To my gay friends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cruiser said:
MARRIAGE is a legal condition that was until now each STATE's decision to administer.
Click to expand...

You overlook Loving...the SCOTUS held that states could no longer prohibit interracial marriage...

You are decades late!

Paul
 
PaulMillner said:
Can you cite chapter and verse? Seems like Solomon had 600 wives. But that seems impractical today...

Paul
Click to expand...


600 wives not 600 dudes. If you need chapter and verse I can give it to you. The old testament had a lot of things in it that does not take place today. If we went through each one it would take up more pages then I am willing to write.

Marriage between a man and woman is in the new testament as its in the old.

Tony Sweet
 
Last edited:
PaulMillner said:
Can you cite chapter and verse? Seems like Solomon had 600 wives. But that seems impractical today...

Paul
Click to expand...

No homosexuality:
Leviticus 18:22: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

No eating pork:
Leviticus 11:7-8: And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. You shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.

No wearing jewelry:
Timothy 2:9: Likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire...

No tattoos:
Leviticus 19:28: You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the Lord.
 
1600vw said:
600 wives not 600 dudes. If you need chapter and verse I can give it to you.

Tony Sweet
Click to expand...
You said, "a man and a woman" not "a man and any number of women". So settle it for us: how many women does the Bible teach I can have? And yes, if you are going to claim the "Bible says" then you have to give chapter and verse.
 
>> compel supporters of SSM (especially Christian supporters) to either change their public opinions, or face ruin at the hand...

Why would supporters of same-sex marriage have to change their opinions?

>> There is no right to heterosexual marriage of any kind in the Constitution, but the court decided to invent one in order to support the "right" of SSM.

I don't think that's borne out by the decision. If Alabama does away with ALL marriage as threatened, that would not seem to be contradicted by Friday's decision. I think you overreach.

>> they upheld with a right which IS specifically enumerated in the Constitution, that being the right of free EXERCISE of religion - the right to follow the teachings of Christ and his message of acceptance and love

Religious freedom has never been absolute. You can't have slaves, even though the Bible says you can. You can't murder your daughter for not being a virgin, even though the Bible says you can. You can't discriminate against blacks, even though the Bible has been interpreted by some to support same.

And you can buy and eat pork, shrimp, and cheeseburgers, and wear blended fabrics, even though Leviticus forbids all of those.

Paul
 
Last edited:
Challenged said:
No homosexuality:
Leviticus 18:22: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

No eating pork:
Leviticus 11:7-8: And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. You shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.

No wearing jewelry:
Timothy 2:9: Likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire...

No tattoos:
Leviticus 19:28: You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the Lord.
Click to expand...

None of those say one man, one woman...

Paul
 
1600vw said:
600 wives not 600 dudes. If you need chapter and verse I can give it to you. The old testament had a lot of things in it that does not take place today. If we went through each one it would take up more pages then I am willing to write.

Marriage between a man and woman is in the new testament as its in the old.

Tony Sweet
Click to expand...

I asked... You have not provided...

Roger on the Old Testament. So it's irrelevant to gay marriage as well.

Paul
 
There are a lot of problems with this debate.

- Debating the Bible with people who don't believe in God, or who at a minimum regard the Bible as a fairy tale, is like using a Disney movie as your reasoning behind a personally-held moral. They don't get it and it makes you sound like a quack to them.

- Debating people who think their side is all the good guys and your side is all the bad guys is pointless, as well. They're close-minded (even though they're fight is for open-mindedness) and you will be wasting your time.

- There are a lot of man-made interpretations of the Bible, often contrary to other ones, which has really diminished the credibility of religion in non-believers' (and even some believers') eyes.

- Humans have an innate need to follow a leader for moral purposes, and all other purposes. Many people have (a) God as their leader. Some people are smart enough to know this, and some of those people are evil enough to capitalize on that fact and take advantage of it. If they can remove God from the equation, by discrediting God, that means the humans that are no longer following God now need to follow someone/something. Usher in the "new" leader. Preachers and other religious leaders do this... "in the name of God". Monarchs have done this in the past. Hitler did a good job at this. So did Stalin. Humans need leadership. It's in our DNA. They wrap their reasons in positive terms.

- Wrapping yourself in the terms "equality for all" and "love everyone", but then calling the religious believers bigots makes you a "hater", too. And forcing them to perform your gay wedding against their beliefs is just as bad as them telling you they won't. Live and let live... to each his own.

- Immoral to one is OK with another. Some will swindle others out of money and not have a second thought about it. Others are will run after someone who drops a penny on the ground. Humans all have a different moral barometer... Again, live and let live, and associate with those of like minds.

