Reconstructionist89 Posted July 1, 2015 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 33 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 31 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/30/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted July 1, 2015 This is a post on my blog giving a biblical analysis of the reasoning and logic behind the Supreme Courts ruling on gay marriage. Click the link and it will be first article on the page. Thank you and any feedback whether positive or negative is appreciated. For we are all brothers and sisters in Christ and should be as iron sharpening iron. Reconstructionist89.wordpress.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FresnoJoe Posted July 2, 2015 Group: Graduated to Heaven Followers: 207 Topic Count: 60 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 8,651 Content Per Day: 1.17 Reputation: 5,761 Days Won: 4 Joined: 01/31/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/04/1943 Share Posted July 2, 2015 This is a post on my blog giving a biblical analysis of the reasoning and logic behind the Supreme Courts ruling on gay marriage. Click the link and it will be first article on the page. Thank you and any feedback whether positive or negative is appreciated. For we are all brothers and sisters in Christ and should be as iron sharpening iron. Reconstructionist89.wordpress.com The Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. The LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.” But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD. Genesis 6:5-8 (NASB) Rainbow Then God said, “I am giving you a sign of my covenant with you and with all living creatures, for all generations to come. I have placed my rainbow in the clouds. It is the sign of my covenant with you and with all the earth. When I send clouds over the earth, the rainbow will appear in the clouds, and I will remember my covenant with you and with all living creatures. Never again will the floodwaters destroy all life. When I see the rainbow in the clouds, I will remember the eternal covenant between God and every living creature on earth.” Then God said to Noah, “Yes, this rainbow is the sign of the covenant I am confirming with all the creatures on earth.” Genesis 9:12-17 (NLT) And The 14th Amendment Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. Romans 12:16 (ESV) 14th Amendment The Fourteenth Amendment addresses many aspects of citizenship and the rights of citizens. The most commonly used -- and frequently litigated -- phrase in the amendment is "equal protection of the laws", which figures prominently in a wide variety of landmark cases, including Brown v. Board of Education (racial discrimination), Roe v. Wade (reproductive rights), Bush v. Gore (election recounts), Reed v. Reed (gender discrimination), and University of California v. Bakke (racial quotas in education). See more... Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state. Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FresnoJoe Posted July 2, 2015 Group: Graduated to Heaven Followers: 207 Topic Count: 60 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 8,651 Content Per Day: 1.17 Reputation: 5,761 Days Won: 4 Joined: 01/31/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/04/1943 Share Posted July 2, 2015 yeshua didn't say to trust the government, nor to agree with it; mostly obey as able, to be at peace with all men. yahweh warned israel they would suffer for wanting a government like other (gentile/pagan/heathen nations).... and they did... same with the untied states, for deserting (turning away from ) yahweh and his leadership/directions. man's ways are not yahweh's ways. "man does what he thinks is right, that leads to death...." "they all did what was right in their own eyes" (instead of obeying the creator) see in scripture what yahweh did. But Peter and the apostles replied, “We must obey God rather than any human authority. The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the dead after you killed him by hanging him on a cross. Then God put him in the place of honor at his right hand as Prince and Savior. He did this so the people of Israel would repent of their sins and be forgiven. We are witnesses of these things and so is the Holy Spirit, who is given by God to those who obey him.” When they heard this, the high council was furious and decided to kill them. But one member, a Pharisee named Gamaliel, who was an expert in religious law and respected by all the people, stood up and ordered that the men be sent outside the council chamber for a while. Then he said to his colleagues, “Men of Israel, take care what you are planning to do to these men! Some time ago there was that fellow Theudas, who pretended to be someone great. About 400 others joined him, but he was killed, and all his followers went their various ways. The whole movement came to nothing. After him, at the time of the census, there was Judas of Galilee. He got people to follow him, but he was killed, too, and all his followers were scattered. “So my advice is, leave these men alone. Let them go. If they are planning and doing these things merely on their own, it will soon be overthrown. But if it is from God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You may even find yourselves fighting against God!” The others accepted his advice. They called in the apostles and had them flogged. Then they ordered them never again to speak in the name of Jesus, and they let them go. Acts 5:29-40 (NIT) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tristen Posted July 3, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 9 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,377 Content Per Day: 0.63 Reputation: 1,353 Days Won: 1 Joined: 01/26/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted July 3, 2015 Hi Reconstructionist, Quoting the article; “The Supreme court’s decision to re-define marriage on the basis of equal human rights” The logic behind this reasoning is specious. Firstly, marriage is not, and has never been a human right. No single (i.e. uncoupled) person can demand of the state their right to the provision of a spouse. Children can’t be married. Married people can’t be married again etc. To claim marriage is a human right for homosexual couples also presumes the new definition (in the absence of debate). If traditional (i.e. heterosexual) marriage is a right, then it is not denied to homosexuals – any homosexual man can marry a woman, and any homosexual woman can marry a man. They are not denied the right to marry under the traditional definition, they simply don’t want to. What they want is to redefine the term so that they can apply it to their own relationships. Secondly, the way to achieve true equality would have been to legislate an alternate institution; one providing equal state rights to committed homosexual couples, as to married couples. The purpose of redefining marriage is to promote ‘sameness’, NOT equality – i.e. to force the world to apply the same social recognition to homosexual couples that we apply to married couples. That is, redefining marriage is an attempt to use legislation to manipulate how we think – NOT to provide equality. The only sense in which equality may be achieved through redefining marriage is by the removal of the entity that earned the social recognition to begin with; that is, by replacing the sacred institution of traditional marriage with a newly-formed, state administered, paper contract. So now all couples are equal in the sight of the state – but none are special or sacred. After all, if something can mean whatever contemporary society chooses, then it has no intrinsic meaning of its own; it can no longer be considered sacred or special. “Pluralism is a myth” Pluralism is not a myth, but a faith. It assumes that all faith perspectives are equally valid; even when they exist in logical contradiction. There is no objective reason to prefer pluralism over any other system of faith. So if pluralism is the motive, then we merely have one faith perspective being preferred over others (which is ironically, anti-pluralistic). “I admit, I have presuppositions” Regardless of presupposition, there is a solution that achieves equality of opportunity whilst preserving the sanctity of marriage. That is, to legislate the existence of a state contract which provides equal state benefits to, and state recognition of, homosexual couples – as are currently available to married couples. Marriage itself remains untouched. Rejection of this solution is an admission that equality is not the goal, but sameness (as explained above). “By assuming man to be a law unto himself, he therefore presupposes that knowledge of right and wrong can be determined without reference to the metaphysical realm” My solution doesn’t require an appeal to right and wrong or the metaphysical; only the recognition that homosexuality is different to heterosexuality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollkiller Posted July 4, 2015 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 249 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/07/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted July 4, 2015 It's all our fault here in Ireland, we passed the referendum on gay marriage a few weeks ago and now everyone is just copying us. You'll never guess what happened they day after the bill passed. Nothing. The sun still rose in the morning and it was exactly the same as any other day. The only difference was some people who loved each other who until now weren't allowed get married now can just like all us hetrosexual people. Secondly, the way to achieve true equality would have been to legislate an alternate institution; one providing equal state rights to committed homosexual couples, as to married couples. The purpose of redefining marriage is to promote ‘sameness’, NOT equality – i.e. to force the world to apply the same social recognition to homosexual couples that we apply to married couples. That is, redefining marriage is an attempt to use legislation to manipulate how we think – NOT to provide equality. Equality to me is letting everyone access the same services regardless of creed, colour or race. Your reasoning of setting up a different institution dosen't seem equal to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FresnoJoe Posted July 4, 2015 Group: Graduated to Heaven Followers: 207 Topic Count: 60 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 8,651 Content Per Day: 1.17 Reputation: 5,761 Days Won: 4 Joined: 01/31/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/04/1943 Share Posted July 4, 2015 It's all our fault here in Ireland, we passed the referendum on gay marriage a few weeks ago and now everyone is just copying us.... You'll never guess what happened they day after the bill passed. Nothing.... The sun still rose in the morning and it was exactly the same as any other day.... The only difference was some people who loved each other who until now weren't allowed get married now can just like all us heterosexual people.... Yeap~! Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed quickly, therefore the hearts of the sons of men among them are given fully to do evil. Ecclesiastes 8:11 (NASB) Yawn The sky was split apart like a scroll when it is rolled up, and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. Then the kings of the earth and the great men and the commanders and the rich and the strong and every slave and free man hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains; and they said to the mountains and to the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb; for the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?” Revelation 6:14-17 (NASB) Yawn.... Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it. Isaiah 5:14 (KJV) ~ Believe But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8 And Be Blessed Beloved Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? John 11:25-26 Love, Your Brother Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayin jade Posted July 4, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 44 Topic Count: 6,178 Topics Per Day: 0.87 Content Count: 43,795 Content Per Day: 6.20 Reputation: 11,243 Days Won: 58 Joined: 01/03/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted July 4, 2015 It's all our fault here in Ireland, we passed the referendum on gay marriage a few weeks ago and now everyone is just copying us. You'll never guess what happened they day after the bill passed. Nothing. The sun still rose in the morning and it was exactly the same as any other day. The only difference was some people who loved each other who until now weren't allowed get married now can just like all us hetrosexual people. Secondly, the way to achieve true equality would have been to legislate an alternate institution; one providing equal state rights to committed homosexual couples, as to married couples. The purpose of redefining marriage is to promote ‘sameness’, NOT equality – i.e. to force the world to apply the same social recognition to homosexual couples that we apply to married couples. That is, redefining marriage is an attempt to use legislation to manipulate how we think – NOT to provide equality. Equality to me is letting everyone access the same services regardless of creed, colour or race. Your reasoning of setting up a different institution dosen't seem equal to me. Have you had gays suing Christian businesses and forcing them to close? That is what has been happening over here so far, and what will be happening more and more now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tristen Posted July 4, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 9 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,377 Content Per Day: 0.63 Reputation: 1,353 Days Won: 1 Joined: 01/26/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted July 4, 2015 It's all our fault here in Ireland, we passed the referendum on gay marriage a few weeks ago and now everyone is just copying us. You'll never guess what happened they day after the bill passed. Nothing. The sun still rose in the morning and it was exactly the same as any other day. The only difference was some people who loved each other who until now weren't allowed get married now can just like all us hetrosexual people. Secondly, the way to achieve true equality would have been to legislate an alternate institution; one providing equal state rights to committed homosexual couples, as to married couples. The purpose of redefining marriage is to promote ‘sameness’, NOT equality – i.e. to force the world to apply the same social recognition to homosexual couples that we apply to married couples. That is, redefining marriage is an attempt to use legislation to manipulate how we think – NOT to provide equality. Equality to me is letting everyone access the same services regardless of creed, colour or race. Your reasoning of setting up a different institution dosen't seem equal to me. Hi Ollkiller, If the legislation provides identical benefits to committed homosexual couples as it does to married couples, then both institutions “have access to the same [state] services”. That is equality. So replacing traditional marriage is unnecessary to achieve equality. The social recognition of homosexual relationships is not, and never will be, elevated to that of traditional marriage. All redefining marriage achieves is the removal of any legitimate social recognition associated with the term “marriage” – due to the removal of the entity that earned that social recognition. The only reason my solution “doesn’t seem equal” to you is because you want more than equality, you want sameness. But pursuing sameness involves manipulating how people think – attempting to erase any traditional distinction between homosexual and heterosexual commitments. It is an attempt to legislate against freedom of thought. Your statement that “some people who loved each other who until now weren't allowed get married now can just like all us hetrosexual people” demonstrates that you are presuming the legitimacy of the new definition – without the need to provide supporting justification. As is common in leftist reasoning - simply assume that you are correct and everyone who dares to disagree with you must be some kind of bigot – probably a religious bigot. And therefore you feel justified in making such statements without being obligated to provide any supporting argument – or even having to engage in rational debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollkiller Posted July 4, 2015 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 249 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/07/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted July 4, 2015 It's all our fault here in Ireland, we passed the referendum on gay marriage a few weeks ago and now everyone is just copying us. You'll never guess what happened they day after the bill passed. Nothing. The sun still rose in the morning and it was exactly the same as any other day. The only difference was some people who loved each other who until now weren't allowed get married now can just like all us hetrosexual people. Secondly, the way to achieve true equality would have been to legislate an alternate institution; one providing equal state rights to committed homosexual couples, as to married couples. The purpose of redefining marriage is to promote ‘sameness’, NOT equality – i.e. to force the world to apply the same social recognition to homosexual couples that we apply to married couples. That is, redefining marriage is an