Guest Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 The argument is that because there is supposed to be equal protection under the law, that means that if two heterosexuals can marry, two homosexuals must be allowed to marry each other. You can use the same argument to defend any type of marriage, once marriage is re-defined. If it is no longer the union of a man and a woman, it can be anything anyone wants. Why not a man and a dog? How about a case like that basketball player that wanted to marry himself? What about the man that falls in love with a 15 year old girl? He can't help it if he falls in love with someone considered under age. What about the brother who falls in love with his sister? The heart wants what the heart wants. Anything goes. Under the law as it has stood all these years, marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Any man can marry nearly any woman, with a couple of exceptions like age or a case of incest. Equal protection already existed based on the accepted definition of marriage. In order to force gay marriage on us, they are re-defining the definition of marriage. It is not about equal protection at all. It is about creating a new right, while taking away the rights of others. Because of anti-discrimination laws, the government forces people to violate their conscience and accept homosexual couples, even if it goes against their religion. Gay marriage has been legal in 37 states prior to today's ruling. How many of those have examples of people marrying dogs or children or themselves? Are you for or against gay marriage? I would never marry a gay person. Gay marriage goes against God's word. The United States is not a theology, thus our laws are not bases upon God's word. A gentleman I work with is gay and there is no legitimate legal reason he and is partner should be denied the same benefits that my wife and I enjoy. The civil benefits such as social security benefits, visitation rights, property transfer rights, tax filing categories and more have nothing to do with religious beliefs or God's word. You didn't answer the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 So what will happen next. Will the churches be forced to marry. In the states where this was already legal this was not happening, why would that happen now. Back in the 80's when the gay movement went public, they swore up and down that they had "no agenda." Now we see what their agenda was - the acceptance of the LGBT lifestyle and the legalization of gay marriage. Now that they have accomplished this, the next logical step is to force those who disagree to participate in their depravity. As distasteful as it is from a religious standpoint, it is the correct decision legally. If Social Security benefits, property rights, hospital visitation rights, tax filing status, and other legal issues are all tied to martial status there is no legal reason to deny those based upon our religious views. Religion has nothing to do with it. We are not of this world, we are just in it until we are removed by the Lord. While I agree that this is not a battle that we, as believers, can win, it is not an issue that we should just accept and ignore. GOD made HIS legal system, and that is the one we are to follow. Not some man made system that is devised to oppose GOD's stated will. God's legal system does not seem to address the civil issues listed above. No offense, but have you read the Bible lately? GOD, in the OT, and Christ in the NT, said that homosexuality is an abomination. A sin is a sin, no matter what "civil" remedy that man comes up with to justify or ligitimize something. Social justice Christianity is a cop-out. I know I am getting older and my memory is going, but I am very certain I did not say homosexuality was not a sin. So, no offense, but try reading what I wrote instead of making it up. And from reading what I wrote, I never accused you for saying anything like that. Your responses are based on some sense of social justice, some human moral equivalency between GOD's system of moral instruction and man's decision to go against that in order to ligitimize and reward immorality. GOD's Word does address the civil issues listed above. Thus my referral to Scripture to find such instructions. Please show me the scriptures that speak of social security benefits, or hospital visitation, or property ownership rights or tax filing statuses. And after that show me which of my words you took to mean I basing my view on social justice. I'm not going to do the work that you need to do to find, in the Bible, where GOD gives His Law and Ordanances regarding marriage, inheritance, and the treatment of spouses. As to your second request - I quote "As distasteful as it is from a religious standpoint, it is the correct decision legally. If Social Security benefits, property rights, hospital visitation rights, tax filing status, and other legal issues are all tied to martial status there is no legal reason to deny those based upon our religious views.." I'll repeat BoPeep's question: do you support or oppose gay marriage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 My objection to gay marriage Uncertain, is anti-discrimination laws being applied to homosexual couples. The government is using that to infringe on the rights of people that object to catering homosexual weddings, making wedding cakes for gay couples, doing the photography for gay weddings and performing homosexual weddings. I also object on the grounds there is no Constitutional right for homosexuals to marry and the people in individual states should be able to decide for themselves whether