- Lastly, you cannot legislate the way people think. It is an innate human characteristic to judge others. Initial contact is with eyes. Right or wrong, you're judging. Skin color, wrinkles, age, facial expressions, etc. You're picking up body language and judging if that person is safe, unsafe, good, bad, angry, sad, happy, friendly, etc. Once you engage in discussion, your judgements go deeper. There is no way you can stop people from judging. Not everybody will like you, just like you don't like everybody.

Now, with the ground rules on the table, time to get back to the debate.
 
JoseCuervo said:
Marriage has nothing to do with having children.

The States will issue licenses to 80 year old women.
Click to expand...

Immaterial. The States will issue driver's licenses to 80 year old women too. But the target demographic is new drivers.

Anyway, I find arguing this topic is pointless. Any opinion that differs from the OP's original statement, regardless of what it is, categorically results in one being classified as a racist homophobic paranoid schizophrenic bigot.

Peace out and good luck.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Any opinion that differs from the OP's original statement, regardless of what it is, categorically results in one being classified as a racist homophobic paranoid schizophrenic bigot.

Peace out and good luck.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the club.
 
gaygenerallee.jpg


Who knew?

Rich
 
Challenged said:
No homosexuality:
Leviticus 18:22: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

No eating pork:
Leviticus 11:7-8: And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. You shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.

No wearing jewelry:
Timothy 2:9: Likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire...

No tattoos:
Leviticus 19:28: You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the Lord.
Click to expand...
I wonder how many "christians" realize this was a Levitical Covenant between the Lord and His priests; the Levites (descendants of Levi) and namesakes of the book called "Leviticus". It was not a rule book for all the world. The Levites did not keep the Covenant and its done and over.
 
EppyGA said:
Actually we do not live in a Democracy, but that's a different argument. Didn't the voters in CA pass Prop 8? In a Democracy same sex marriage would not be valid in CA at this point?
Click to expand...

Randy, you need to review your American History. In a true Democracy, you may recall, there's a "balance of power". It's not simply who gets the most votes.

Time to crack those books open! It's important for us all to understand the basic principles that have made us such a great country.
 
ahkahn said:
There are a lot of problems with this debate.

- Lastly, you cannot legislate the way people think. It is an innate human characteristic to judge others. Initial contact is with eyes. Right or wrong, you're judging. Skin color, wrinkles, age, facial expressions, etc. You're picking up body language and judging if that person is safe, unsafe, good, bad, angry, sad, happy, friendly, etc. Once you engage in discussion, your judgements go deeper. There is no way you can stop people from judging. Not everybody will like you, just like you don't like everybody.
Click to expand...
And a lot of problems with 'ground rules'.

Yes, you can effect the way people think with legislation. The whole "rule of law" construct depends on it.

Jim Crow laws effected peoples' thinking in fundamental ways. Their reversal did the same.

The Loving vs Virginia (?) ruling effected the way people thought. Not absolutely or universally but it changed minds nonetheless just because it became law.

Same with SSM. Minds have been changing and will continue to change.

Of course everyone assumes the minds changed are those that use discriminatory laws to discriminate. The minds of those discriminated against are changed to... in wonderful ways.
 
ahkahn said:
There are a lot of problems with this debate.

- Lastly, you cannot legislate the way people think. It is an innate human characteristic to judge others. Initial contact is with eyes. Right or wrong, you're judging. Skin color, wrinkles, age, facial expressions, etc. You're picking up body language and judging if that person is safe, unsafe, good, bad, angry, sad, happy, friendly, etc. Once you engage in discussion, your judgements go deeper. There is no way you can stop people from judging. Not everybody will like you, just like you don't like everybody.
Click to expand...
And a lot of problems with 'ground rules'.

For example, you can effect the way people think with legislation. The whole "rule of law" construct depends on it.

Jim Crow laws effected peoples' thinking in fundamental ways. Their reversal did the same.

The Loving vs Virginia (?) ruling effected the way people thought. Not absolutely or universally but it changed minds nonetheless just because it became law.

Same with SSM. Minds have been changing and will continue to change.

Of course everyone assumes the minds changed are those that use discriminatory laws to discriminate. The minds of those discriminated against are changed to... in wonderful ways.
 
Bill Watson said:
And a lot of problems with 'ground rules'.

Yes, you can effect the way people think with legislation. The whole "rule of law" construct depends on it.

Jim Crow laws effected peoples' thinking in fundamental ways. Their reversal did the same.

The Loving vs Virginia (?) ruling effected the way people thought. Not absolutely or universally but it changed minds nonetheless just because it became law.

Same with SSM. Minds have been changing and will continue to change.

Of course everyone assumes the minds changed are those that use discriminatory laws to discriminate. The minds of those discriminated against are changed to... in wonderful ways.
Click to expand...