attempt to use legislation to manipulate how we think – NOT to provide equality. Equality to me is letting everyone access the same services regardless of creed, colour or race. Your reasoning of setting up a different institution dosen't seem equal to me. Have you had gays suing Christian businesses and forcing them to close? That is what has been happening over here so far, and what will be happening more and more now. We had a case in Northern Ireland where a gay couple sued a cake business for not supplying them their cake as the owners said there lifestyle was against their religion. They won. Funnily enough Gluttony is a sin but i didn't see them refusing fat people their bit of cake. Now if i owned a business i'd like to think i could serve whoever i wanted but it's a slippery slope. For instance could an Israeli not serve Palestinian people etc etc. Slippery slope as i said. What instances are you talking about when you say they are suing businesses in America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollkiller Posted July 5, 2015 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 249 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/07/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted July 5, 2015 It's all our fault here in Ireland, we passed the referendum on gay marriage a few weeks ago and now everyone is just copying us. You'll never guess what happened they day after the bill passed. Nothing. The sun still rose in the morning and it was exactly the same as any other day. The only difference was some people who loved each other who until now weren't allowed get married now can just like all us hetrosexual people. Secondly, the way to achieve true equality would have been to legislate an alternate institution; one providing equal state rights to committed homosexual couples, as to married couples. The purpose of redefining marriage is to promote ‘sameness’, NOT equality – i.e. to force the world to apply the same social recognition to homosexual couples that we apply to married couples. That is, redefining marriage is an attempt to use legislation to manipulate how we think – NOT to provide equality. Equality to me is letting everyone access the same services regardless of creed, colour or race. Your reasoning of setting up a different institution dosen't seem equal to me. Hi Ollkiller, 1. If the legislation provides identical benefits to committed homosexual couples as it does to married couples, then both institutions “have access to the same [state] services”. That is equality. So replacing traditional marriage is unnecessary to achieve equality. The social recognition of homosexual relationships is not, and never will be, elevated to that of traditional marriage. All redefining marriage achieves is the removal of any legitimate social recognition associated with the term “marriage” – due to the removal of the entity that earned that social recognition. 2. The only reason my solution “doesn’t seem equal” to you is because you want more than equality, you want sameness. But pursuing sameness involves manipulating how people think – attempting to erase any traditional distinction between homosexual and heterosexual commitments. It is an attempt to legislate against freedom of thought. 3. Your statement that “some people who loved each other who until now weren't allowed get married now can just like all us hetrosexual people” demonstrates that you are presuming the legitimacy of the new definition – without the need to provide supporting justification. As is common in leftist reasoning - simply assume that you are correct and everyone who dares to disagree with you must be some kind of bigot – probably a religious bigot. And therefore you feel justified in making such statements without being obligated to provide any supporting argument – or even having to engage in rational debate. I've edited your post just to put in point 1,2,3 so you can see what i'm replying to as i haven't figured out how to split the quote function 1. They would get the same rights all right if the legislation provided for it but, in my mind it's still not equal. Theres no need to seperate the two. Marriage is marrigae. Now of course it is marriage in the secular sense as in a government contract. The Catholic church isn't going to start performing homosexual marriage in Ireland. Next you say the social recognition of homosexual relationships will never be elevate to that of traditional marriage. That all depends on your viewpoint. To me and lots of people i know a gay married couple we would view the exact same as a hetrosexual married couple. Religious people of course wouldn't view them the same. Saying that it's amazing the amount of devout religious people here in Ireland actually voted Yes. It's easier for gay people to come out now and once a father or mother knows one of the offspring or near relation is gay their attitude to gay marriage usually changes. 2. If you knew me at all you would quickly realise that i am abhorrent to sameness. If we were all the same it would get boring very very quickly. If your implying that i want the same rights for both types of couples then you are correct. I don't think there should be any distinction between homosexual and hetrosexual commitments. Obviously you would disagree. See both of us have freedom of thought on the issue. I don't agree with your view but i'll defend your right to hold that view. 3. Nowhere did i call you a bigot or imply your a bigot. Also i'm leftist on some issues and hard hard right on other issues. What supporting argument to i have to provide about my statement. I said gay people could now marry the same as hetro couples. Don't see what supporting of that statement i have to provide as it's a factual statement. As for the last part aren't we engaging in rational debate now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts