Should the government prohibit same-sex marriage?

[Baptist Believer]

Was the federal government not in such a role when Utah applied for statehood?

The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act specifically targeting Mormons was passed in 1862 that banned bigamy in federal territories. It was challenged by the Mormons, eventually resulting in the Supreme Court case decided in Reynolds v. United States in 1879.

To be recognized as a state, Utah was forced to define marriage as between one man and one woman only.

No, that's not quite right. The law and the resulting legal cases were tightly focused on banning the polygamy among Mormons. Mormons were not to commit bigamy, that is, they could not be married to more than one person at a time. The focus of the law and the Supreme Court decision was polygamy and whether or not the Mormons' religious liberty rights could supersede laws against bigamy. These cases were not concerned with the genders of the persons being married.

I think the fed has been defining marriage for a long time.

Most of the laws that built up around marriage had to do with inheritance and monogamous relationships, that is, one had to be divorced before marrying another. So yes, in a sense, they defined marriage, but they did not specifically ban citizens from getting married.

 

[Baptist Believer]

No constitutional government has ever been overthrown or its provisions ditched?

Your train of logic has derailed.

Yeshua1 made the claim that the Supreme Court could -- on a whim -- somehow make Christian pastors preside over same-sex marriage using the mechanisms of our nation's laws and Constitutional review. I pointed out that something like that would be almost impossible and to spread his views was fear-mongering. I suggested that it would be more likely that the government would devolve into a totalitarian regime and get rid of the Constitution and its protections than a scenario develop the way Yeshua1 claims.

If the government were overthrown and the Constitution scrapped, Yeshua1's claim about the Supreme Court overturning religious liberties would still be false. It would be completely beside the point. It we don't have the Constitution, we do not have our form of government and its systems.

It would be like you warning me that my Toyota Camry was likely to suddenly launch three miles into the air while driving down the highway. If I said that was impossible, you could say, "well, if I attached a solid rocket booster to your Camry and added stabilizing fins that would give it the gradual arc to fly from the road until the car hits 16,000 feet, it could happen." Well that might be true, but then you have completely changed the premise, since I was referring to an unmodified Camry. I would still be correct based on the original premise.

Since Yeshua1 was talking about conditions as they exist now, he was engaged in fear-mongering. If you are talking about a revolution, then everything changes and the original premise is not longer valid and Yeshua1 is still wrong.

 

[Yeshua1]

Obviously, God's Law as interpreted in the teachings, character and life of Jesus is more important, but we are also citizens in the world. We have dual citizenship, but the Kingdom of God stands over any kingdom of the world.


If I can properly interpret your fragmented sentences, I would agree that the teachings of Jesus trumps President Trump and the constitution. But we can also know that we have no right nor calling from Jesus to set us a theocracy and bear the sword in the name of Jesus.


It was certainly not a "gutting" gutting of First Amendment rights. The government has no right to mandate prayers, compel people to assume a posture of prayer, or even set aside compelled attendance time for prayer ceremonies. Nor is it the government's business to handle scripture and set up a program of compulsion to read or listen to scripture. Scripture is the domain of the church and individual believers who share it will audiences not under compulsion. That's a Baptist distinctive.

The intent of the Framer sof the Constitution WAS to have prayers and bible reading in schools, as they themselves saw Chrsitianity as the best religion to have! And they clearly saw the morals and teachings of Christ as the source of our morality to live by, and not to be removed form public square!

 

[Yeshua1]

Was the federal government not in such a role when Utah applied for statehood? To be recognized as a state, Utah was forced to define marriage as between one man and one woman only. I think the fed has been defining marriage for a long time.

God already defined it, and NO mere judge can undo what He has done!

 

[Yeshua1]

The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act specifically targeting Mormons was passed in 1862 that banned bigamy in federal territories. It was challenged by the Mormons, eventually resulting in the Supreme Court case decided in Reynolds v. United States in 1879.


No, that's not quite right. The law and the resulting legal cases were tightly focused on banning the polygamy among Mormons. Mormons were not to commit bigamy, that is, they could not be married to more than one person at a time. The focus of the law and the Supreme Court decision was polygamy and whether or not the Mormons' religious liberty rights could supersede laws against bigamy. These cases were not concerned with the genders of the persons being married.


Most of the laws that built up around marriage had to do with inheritance and monogamous relationships, that is, one had to be divorced before marrying another. So yes, in a sense, they defined marriage, but they did not specifically ban citizens from getting married.

Why should man ndo what God had already defined for all time?

 

[Baptist Believer]

The intent of the Framer sof the Constitution WAS to have prayers and bible reading in schools, as they themselves saw Chrsitianity as the best religion to have!

Not really. There are a lot of false assumptions loaded up in your statement... Too many to unpack at this time. Moreover, you are assuming that there was a nationwide government-run school system established, which just isn't so. You are also ignoring that many of the founders were deists.

