Supremes' majority enables gay marriage!

[Philip]

So, a SC ruling makes such unions a "MARRIAGE?"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06 ... 50-states/

Why stop at TWO partners? Humans and sheep? What could ever be declared off limits under our supposed freedoms? Freedom to do what - and as defined - by WHOM?

And what demands of the various same-sex parties will dearly cost those of us who are against it - when and where our values come into conflict with declared legal rights? Just watch who those with an agenda go after next, enabled by a mere majority of a small body of unelected judges with no term limits!

And THIS time, Roberts didn't vote with the liberal majority. He said: "Roberts wrote: "If you are among the many Americans -- of whatever sexual orientation -- who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. ... But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it." At least he gets that!

Article: Roberts's other dispute is that many of the arguments made in support of gay marriage could be used to also support plural marriage:

"If not having the opportunity to marry 'serves to disrespect and subordinate' gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn't the same 'imposition of this disability,'...serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships?" he writes. "I do not mean to equate marriage between same-sex couples with plural marriages in all respects. There may well be relevant differences that compel different legal analysis. But if there are, petitioners have not pointed to any."

Scalia stated he wanted to write a separate dissent "to call attention to this Court's threat to American democracy." Justice Clarence Thomas joined Scalia in this dissent.

[RickD]

Legalized polygamy isn't far behind. Followed by legalized incest.

Once the definition of marriage is changed, the can of worms is opened up. If the state can't discriminate against same sex couples, there will be no legal ground to discriminate against multiple people marrying, nor close family members marrying.

But maybe there's hope for those who don't want same sex marriage. If sharia law were to be in place, say goodbye to same sex marriage.

[Silvertusk]

Legalized polygamy isn't far behind. Followed by legalized incest.

Once the definition of marriage is changed, the can of worms is opened up. If the state can't discriminate against same sex couples, there will be no legal ground to discriminate against multiple people marrying, nor close family members marrying.

But maybe there's hope for those who don't want same sex marriage. If sharia law were to be in place, say goodbye to same sex marriage.

Polygamy will still be on the cards though...

[Katabole]

Matthew 19:4 And He answered and said unto them, Have you not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

Matthew 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they two shall be one flesh?

Matthew 19:6 Wherefore they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man take apart.

Many have not read. Many others have read and have not believed what is written. Many believers have read and have not believed what is written all the while claiming to be believers. Some however have believed what is written. Humanity has taken apart what God has joined together.

John 12:48 He that rejects me, and receives not my words, has one that judges him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him on the last day.

Lets see how bold those who reject Christ and His Word today, will be on judgment day, when they stand before the righteous King and give account of their lives. They will all wish to die and won't be able to.

[Philip]

My biggest concern against same-sex unions is mostly not that two homosexuals can be legally recognized by something they and it calls "marriage" - as they can call it whatever they like, but it's certainly not marriage joined by God. What's far worse, is it sends an message to young, naive and impressionable people that such unions are okay, normal, perfectly expected, even "moral" in showing two people's commitment to each other. That's a very dangerous precedent, and it reinforces that our sexuality preferences is no more different than one's favorite ice cream - whatever flavor turns you on, eh? It also makes the naive and ill-informed think that the Bible's views and teachings are irrelevant for out time and simply archaic superstitions from another time.

So there's the moral/Scriptural objections to this ruling. But it goes further in extending BENEFITS to all people in such legal unions. Perhaps many simply joined precisely and ONLY FOR the benefits - as the participants might care less about any supposed commitment or moral issues. And guess just exactly whose taxes will be contributing to this sudden influx of partner benefits? You got it! But Rick makes an important point about plural marriages and whatever other currently perceived and denied "rights" might this crack open the door to? To think that such a small group of people can determine issues with such far-reaching implications is disturbing. Really, a better way to deal with this would be to get the state out of relating benefits bestowed by the government - for EVERYONE. But that's how power is created and maintained - promise the natives some trinkets back from the substantial taxes we already must pay and people are just overjoyed. And so whatever entities control those trinkets have the power, and thus the control.

[SoCalExile]

The issue that will arise is when churches teach the Bible without watering it down, because even if you welcome gays in they'll still try to shut you down for teaching what they disagree with. Kind of like the wedding cake flap.

Just going back to the days where if you aren't getting tossed in the klink for your faith you might be doing it wrong. We should be prepared to go full Bonhoeffer if/when that day comes.

One step closer to Christ's return.

[Philip]

It's going to be interesting to see which politicians avoid any negative reaction and which are bold enough to speak out against this ruling. The obvious ones will merely bow to the chattering masses.

[RickD]

I guess we know where Obama stands...

[Katabole]

I listened to Obama's speech yesterday from the Charleston church on CNN. Probably the most Christian and religious speech he ever gave. I was intrigued because he used the Bible to point out the evils of slavery. He spoke about Grace. A lot. Yet, earlier in the day he applauded the gay marriage ruling claiming in his words, "love is love". Why did he not point out the evils of gay marriage as he did slavery I wonder? I do not know what kind of specific Gospel Obama believes in. I do know it is a false one. It seems over the years that his belief system is a selective interpretation of Scripture. How anyone can call themselves Christian and at the same time be happy for our brothers and sisters lost in this world of darkness, when our Bible says those who practice such things is not only an abomination to God but they will not enter into the kingdom of God period. Our Bible claims, "God is love", not love is love. And tough love towards another is still love. Sometimes tough love is the best kind.

That gay marriage ruling should have been put to a referendum for the American people and it is shameful that it wasn't which would have been part of the essence of a true democracy, considering they were redefining a centuries old institution called marriage. The Democrats however did not want to do that because they knew that a majority of Americans are Christian and would have voted against it and defeated it. They want to overrule the Christian majority, (which the media in the last few years are calling bigots) and implement their social engineering agenda. Instead they sent it to the courts where they could have a greater influence in its outcome. Which they did.

Back in 2005, the same thing happened here in Canada. I thought the right thing would be for the government in power to hold a referendum and let all citizens vote. But the Liberal party in power here at that time here in Canada (which is equivalent to the Democrats in the US), knew it would be defeated because a majority of Canadians are Christian and the Liberal party had their own anti-Christian agenda in place, so they sent it to the courts, where the traditional meaning of marriage was overruled by Liberal appointed judges.

It seems to me many if not all Western democracies presently, have an anti-Christian, socialistic, communistic agenda, which is in truth Satanism, which they are attempting to fulfill. And instead of letting the people decide, the government is making the courts decide by precedent.

I believe the second President of your country said it best:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams

[melanie]

I listened to Obama's speech yesterday from the Charleston church on CNN. Probably the most Christian and religious speech he ever gave. I was intrigued because he used the Bible to point out the evils of slavery. He spoke about Grace. A lot. Yet, earlier in the day he applauded the gay marriage ruling claiming in his words, "love is love". Why did he not point out the evils of gay marriage as he did slavery I wonder? I do not know what kind of specific Gospel Obama believes in. I do know it is a false one. It seems over the years that his belief system is a selective interpretation of Scripture. How anyone can call themselves Christian and at the same time be happy for our brothers and sisters lost in this world of darkness, when our Bible says those who practice such things is not only an abomination to God but they will not enter into the kingdom of God period. Our Bible claims, "God is love", not love is love. And tough love towards another is still love. Sometimes tough love is the best kind.

That gay marriage ruling should have been put to a referendum for the American people and it is shameful that it wasn't which would have been part of the essence of a true democracy, considering they were redefining a centuries old institution called marriage. The Democrats however did not want to do that because they knew that a majority of Americans are Christian and would have voted against it and defeated it. They want to overrule the Christian majority, (which the media in the last few years are calling bigots) and implement their social engineering agenda. Instead they sent it to the courts where they could have a greater influence in its outcome. Which they did.

Back in 2005, the same thing happened here in Canada. I thought the right thing would be for the government in power to hold a referendum and let all citizens vote. But the Liberal party in power here at that time here in Canada (which is equivalent to the Democrats in the US), knew it would be defeated because a majority of Canadians are Christian and the Liberal party had their own anti-Christian agenda in place, so they sent it to the courts, where the traditional meaning of marriage was overruled by Liberal appointed judges.

It seems to me many if not all Western democracies presently, have an anti-Christian, socialistic, communistic agenda, which is in truth Satanism, which they are attempting to fulfill. And instead of letting the people decide, the government is making the courts decide by precedent.

I believe the second President of your country said it best:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams

Ohh geez, here I go again!
I dont support gay marraige. I definitely think it should be decided by referendum. This is a hot issue in Australia and I hope it is decided by the people by majority, but I think the outcome here would be to legalise it. For the record I would vote No.
But, I would never say, nor do I think it should be said that all gay people are going to hell. We can have a christian opinion without pulling out the 'hell card'.
God hates sin.
But he loves all of us and we are all sinners. We can categorise how bad we view sin, from top of the list to least, but we all sit on that list, somewhere. The common christian view is its okay to be gay, just don't act on it. Okay. In many ways great advice, but not when the argument is that when acted upon, then you're lgoing to hell.
What we are talking about is sexual sin, lust, immorality.
If you think for a second you're not guilty then look again, this time with the log removed. We are all guilty of sexual immorality by Jesus' defination. Porn, lust, adultery in heart or action. Porn is viewed very ambiguously by today's standards. Can a person be a lingerie model, and be saved? Sexual glorification. Because let's face it, that's what it is. We make excuses for ourselves whilst damning others to hell. We watch the Vicoria Secret show, thinking it's okay because it's the social norm. Girls parading around in g-strings and bras. What, as long as it's done in the heterosexual 'norm' it's okay.
Is God okay with it?
We See christians struggle with porn addiction and we sympathise, we do not excuse the behaviour but there is a very common view myself included, that is its okay in the sense of not losing salvation, we are human, trust in the lord and you will overcome it. Love and patience and understanding is shown.
But not with homosexuality.
No patience, no understanding. Just a clean sweep of gay=hell.
We struggle and by faith and Gods grace make it to heaven.
We ALL struggle.
With sin and sexual sin.
The price Jesus paid on the cross covers every sin, when we have faith.
We can say, but as long as you don't give into it.
We give into sin everyday.
Every one of us. We act on it, and the only reason we don't recoil in despair at our failings is because we trust in Gods forgiveness.

Let's as Christians talk about this extremely relevant issue without damning people to hell. Let's no be so judgemental. Judge the action not the person!

[Silvertusk]

Well said Mel.

[Katabole]

I listened to Obama's speech yesterday from the Charleston church on CNN. Probably the most Christian and religious speech he ever gave. I was intrigued because he used the Bible to point out the evils of slavery. He spoke about Grace. A lot. Yet, earlier in the day he applauded the gay marriage ruling claiming in his words, "love is love". Why did he not point out the evils of gay marriage as he did slavery I wonder? I do not know what kind of specific Gospel Obama believes in. I do know it is a false one. It seems over the years that his belief system is a selective interpretation of Scripture. How anyone can call themselves Christian and at the same time be happy for our brothers and sisters lost in this world of darkness, when our Bible says those who practice such things is not only an abomination to God but they will not enter into the kingdom of God period. Our Bible claims, "God is love", not love is love. And tough love towards another is still love. Sometimes tough love is the best kind.

That gay marriage ruling should have been put to a referendum for the American people and it is shameful that it wasn't which would have been part of the essence of a true democracy, considering they were redefining a centuries old institution called marriage. The Democrats however did not want to do that because they knew that a majority of Americans are Christian and would have voted against it and defeated it. They want to overrule the Christian majority, (which the media in the last few years are calling bigots) and implement their social engineering agenda. Instead they sent it to the courts where they could have a greater influence in its outcome. Which they did.

Back in 2005, the same thing happened here in Canada. I thought the right thing would be for the government in power to hold a referendum and let all citizens vote. But the Liberal party in power here at that time here in Canada (which is equivalent to the Democrats in the US), knew it would be defeated because a majority of Canadians are Christian and the Liberal party had their own anti-Christian agenda in place, so they sent it to the courts, where the traditional meaning of marriage was overruled by Liberal appointed judges.

It seems to me many if not all Western democracies presently, have an anti-Christian, socialistic, communistic agenda, which is in truth Satanism, which they are attempting to fulfill. And instead of letting the people decide, the government is making the courts decide by precedent.

I believe the second President of your country said it best:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams

Ohh geez, here I go again!
I dont support gay marraige. I definitely think it should be decided by referendum. This is a hot issue in Australia and I hope it is decided by the people by majority, but I think the outcome here would be to legalise it. For the record I would vote No.
But, I would never say, nor do I think it should be said that all gay people are going to hell. We can have a christian opinion without pulling out the 'hell card'.
God hates sin.
But he loves all of us and we are all sinners. We can categorise how bad we view sin, from top of the list to least, but we all sit on that list, somewhere. The common christian view is its okay to be gay, just don't act on it. Okay. In many ways great advice, but not when the argument is that when acted upon, then you're lgoing to hell.
What we are talking about is sexual sin, lust, immorality.
If you think for a second you're not guilty then look again, this time with the log removed. We are all guilty of sexual immorality by Jesus' definition. Porn, lust, adultery in heart or action. Porn is viewed very ambiguously by today's standards. Can a person be a lingerie model, and be saved? Sexual glorification. Because let's face it, that's what it is. We make excuses for ourselves whilst damning others to hell. We watch the Vicoria Secret show, thinking it's okay because it's the social norm. Girls parading around in g-strings and bras. What, as long as it's done in the heterosexual 'norm' it's okay.
Is God okay with it?
We See christians struggle with porn addiction and we sympathise, we do not excuse the behaviour but there is a very common view myself included, that is its okay in the sense of not losing salvation, we are human, trust in the lord and you will overcome it. Love and patience and understanding is shown.
But not with homosexuality.
No patience, no understanding. Just a clean sweep of gay=hell.
We struggle and by faith and Gods grace make it to heaven.
We ALL struggle.
With sin and sexual sin.
The price Jesus paid on the cross covers every sin, when we have faith.
We can say, but as long as you don't give into it.
We give into sin everyday.
Every one of us. We act on it, and the only reason we don't recoil in despair at our failings is because we trust in Gods forgiveness.