to allow it or not. Where do you stand on polygamy Uncertain? Mormons have been denied equal protection since the mid 1800s. How about incestuous marriages? Where is there equal protection? What about a man marrying a female robot? They are called Dutch wives, and are becoming popular in some countries. Should they have equal protection? These events are a prime exaqmple of the violation of "State's Rights" by the Federal Government. The last time this happened on such a grand scale caused a war. Guess which one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted June 27, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 599 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,275 Content Per Day: 7.55 Reputation: 28,008 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted June 27, 2015 As distasteful as it is from a religious standpoint, it is the correct decision legally. If Social Security benefits, property rights, hospital visitation rights, tax filing status, and other legal issues are all tied to martial status there is no legal reason to deny those based upon our religious views. civil unions would have accomplished that, but that wasn't good enough for them..... marriage did not have to be messed with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted June 27, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 599 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,275 Content Per Day: 7.55 Reputation: 28,008 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted June 27, 2015 Now that the progressives have won everything they have dreamed of, what is next for the rest of us? This is as low as it gets, has the US finally hit rock bottom, or are we still bracing for impact? When the people no longer have a voice, what will be their recourse? they haven't got our guns yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted June 27, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 599 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,275 Content Per Day: 7.55 Reputation: 28,008 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted June 27, 2015 We won't have to deal with any of this when God lets the Muslim Brotherhood take over and instill Sharia Law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayin jade Posted June 27, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 44 Topic Count: 6,178 Topics Per Day: 0.87 Content Count: 43,800 Content Per Day: 6.19 Reputation: 11,246 Days Won: 58 Joined: 01/03/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted June 27, 2015 Some are defending the gay marriage decision claiming that homosexual couples have been denied rights afforded to heterosexual couples, like that is a bad thing. Thats just the excuse they gave to force folks to accept their lifestyle. As we can see from the attacks on Christians over this, its about forcing people to accept their lifestyle, not about having the right to marry or having equal rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayin jade Posted June 27, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 44 Topic Count: 6,178 Topics Per Day: 0.87 Content Count: 43,800 Content Per Day: 6.19 Reputation: 11,246 Days Won: 58 Joined: 01/03/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted June 27, 2015 http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-lit-rainbow-colors-supreme-court-ruling-011752467--politics.html Thats just so wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted June 27, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 27 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,722 Content Per Day: 2.45 Reputation: 8,537 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted June 27, 2015 The gay rights thing doesn't bother me as much as how it was done. I'm sorry but homosexuality is already rampant as is other sins, we were at Sodom and gamorrah stage long ago, legalizing gay marriage doesn't make a difference one way or another as far as that's going to be concerned. Illegalizing it doesn't make gay couples any less gay, or any less sinful. What bothers me is the way it was done. The supreme Court has no authority to make law, just to decide if what comes out of the other two branches is legal or not. This is something that should have either been left to the state-or if it had to be at a federal level, gone through Congress and signed by the President. The fact the supreme Court bypassed Congress and is making law is nothing short of tyranny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncertain Posted June 27, 2015 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 239 Content Per Day: 0.07 Reputation: 226 Days Won: 2 Joined: 06/02/2015 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/20/1959 Share Posted June 27, 2015 The gay rights thing doesn't bother me as much as how it was done. I'm sorry but homosexuality is already rampant as is other sins, we were at Sodom and gamorrah stage long ago, legalizing gay marriage doesn't make a difference one way or another as far as that's going to be concerned. Illegalizing it doesn't make gay couples any less gay, or any less sinful. What bothers me is the way it was done. The supreme Court has no authority to make law, just to decide if what comes out of the other two branches is legal or not. This is something that should have either been left to the state-or if it had to be at a federal level, gone through Congress and signed by the President. The fact the supreme Court bypassed Congress and is making law is nothing short of tyranny. What law did the Supreme Court make? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts