Uncomfortable Silence in the Church

[vooks]

There is a distinct feeling that Christians ought to be outraged at the SCOTUS ruling and their outrage is the best measure of their faith. This is a fallacy.

There really are no good reasons why homosexuals should be denied their right to marriage. Christians should be more concerned about their rights to present the truth about how homosexuality is incompatible with their faith.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

There really are no good reasons why homosexuals should be denied their right to marriage.

They had to redefine marriage and invent a right to be "married" to do it.

 

[InTheLight]

There really are no good reasons why homosexuals should be denied their right to marriage. Christians should be more concerned about their rights to present the truth about how homosexuality is incompatible with their faith.

Is Mark 10:5-9 in your Bible?

 

[vooks]

They had to redefine marriage and invent a right to be "married" to do it.

This is marriage for Christians and there surely is separation of church and state. Imposing that on the secular America is what this ruling was against. Recall the same Supreme Court lifting the ban on interracial marriage sometimes back? Opponents strongly felt marriage was being redefined

 

[vooks]

Is Mark 10:5-9 in your Bible?

Mark 10:5-9 (KJV)
And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder

This makes sense for a Christian, but for somebody who has never read it or who has and couldn't care less, it is none of their business.

Just imagine a Muslim flashing Quran and showing your wife how to cover up herself with a hijab

The reason Christians should not be worried by the ruling is because it does not infringe their right to exercise their religious freedom including preaching against the sin of homosexuality. My biggest fear is recognition of this right could easily mean preaching against homosexuality is criminalized.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

This is marriage for Christians and there surely is separation of church and state.

Except for the fact that that definition is not limited to Christianity and separation of church and state has nothing to do with it.

Imposing that on the secular America is what this ruling was against.

How so? Could you please cite that portion of the decision?

Recall the same Supreme Court lifting the ban on interracial marriage sometimes back? Opponents strongly felt marriage was being redefined

Oh, please tell me you're not so stupid that you think this case is analogous to Loving v. Virginia.

You realize that the marriage cited in Loving v. Virginia was not "redefined", but was still between a man and woman. And you realize that SCOTUS repeatedly affirmed marriage as between a man and woman in their decision, right?

Honestly, people like you are the reason we homeschool.

 

[vooks]

Except for the fact that that definition is not limited to Christianity and separation of church and state has nothing to do with it.

Marriage has been redefined with time. Once polygamy was in vogue. Now it is outlawed. Mormons feel persecuted. Like it or not the institution is not static. And 30 years from now you will,still be whining about gays when they will be busy marrying

How so? Could you please cite that portion of the decision?

Define marriage.

Oh, please tell me you're not so stupid that you think this case is analogous to Loving v. Virginia.

You realize that the marriage cited in Loving v. Virginia was not "redefined", but was still between a man and woman. And you realize that SCOTUS repeatedly affirmed marriage as between a man and woman in their decision, right?

Honestly, people like you are the reason we homeschool.

Spare your fake outrage, like its some form of righteousness that will earn you heaven sir.

Go figure WHY you had Loving v Virginia in the FIRST PLACE.
Hint: the then marriage definition excluded interracial marriages so much that it was outlawed. This dissenting Justice is grateful that the same court ALLOWED him to marry his white wife. Homosexuals are grateful the court has allowed them to marry

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Marriage has been redefined with time. Once polygamy was in vogue.

Actually, the fact that something is in vogue does not mean it meets the definition of something.

And 30 years from now you will,still be whining about gays when they will be busy marrying

Actually, expressing a concern and a disagreement is not "whining".

Define marriage.

Same way Jesus does in Matthew 19: One man, one woman, one lifetime.

Spare your fake outrage, like its some form of righteousness that will earn you heaven sir.

What charming people your parents must be.

Go figure WHY you had Loving v Virginia in the FIRST PLACE.

Hint: the then marriage definition excluded interracial marriages so much that it was outlawed.

Actually, the definition didn't exclude interracial marriages. Nobody, not even Virginia, argued that two persons of different races did not constitute a marriage.

 

[vooks]

Actually, the fact that something is in vogue does not mean it meets the definition of something.



Actually, expressing a concern and a disagreement is not "whining".



Same way Jesus does in Matthew 19: One man, one woman, one lifetime.



What charming people your parents must be.





Actually, the definition didn't exclude interracial marriages. Nobody, not even Virginia, argued that two persons of different races did not constitute a marriage.

i will respond to anything sensible from you not silly taunts.
What have you lost now that banning gay marriages is unconstitutional?

List them here

 

[JohnDeereFan]

i will respond to anything sensible from you not silly taunts.

Actually, I didn't taunt you at all.

What have you lost now that banning gay marriages is unconstitutional?

The rule of law.

 

[vooks]

Actually, I didn't taunt you at all.



The rule of law.

Explain how you lost 'rule of law'

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Explain how you lost 'rule of law'

By the fact that the court went outside the law and based their decision on what they think the law should be, rather than what the law is.

 

[Crabtownboy]

By the fact that the court went outside the law and based their decision on what they think the law should be, rather than what the law is.

The SC interprets the Constitution. What they say is the law of the land. You may not like it, but that is the uncomfortable fact.

I hate the Citizens United decision, but that does not make it unconstitutional ... though I think their ruling is very wrong.

Frankly I do not see how gay marriage can be rules for or against using the Constitution, but the SC saw that differently. We now have to live with that decision.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

The SC interprets the Constitution. What they say is the law of the land. You may not like it, but that is the uncomfortable fact.

The Legislative Branch makes laws, not the Judicial Branch.

Frankly I do not see how gay marriage can be rules for or against using the Constitution

That's because you don't know the 9th and 10th Amendment.

 

[vooks]

By the fact that the court went outside the law and based their decision on what they think the law should be, rather than what the law is.

Vague generalities.
1. Which law did they go out of. Be SPECIFIC.
2. Contrast what they 'think the law should be' and what 'the law is'. Be SPECIFIC

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Vague generalities.
Which law did they go out of. Be SPECIFIC.

Your case isn't served by pretending to be stupid.

 

[Crabtownboy]

The Legislative Branch makes laws, not the Judicial Branch.

Every time the SC makes a decision they define the law and this makes law by interpreting it. This one you do not like. The next one you may love. Live with it, that is the way it is here.

 

[Revmitchell]

Live with it as in sit down, shut up and like it.


Uh no thank you we will not "live with it".

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Every time the SC makes a decision they define the law and this makes law by interpreting it. This one you do not like. The next one you may love. Live with it, that is the way it is here.

It may be the way the government is currently operating, but it isn't the law. It isn't what the Constitution says the role of the Supreme Court is supposed to be.

The Constitution is clear that the Legislative Branch makes the laws, not the Judicial Branch. If you and your boyfriend don't know that, it's your ignorance and your problem, not ours.

 

[annsni]

This is marriage for Christians and there surely is separation of church and state. Imposing that on the secular America is what this ruling was against. Recall the same Supreme Court lifting the ban on interracial marriage sometimes back? Opponents strongly felt marriage was being redefined

Marriage has been historically - not just in Christianity but in EVERY culture - between a man and a woman. There are no cultures out there who redefined marriage like our modern culture has in the last generation.