And they clearly saw the morals and teachings of Christ as the source of our morality to live by, and not to be removed form public square!

They certainly believed in a strong moral code informed by Christian teaching, but that doesn't mean they were, on the whole, against religious liberty for persons who were not Christians. There was a diversity of thought among the founders as to the proper role of religion in society, so you have to look at the full range of viewpoints to understand what was happening at our nation's founding.

 

[Baptist Believer]

God already defined it, and NO mere judge can undo what He has done!

Correct.

Why should man ndo what God had already defined for all time?

Humankind should not rebel against God, yet here we are.

What do you propose to do about it using the power of government (the power of the sword/force)? Do you want to demand that people act like Christians even if they are not. Do you somehow believe you can make a true convert to Christ by force, imprisonment or persecution?

Do you advocate the imprisonment or execution of persons who violate God's sexual standards, both heterosexual and homosexual?

 

[Yeshua1]

Not really. There are a lot of false assumptions loaded up in your statement... Too many to unpack at this time. Moreover, you are assuming that there was a nationwide government-run school system established, which just isn't so. You are also ignoring that many of the founders were deists.


They certainly believed in a strong moral code informed by Christian teaching, but that doesn't mean they were, on the whole, against religious liberty for persons who were not Christians. There was a diversity of thought among the founders as to the proper role of religion in society, so you have to look at the full range of viewpoints to understand what was happening at our nation's founding.

They wanted to have a freddomo wor tshifreedom to worship or not, but they also did indeed see Chrsitianity as the One to aspire to having! Jefferson, Mr Deist Himself, approved of scriture in schools and he also used Givt funds to give Indians Missionary schools!

 

[Yeshua1]

Correct.


Humankind should not rebel against God, yet here we are.

What do you propose to do about it using the power of government (the power of the sword/force)? Do you want to demand that people act like Christians even if they are not. Do you somehow believe you can make a true convert to Christ by force, imprisonment or persecution?

Do you advocate the imprisonment or execution of persons who violate God's sexual standards, both heterosexual and homosexual?

I am advoacting that God Himself defined for ALL times what he considers to be a valid marriage, and who are we to overhtrow that?

 

[Baptist Believer]

They wanted to have a freddomo wor tshifreedom to worship or not, but they also did indeed see Chrsitianity as the One to aspire to having!

You are painting with a very broad brush. Yes, many founders were Christians and wanted to spread the faith, but there were also many who were Deists or something a little odder, like Jefferson. Moreover, the Christianity they advocated ranged anywhere from something we would recognize to something closer to an a Unitarian viewpoint, which we would both oppose.

Jefferson, Mr Deist Himself, approved of scriture in schools and he also used Givt funds to give Indians Missionary schools!

You need to remember that Jefferson physically removed all of the parts of the Bible that offended him and treated the Bible like literature -- not to be believed in. The government sponsorship of education for Native Americans is not quite as simple as you make it out to be.

I am advoacting that God Himself defined for ALL times what he considers to be a valid marriage, and who are we to overhtrow that?

Who are we to sin?

But at the same time, who are we to compel others to live like Christians against their will? Especially since one cannot truly live according to the teachings of Jesus without the grace of God empowering them.

So, do you want to fine, persecute, imprison, prosecute, or execute people for not living according to Christian sexual standards?

 

[Alcott]

If you are talking about a revolution, then everything changes....

Some guy named Jefferson said we need one about every 20 years.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Some guy named Jefferson said we need one about every 20 years.

If you are going to propose treason, then I want nothing to do with you.

 

[Yeshua1]

You are painting with a very broad brush. Yes, many founders were Christians and wanted to spread the faith, but there were also many who were Deists or something a little odder, like Jefferson. Moreover, the Christianity they advocated ranged anywhere from something we would recognize to something closer to an a Unitarian viewpoint, which we would both oppose.


You need to remember that Jefferson physically removed all of the parts of the Bible that offended him and treated the Bible like literature -- not to be believed in. The government sponsorship of education for Native Americans is not quite as simple as you make it out to be.


Who are we to sin?

But at the same time, who are we to compel others to live like Christians against their will? Especially since one cannot truly live according to the teachings of Jesus without the grace of God empowering them.

So, do you want to fine, persecute, imprison, prosecute, or execute people for not living according to Christian sexual standards?

No, but I do wnat us to have the Christian morality in the classroom, have kids hear and read scriptures, and to have Marriage defined as God already had it!

If you are going to propose treason, then I want nothing to do with you.

We have the constutional right to overthrow a goverment that is no longer by and of the People, right?

 

[Baptist Believer]

No, but I do wnat us to have the Christian morality in the classroom...

Sure, I would like that. But we can't even uphold Christian morality in this forum -- filled with people who profess to follow Jesus. Why do we think the government can do it through regulation and policies?

