Supremes' majority enables gay marriage!

[RickD]

The voice of Sodom.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tqvykca417A

Usually I like ApologetiX. But in this case, they hacked the crap out of one of the best 80's songs. It sounds like a bad Weird Al Yankovic song.

[B. W.]

Posted this on anohter thread and it fits here too..

Rick wrote:
if she stood her ground, most likely she would've faced the stress of a lawsuit.

and this, to me is exactly what the progressive left wants, an early law suit that fans the flames to keep the topic hot and nasty and show all the earth how bigoted and religiously repressive Christians are. They'll use whatever means they have to create the strawman argument even if it means lies and partial truths to prevail. The law suit is there modus operandi...aka: see latest (2) SCOTUS final outcomes. No jurisprudence involved all politically correct pandering that suits the left just fine while leaving 60% of the country up the creek without a paddle.

Law suits are there best friend and we should be directing our efforts towards new laws, not old ones.... we've already lost that venue. As the president is so fond of saying..." it's the law of the land, get used to it...."

I read a great response to this issue for Christian bakers and bushiness that are involved in the Marriage market would be this caveat:

This is a Christian Business, we will provide a cake for you but be forewarned that we will preach the gospel to you...as that is our protected right under the US Constitution's Bill of Rights First Amendment.

As for churches, these are traditional vows:

from Vow Link

Basic Protestant Vows

"I, ___, take thee, ___, to be my wedded husband/wife, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereto I pledge thee my faith [or] pledge myself to you."

Episcopal

"______, wilt thou have this woman/man to be thy wedded wife/husband to live together after God's ordinance in the Holy Estate of matrimony? Wilt thou love her/him? Comfort her/him, honor and keep her/him, in sickness and in health, and forsaking all others keep thee only unto her/him as long as you both shall live?"

"In the name of God, I, ______, take you, ______, to be my wife/husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and health, to love and to cherish, until we are parted by death. This is my solemn vow."

Methodist

"Will you have this woman/man to be your wife/husband, to live together in holy marriage? Will you love her/him, comfort her/him, honor, and keep her/him in sickness and in health, and forsaking all others, be faithful to her/him as long as you both shall live?"

"In the name of God, I, ______, take you, ______, to be my wife/husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, until we are parted by death. This is my solemn vow."

Presbyterian

"______, wilt thou have this woman/man to be thy wife/husband, and wilt thou pledge thy faith to him/her, in all love and honor, in all duty and service, in all faith and tenderness, to live with her/him, and cherish her/him, according to the ordinance of God, in the holy bond of marriage?"

"I, ______, take you, ______, to be my wedded wife/husband, and I do promise and covenant, before God and these witnesses, to be your loving and faithful husband/wife, in plenty and want, in joy and in sorrow, in sickness and in health, as long as we both shall live."

After quoting a wedding vow you mention this:

Please understand that you are asking us to cruse you and this we cannot do in good conscience therefore you have the right to go elsewhere...

This is what the bible says on this matter...

Romans 1:26,27,28,29,30,31,32 and 1 Cor 6:9,10...

You are asking us to curse you as well as ourselves to marry you, therefore in good conscience we as Christians do not curse others so respect our belief system protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution which states: Religion and Expression. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Do you understand that you are demanding that we curse you and ourselves to marry under God's sight - the very God who calls your lifestyle choice a grievous sin against the laws of nature and natures God?

Therefore, please understand that you are asking us to curse you and this we cannot do in good conscience therefore you have the right to go elsewhere...
-
-
-
P.S. Please shout this from the roof tops...

[RickD]

B. W.,

As far as a Christian working in a govt office that performs civil marriages, I don't think that will fly. The govt isn't in the business of performing religious marriages. As far as govt sanctioned marriages goes, the definition of marriage has been changed. And if someone doesn't perform her duties as a govt employee, who must abide by the laws that govt put in place, then termination and or lawsuits will probably follow.

That's why I think resignation was the best option in that instance.

[abelcainsbrother]

The voice of Sodom.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tqvykca417A

Usually I like ApologetiX. But in this case, they hacked the crap out of one of the best 80's songs. It sounds like a bad Weird Al Yankovic song.

They parodied the Atari's cover,not the original.

[RickD]

The voice of Sodom.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tqvykca417A

Usually I like ApologetiX. But in this case, they hacked the crap out of one of the best 80's songs. It sounds like a bad Weird Al Yankovic song.

They parodied the Atari's cover,not the original.

Ah I see. That makes more sense. Is never heard of The Ataris version. Then I don't blame ApologetiX. I blame The Ataris for their hack job!

[abelcainsbrother]

The voice of Sodom.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tqvykca417A

Usually I like ApologetiX. But in this case, they hacked the crap out of one of the best 80's songs. It sounds like a bad Weird Al Yankovic song.

They parodied the Atari's cover,not the original.

Ah I see. That makes more sense. Is never heard of The Ataris version. Then I don't blame ApologetiX. I blame The Ataris for their hack job!

Yeah,I like the original too,the Atari's version is a little more rock and pop.