Not quite. If Jim Crow laws affected peoples' thinking, and reversal did the same, then I suppose you would agree at this point that racism is completely eradicated. We both know it's not. It never will be.

And, you think with this ruling it will make people who previously thought that homosexuality is immoral, gross, etc. now believe it is OK? Not a chance. Again, you cannot legislate the way people think. That, in and of itself, is wrong.
 
Last edited:
Dart said:
I wonder how many "christians" realize this was a Levitical Covenant between the Lord and His priests; the Levites (descendants of Levi) and namesakes of the book called "Leviticus". It was not a rule book for all the world. The Levites did not keep the Covenant and its done and over.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize that. Thanks for clarifying it.

Of course, the thing about jewelry is from the new testament.
 
VWGhiaBob said:
Randy, you need to review your American History. In a true Democracy, you may recall, there's a "balance of power". It's not simply who gets the most votes.

Time to crack those books open! It's important for us all to understand the basic principles that have made us such a great country.
Click to expand...

In a true democracy, citizens have the ability to vote on pretty much everything. Individual States look more like a democracy than the federal system. We're a federal republic. All you can do is whine to representatives at the federal level.
 
VWGhiaBob said:
Randy, you need to review your American History. In a true Democracy, you may recall, there's a "balance of power". It's not simply who gets the most votes.

Time to crack those books open! It's important for us all to understand the basic principles that have made us such a great country.
Click to expand...

If we REALLY are interested in civics and "understanding the basic principles" here...

We are a representative republic not a democracy. We are also a country built on checks and balances and a Constitution that describes how the political system is supposed to work. With regard to SSM things were actually working as they were designed by the founders up until this week. Marriage is not an enumerated right in the constitution. The individual states 36 had changed their laws to allow SSM. I think eventually the others would have followed in time. The other way to have made this change would have been with an amendment to the Constitution. If we were being true to the design of the founders the SCOTUS really had no business in this decision.

Further one could argue, that government should have no part in marriage at all. They should treat all people as individuals and equal. You could make a good case that it is not the proper role of the government to be involved in how people choose to bind themselves in relationships as it is not enumerated in the constitution. Where the government does have a role is when these relationships are dissolved and certainly the courts have the ability to make judgments on the equitable distribution of the shared assets.
 
Last edited:
Could slavery have been abolished by the Supreme Court?
 
These are such excellent, cogent, salient and well-thought-out points, as well as being extremely workable and real-world.
ahkahn said:
There are a lot of problems with this debate.

- Debating the Bible with people who don't believe in God, or who at a minimum regard the Bible as a fairy tale, is like using a Disney movie as your reasoning behind a personally-held moral. They don't get it and it makes you sound like a quack to them.

- Debating people who think their side is all the good guys and your side is all the bad guys is pointless, as well. They're close-minded (even though they're fight is for open-mindedness) and you will be wasting your time.

- There are a lot of man-made interpretations of the Bible, often contrary to other ones, which has really diminished the credibility of religion in non-believers' (and even some believers') eyes.

- Humans have an innate need to follow a leader for moral purposes, and all other purposes. Many people have (a) God as their leader. Some people are smart enough to know this, and some of those people are evil enough to capitalize on that fact and take advantage of it. If they can remove God from the equation, by discrediting God, that means the humans that are no longer following God now need to follow someone/something. Usher in the "new" leader. Preachers and other religious leaders do this... "in the name of God". Monarchs have done this in the past. Hitler did a good job at this. So did Stalin. Humans need leadership. It's in our DNA. They wrap their reasons in positive terms.

- Wrapping yourself in the terms "equality for all" and "love everyone", but then calling the religious believers bigots makes you a "hater", too. And forcing them to perform your gay wedding against their beliefs is just as bad as them telling you they won't. Live and let live... to each his own.

- Immoral to one is OK with another. Some will swindle others out of money and not have a second thought about it. Others are will run after someone who drops a penny on the ground. Humans all have a different moral barometer... Again, live and let live, and associate with those of like minds.

- Lastly, you cannot legislate the way people think. It is an innate human characteristic to judge others. Initial contact is with eyes. Right or wrong, you're judging. Skin color, wrinkles, age, facial expressions, etc. You're picking up body language and judging if that person is safe, unsafe, good, bad, angry, sad, happy, friendly, etc. Once you engage in discussion, your judgements go deeper. There is no way you can stop people from judging. Not everybody will like you, just like you don't like everybody.

