nor could it, as the law is something to be decided democratically or not at all.

As for the other "avenues" of child abuse, did you have any evidence that homosexuals are more likely to commit physical or mental violence towards children? Or was this just another insight handed down to you by magical "natural law?"

 

To be sure, Americans can be a perfectly manageable herd of Eloi given an uninterrupted supply of drugs, be they prescription, chemical or otherwise.

This proposition will, of course, be wholeheartedly embraced by hellbound degenerates, but not by anyone else.

Any discussion with you along those lines would be pointless. I will observe, however, that if you're a parent, you have almost certainly abused your child mentally, imagining to this day that said abuse was an act of love; and this is a perfectly reasonable surmise since what you do springs from what you believe, and what you claim to believe is most charitably described as glaring insanity.

 

Yeah okay bud.