Let's as Christians talk about this extremely relevant issue without damning people to hell. Let's no be so judgemental. Judge the action not the person!

Umm, I thought I made it clear to you in the past that I do not believe in Hell. I was not damning them. Scripture makes it clear:

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

They are already condemned. I do not have to say or do anything to change the outcome that God in His righteousness has already predicted. I have not written them off. They have already done that to themselves. They can change the outcome if they want to by asking God for forgiveness and repenting and God is faithful to forgive them. Personally, I ask God for forgiveness everyday for all the things I do which I know are willing wrong and all the things I am ignorant of and I would like to think I have a good relationship with our Father whom I love.

And as for judging it seems this verse is always overlooked:

John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

We as Christians are supposed to judge righteously. Evidently we know a particular judgment is right or wrong depending on whether God in His Word has deemed it right or wrong.

As you know there is the story in John's Gospel of the woman caught in adultery and brought to Jesus. Did Jesus excuse the woman's sin? No! In fact, He told her not to sin again. Instead of being an example of the "non-judgmental" Jesus that is constantly portrayed in the media these days, it is another example of the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus' day. What is clear from the context is that Jesus was talking about people making personal judgments against others, when their own behavior was much more seriously compromised than the persons they were judging. However, in other preaching, Jesus made it clear that He especially had a problem with the hypocrisy of the Jewish religious leaders of His time. In addition, since Jesus had told her not to sin again, He would certainly be accused of being "judgmental" by many people of our time. What is interesting about that story is that the male adulterer was not brought before Jesus. According to Jewish law, both were to be stoned to death if found guilty. It would have not only been presumptuous but wrong to for Jesus to judge the woman only. However, if both were brought before Him, maybe that story would have had a different outcome.

If Jesus wanted people to not be "judgmental" or judge other people's sin, He certainly did not take His own advice. In fact, Jesus often told people how to behave and specifically told them not to sin. If Jesus really did not want people to be judgmental, why was He that way Himself?

"Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment." John 7:24

Notice that the verse does not tell us not to judge at all, but to judge according to righteousness. If we cannot verify the truth about an accusation, we should keep our mouths shut, which is the essence of His other famous statement on judging, Judge not less you be judged. In other words, do not judge hypocritically. However, such critiques are not personal attacks, but are usually related to a defense of the Christian faith.

People who make the claim that Christians or Christian churches are judgmental are really referring to Christians' judgment between right and wrong. However, every person (with the possible exception of those who are judged to be criminally insane) on earth, make judgments between right and wrong every day, in order to make decisions about how to live one's life. Of course, the reasons why people say that Christians are judgmental is because they disagree with the moral judgments we make because the moral judgments we make are based directly on the words of Jesus Christ and are not based on any subjective personal opinion as morality is by non-Christians.

The Bible commands people of faith (both Christians and Jews) to make moral judgments. The Old Testament tells us to warn those who practice wicked things to turn from their evil ways. Jesus asked people why they would not judge what was the right thing to do in Luke 12:57 and instructed believers to admonish those brothers who practice sin. (Matt 18:15; Luke 17:3; Rev 2:2 and Rev 2:20). Paul reprimanded the Church at Corinth for not judging sin within their assembly. In fact, the Church is directed to condemn and remove sin from among its ranks first and foremost.

Although many people say that they don't think that others should make moral judgments, they soon change their mind when somebody does something immoral against them. The constitutions of many Western democratic nations, for ex. the USA, is based upon three branches of government, one of which is assigned to judge the morality of behaviors. The judicial branch of the United States government decides the morality of the actions of its citizens and punishes those who break those moral laws. Murder, assault, rape, fraud, theft, and numerous other behaviors are judged as being immoral. The idea that "you cannot legislate morality" is clearly false, since our legislative branches of government can and do make laws against a host of behaviors that have been declared as unacceptable. In fact, in the state of California, not only are laws made against moral behaviors, but laws are made to force businesses to train people not to commit certain immoral behaviors.

Christians are regularly accused of being judgmental. I know that has happened to many of us. However, what most people consider to be judgmental is merely telling others what the Bible says are unacceptable moral behaviors. Christians tell others what the Bible says about behavior because we are commanded to do so, so that others may lead morally acceptable lives and be delivered from evil and ultimately from God's destruction because I don't believe evil people will go to Hell. I believe they will annihilated from existence entirely. I do know that is difficult when we live in a culture these days that does not understand the meaning of the word "repent." When Jesus said if your brother trespass against you and "IF" he repents forgive him. Notice the condition. If he does not repent we do not have to forgive them. However, we are specifically commanded not to judge the behavior of individuals for whom we do not have absolute certainty of the truth regarding their actions. The Christian Church is to remove sin from within its own ranks first and foremost before condemning the actions of outsiders. But it has every right to condemn the actions of outsiders if it has cleaned its ranks, that is, removed its plank.

When the Church fails to do this;(and when I say Church I mean the people who make up the many-membered body), when it fails to make a stand against abortion, adultery, stealing or gay marriage for example, and as has happened in many cases already, it will lose its saltiness, it will bring in worldliness, idolatry and false teachings and the Church will itself, be under God's punishment. I know the United church and Anglican churches here in Canada have literally collapsed because their members did not agree with their non-Biblical worldly teachings and left. I know this because many people in my own non-denominational church are members from many other denominations who were disgusted at the teachings of their churches.

In essence, I simply do not like the fact that Western democracies like yours and mine, which have been founded on Christian values, are having those values usurped and are conceding power to an anti-Christian, very militant and a very loud minority. Even the honest atheists understand the basis of Western democracy and what would happen if it fails.

"For the normative self-understanding of modernity, Christianity has functioned as more than just a precursor or catalyst. Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of a continual critical reappropriation and reinterpretation. Up to this very day there is no alternative to it. Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization. To this day, we have no other options. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter." German atheist sociologist and historian Jurgen Habermas, 1999.

"It is my opinion that Christianity has shaped Western society for the better and that without it we would be a poorer and less-inspired people. The Western world differs from the Eastern in several ways, not the least of which are our Christian beliefs that all people are brothers and sisters. That love is the most powerful and noble of God-given human emotions and that sacrifice is necessary for freedom. These beliefs form the foundation of all Western law and ethics for which the very name is Democracy. It is hard to imagine something like the Peace Corps or the Marshall Plan emerging from any nation that was not itself moved, even subconsciously, by Christian principles." Atheist historian Pierre Berton from his book, 'The Comfortable Pew: A Critical Look at the Church in the New Age'

[RickD]

To be fair Mel,

Katabole didn't say that homosexuals go to hell. He just reiterated what scripture says about those who practice homosexual sins. That they will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

So Mel, it looks like you are equating the kingdom of God, with heaven. And it looks like you think Katabole equates the two as well, thereby condemning homosexual sinners to hell.

Maybe you could ask Katabole what he thinks the kingdom of God is, if it isn't heaven.

[Philip]

There's a HUGE difference between a person who is a Christian who happens to be struggling against the sin and temptations of homosexual desires and actions while they simultaneously recognize and acknowledge it as sin because they know that's what God's Word clearly says, as opposed to those emerged in a homosexual lifestyle who are 1) NOT a Christian and that deny God and what he warns about this; 2) who nonetheless insist homosexuality is perfectly natural and moral; 3) and who insist that Christians that have a problem with it are mere bigots and haters. It's those that are in the latter category that, unless they repent/embrace Christ, ARE most certainly going to hell. And you could insert into that certainty ANYONE who is not a Christian that is engaged in all manner of sins - be it heterosexual adultery, promiscuity - or whatever sins they so gladly embrace. It's the fact that they shamelessly embrace a lifestyle and sin that clearly rejects God and His teachings, that they even REVEL in it and are typically furious when Christians point out what God says about it, that shows exactly where they are headed, according to the Lord's Scriptures. Some that do so also falsely claim to be Christians and that GOD created them to be gay - many attending so-called rainbow "churches." (Now, some of those claiming such MIGHT be baby Christians but haven't yet understood God's Word on this - key is, have they put their faith in Christ?)

[RickD]

Seems pretty clear to me here:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10New American Standard Bible (NASB)

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Sounds like it's saying anyone who is a fornicator, adulterer, effeminate, homosexuals, thieves, drunkards, revilers, swindlers will NOT inherit the kingdom of God.

So, if in this instance, the kingdom of God is heaven, we all could be up sheets crick without a paddle!

But maybe...in this instance, the kingdom of God is referring to something else...