Now, with the ground rules on the table, time to get back to the debate.
Click to expand...
 
azure said:
You are still free to believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman. What you can't do under Obergefell is create a law that imposes that belief on everyone else.
Click to expand...
No prob. So let's all be tolerant and not force others to perform according to our own beliefs, especially when those beliefs differ on a deep, personal level.
 
azure said:
How would you feel about the case if the couple Stutzman refused to serve was interracial or interfaith, instead of gay?
Click to expand...
Because I'm not a hater, and don't extrapolate every incident where beliefs clash to an overblown fear of mass florist/baker refusals to couples of all variety and ilk, I'd say this: Given the loving way Stutzman and her customer resolved the situation initially, such an interaction about personal beliefs would be preferred to overreaction and creation of laws and faux outrage that keeps our focus away from the issues that truly matter, such as the erosion of the Constitution, as we see happening now.

I know Ms. Stutzman personally and find her to be exceptionally loving and tolerant, and the scenario you propose is not likely. Her belief is about a man and a woman, not race or faith. She hires gays and served these two customers for 10 years prior to being sued by them, and provided wedding flowers for marriages in all faiths or no faith.

Interestingly, she no longer provides flowers for weddings, a change she made in her business to avoid further lawsuits. This is "progressive?"
 
ahkahn said:
There are a lot of problems with this debate.

- Debating the Bible with people who don't believe in God, or who at a minimum regard the Bible as a fairy tale, is like using a Disney movie as your reasoning behind a personally-held moral. They don't get it and it makes you sound like a quack to them.

- Debating people who think their side is all the good guys and your side is all the bad guys is pointless, as well. They're close-minded (even though they're fight is for open-mindedness) and you will be wasting your time.

- There are a lot of man-made interpretations of the Bible, often contrary to other ones, which has really diminished the credibility of religion in non-believers' (and even some believers') eyes.

- Humans have an innate need to follow a leader for moral purposes, and all other purposes. Many people have (a) God as their leader. Some people are smart enough to know this, and some of those people are evil enough to capitalize on that fact and take advantage of it. If they can remove God from the equation, by discrediting God, that means the humans that are no longer following God now need to follow someone/something. Usher in the "new" leader. Preachers and other religious leaders do this... "in the name of God". Monarchs have done this in the past. Hitler did a good job at this. So did Stalin. Humans need leadership. It's in our DNA. They wrap their reasons in positive terms.

- Wrapping yourself in the terms "equality for all" and "love everyone", but then calling the religious believers bigots makes you a "hater", too. And forcing them to perform your gay wedding against their beliefs is just as bad as them telling you they won't. Live and let live... to each his own.

- Immoral to one is OK with another. Some will swindle others out of money and not have a second thought about it. Others are will run after someone who drops a penny on the ground. Humans all have a different moral barometer... Again, live and let live, and associate with those of like minds.

- Lastly, you cannot legislate the way people think. It is an innate human characteristic to judge others. Initial contact is with eyes. Right or wrong, you're judging. Skin color, wrinkles, age, facial expressions, etc. You're picking up body language and judging if that person is safe, unsafe, good, bad, angry, sad, happy, friendly, etc. Once you engage in discussion, your judgements go deeper. There is no way you can stop people from judging. Not everybody will like you, just like you don't like everybody.

Now, with the ground rules on the table, time to get back to the debate.
Click to expand...

Good points, except I'll disagree about debating the Bible. People can choose not to believe in God; but the Bible (particularly the NT) is a well- documented work frequently referenced by historians as a secondary source- we know who wrote it, when, and the social conditions in which they lived.

If people can't understand that and insist on repeating some half-remembered 2nd hand catechism or revisionist misinterpretation, that just proves a defect on their part.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Immaterial. The States will issue driver's licenses to 80 year old women too. But the target demographic is new drivers.



Anyway, I find arguing this topic is pointless. Any opinion that differs from the OP's original statement, regardless of what it is, categorically results in one being classified as a racist homophobic paranoid schizophrenic bigot.



Peace out and good luck.
Click to expand...



What branch of the government meets and determines the target demographic for issuing marriage licenses?

Is it the same group as Sarah Palin's Death Panels?

What is the targeted demographic for marriage licenses these days?
 
JoseCuervo said:
What branch of the government meets and determines the target demographic for issuing marriage licenses?
Click to expand...

It used to be the states.

Is it the same group as Sarah Palin's Death Panels?
Click to expand...

it is now.

What is the targeted demographic for marriage licenses these days?
Click to expand...

Young people to become good little nuclear families to support the economy, national debt, handouts and make sure the debt industry is rolling in cash.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Let's be honest here. In modern times women marry for the princess party and lifetime $upport, men marry because they are under the illusion marriage will keep their woman off other men's sticks.
Click to expand...

What would you know about modern times? You appear stuck in the 19th century or before.:yes:
 
PaulMillner said:
Well, there's the all caps, the misspelled word, and you got the number wrong.

Hmmm.

Paul
Click to expand...

I'll dumb it down a bit:

Caps- Simulating a headline.
Misspelled word/number- Typo. I dare to find anyone who never had one. Grow up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top