[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' 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'

To me the most striking thing about your post was your opinion that both the man and woman would have needed to be stoned by law so perhaps the outcome would have been different. The reason Jesus made one of the most poignant examples of the Pharisees in scripture could have been due to a technicality. I assume that the meaning behind 'could have been different' is that Jesus' would have condoned the stoning if the man was present. This shows to me a complete lacking of the both the lesson Jesus put forward, His character and the entire message of the New Testament.
I doubt we will see eye to eye when our interpretations of our faith and Our Saviour ar so vastly different.
I'm not sure when homosexuality became the 'big' sin, the im pardonable sin but it's not found in scripture. You have no idea whether they have rejected Jesus, you cannot assume based on their sins. We all reject God based on our sin. Jesus' blood covers sin, all sin, to those that believe in Him.
It's not a question whether assault, rape, murder and theft are immoral. Not judging an action, judging the behaviour but rather judging an entire group of people as unsaved. Now call it hell or call it annihilation, it doesn't make a difference. That is like saying all people who steal are unsaved, all people who lie are unsaved, all people who have ever committed murder are unsaved, and all gays are unsaved. It is so counter productive to the message of Christ and The Good News.
People confound the issue by thinking that the opposite to such judgmental thinking is no balls, salvation to all, watered down, false gospel BS. Well it's not. I am both prudent in standing by my beliefs whilst witnessing first and foremost by the love I show to others. That love leads to scripture and sharing my beliefs but not questioning their salvation. I will do what God has given me to do, witness, with scripture but most importantly with my behaviour, because if my behaviour is contrary to scripture then my witnessing just went down the toilet. People are good at spotting BS and hypocrisy.
It's intersting that you say 'christians are regularly accused of being judgmental'. But we're not, we just hold to a moral standard. You know what my biggest witness to Christ has been in my life, the fact that I don't judge people. I am far from perfect, I am not your cookie cutter christian but one thing I can get right is not being judgmental. People notice, it is in stark contrast to the world and to many other christians. I love in word, in deed and action. I do not compromise my beliefs but I hold people close and with love. That is what makes people ask 'where is it coming from' in all humility that is why so many people have said I am different to others, that I am so loving and accepting. I show others the same love, patience, kindness, generosity, that Christ has shown me. I am no better than anyone. My faith does not make me superior in anyway and not in the ability to know or judge who is saved. I am a sinner. I repeat some sins, and have to repent daily. If not for the grace of God I would be in big trouble. Christians are not the authority by our actions on morality, we are the voice to tell people how far reaching the grace and light of Christ reaches.
If I can be forgiven and saved then there's hope for anyone.

[Katabole]

Fair enough.

[abelcainsbrother]

I agree so much with many things both of you said but in order to be saved a person must repent of their sin and yet when it comes to gay people it seems they gett a pass and we cannot call it a sin,this makes it very hard to witness to gay people. They do not belie it is a sin and so don't want to repent and so they cannot be saved thinking this way and yet are on their way to hell.

Also I think we need clear understanding what a hypocrite is from a biblical perspective because if we apply the word hypocrite the way it is thrown around so much then we could all be called hypocrites and this is not true.We are justified by Christ and it is a gift that we do not deserve God's grace. It does not matter what man thinks as he throws that word hypocrite around while having a beam in his eye.If we have been saved we are not a hypocrite.

S a hypocrite has to apply to other people and it is, a hypocrite is anybody who tries to go to heaven some other way than salvation by Jesus,these are people who act like a christian and yet have never truly been saved by Jesus. It is all just an act because they have not ever been saved.

Understood like this it does not apply to real Christians who have truly been saved and justified based on what Jesus did,not how imperfect they are in Christ.

[RickD]

I agree so much with many things both of you said but in order to be saved a person must repent of their sin and yet when it comes to gay people it seems they gett a pass and we cannot call it a sin,this makes it very hard to witness to gay people. They do not belie it is a sin and so don't want to repent and so they cannot be saved thinking this way and yet are on their way to hell

Maybe try witnessing to gay people, just like you should witness to anyone else. Tell them they're not saved because they don't have eternal life. And they don't have eternal life, because they haven't trusted in Christ.

People don't go to hell because they sin. Christ's atonement has covered all sin. They go to hell because they don't have eternal life. And how do they get eternal life? By trusting in Christ.

[abelcainsbrother]

I agree so much with many things both of you said but in order to be saved a person must repent of their sin and yet when it comes to gay people it seems they gett a pass and we cannot call it a sin,this makes it very hard to witness to gay people. They do not belie it is a sin and so don't want to repent and so they cannot be saved thinking this way and yet are on their way to hell

Maybe try witnessing to gay people, just like you should witness to anyone else. Tell them they're not saved because they don't have eternal life. And they don't have eternal life, because they haven't trusted in Christ.

People don't go to hell because they sin. Christ's atonement has covered all sin. They go to hell because they don't have eternal life. And how do they get eternal life? By trusting in Christ.

I'm talking about repentance a person must acknowledge their sin.I'm not saying they can't be saved,anybody can hat will believe in Jesus but they must repent.

[RickD]

I agree so much with many things both of you said but in order to be saved a person must repent of their sin and yet when it comes to gay people it seems they gett a pass and we cannot call it a sin,this makes it very hard to witness to gay people. They do not belie it is a sin and so don't want to repent and so they cannot be saved thinking this way and yet are on their way to hell

Maybe try witnessing to gay people, just like you should witness to anyone else. Tell them they're not saved because they don't have eternal life. And they don't have eternal life, because they haven't trusted in Christ.

People don't go to hell because they sin. Christ's atonement has covered all sin. They go to hell because they don't have eternal life. And how do they get eternal life? By trusting in Christ.

I'm talking about repentance a person must acknowledge their sin.I'm not saying they can't be saved,anybody can hat will believe in Jesus but they must repent.

Please define "repent".