...have kids hear and read scriptures...

That is the role of the family and of the church, not the government.

...and to have Marriage defined as God already had it!

Then Christians shouldn't have demanded that government define it. They should have pushed for civil partnerships for all who want to have their relationship recognized by the government (like is done in other countries) and kept marriage as a religious ceremony recognized by religious institutions. In some countries, people are 'married' by a civil contract as well as a religious rite.

We have the constutional right to overthrow a goverment that is no longer by and of the People, right?

Wrong. We have the right to petition the government for redress of grievances and also to call for a new Constitutional convention. We do not have the right to "overthrow" the government.

 

[Yeshua1]

Sure, I would like that. But we can't even uphold Christian morality in this forum -- filled with people who profess to follow Jesus. Why do we think the government can do it through regulation and policies?


That is the role of the family and of the church, not the government.


Then Christians shouldn't have demanded that government define it. They should have pushed for civil partnerships for all who want to have their relationship recognized by the government (like is done in other countries) and kept marriage as a religious ceremony recognized by religious institutions. In some countries, people are 'married' by a civil contract as well as a religious rite.


Wrong. We have the right to petition the government for redress of grievances and also to call for a new Constitutional convention. We do not have the right to "overthrow" the government.

We can have a revolution if extreme need causes it, remeber the 2nd amendment right o bear arms?
And so we should nopt seek to uphold the law of God in regards to morality issues?
And there is NO Constitutional loop hole that would have allowed for same sex marriages as legit.

 

[Baptist Believer]

We can have a revolution if extreme need causes it, remeber the 2nd amendment right o bear arms?

That is not authorization for a revolution. Why are you folks so gung-ho to commit treason?

And so we should nopt seek to uphold the law of God in regards to morality issues?

With you and your opinions standing in for God as His final judge, I suppose.

You haven't found the courage to answer my questions yet, so I am going to ask you again:

Do you want to fine, persecute, imprison, prosecute, or execute people for not living according to Christian sexual standards?

If not, then how do you expect the government to enforce Christian sexual standards?

Moreover, how do you propose to keep people from lusting, since that is the real issue here?

Whether you comprehend it or not, you are called for an end to religious liberty for all -- a theocracy -- and it sounds like you want to be "Theo."

And there is NO Constitutional loop hole that would have allowed for same sex marriages as legit.

Not a loop hole... Sigh. You never change. You ignore any evidence you don't like and simply shout your assertions over and over.

 

[Yeshua1]

That is not authorization for a revolution. Why are you folks so gung-ho to commit treason?


With you and your opinions standing in for God as His final judge, I suppose.

You haven't found the courage to answer my questions yet, so I am going to ask you again:

Do you want to fine, persecute, imprison, prosecute, or execute people for not living according to Christian sexual standards?

If not, then how do you expect the government to enforce Christian sexual standards?

Moreover, how do you propose to keep people from lusting, since that is the real issue here?

Whether you comprehend it or not, you are called for an end to religious liberty for all -- a theocracy -- and it sounds like you want to be "Theo."


Not a loop hole... Sigh. You never change. You ignore any evidence you don't like and simply shout your assertions over and over.

Would any nation who obeyed the ways of the Lord in the scriptures been wrong then?
Proverbs 14:34 was not inspired?

 

[Baptist Believer]

I'm not going to answer any more of your questions until you find enough courage to answer these questions that you keep ducking. I'll make them large and multi-colored so you can't pretend you did not see them:

Do you want to fine, persecute, imprison, prosecute, or execute people for not living according to Christian sexual standards?

If not, then how do you expect the government to enforce Christian sexual standards?

Moreover, how do you propose to keep people from lusting, since that is the real issue here?

 

[Yeshua1]

I'm not going to answer any more of your questions until you find enough courage to answer these questions that you keep ducking. I'll make them large and multi-colored so you can't pretend you did not see them:

Do you want to fine, persecute, imprison, prosecute, or execute people for not living according to Christian sexual standards?

If not, then how do you expect the government to enforce Christian sexual standards?

Moreover, how do you propose to keep people from lusting, since that is the real issue here?

I want to have kids able to pray and read the bible in school, and to have Christinaity morals in play once again, but do NOT want to make it illegal to not be a christian, to not believe in God, and still be able to sin as they please, as longa s does break the law.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Good answers.

I want to have kids able to pray and read the bible in school...

They are free to do that, except during structured time. The school does not have any right to organize, lead, or compose prayers or select scripture readings.

...and to have Christinaity morals in play once again...

No one is stopping anyone from exercising Christian morality.

...but do NOT want to make it illegal to not be a christian, to not believe in God, and still be able to sin as they please, as longa s does break the law.

You also have this protected by Constitution, including current Supreme Court interpretations and rulings.

You already have what you want in terms of the government.