• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

It doesn't have to be that way. Salvation is free. You only need to take it.

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God"
Eph 2:8

It's a choice He gives us, right? He asks us to follow His Word.

So how arrogant are you trying to force it on people who didnt choose to believe? God opens a door for us but he doesnt shove us thru. YOU, arrogantly, would use force, by law, to "shove people" thru that door to behave as you want. Yeah...He's not gonna like that when you arrive at His Gates.
 
They can do that now if they choose.

What you are talking about is spite...and that's not a very Godly thing.

Whoa, where did spite come from? It's merely an academic discussion on whether clergy acting as an agent of the state in a legal marriage contract could discriminate, not unlike the discussion on whether a city clerk could refuse to issue a marriage licence.
 
what kind of Christians would those be? Certainly not actual ones's following the teachings of Jesus, those of love, compassion, helping your fellow man, etc.

They would be the Christians who don't want to participate in abortions.
 
Lots of Protestant churches have been performing gay marriages for more than a decade. Do you think they'll stop now? Why?

(I cant speak for other faiths tho).

Because they will want to keep their tax-exempt status.
 
They have devalued marriage

You know who else devalued marriage? Adulterers, men and women *cough* Newt and Rush *cough* on their third and fourth marriages, etc.

I have to give the heterosexuals a lot of credit. They've done their part to devalue marriage long before the gays came along. The gays are going to have to work like hell getting gay married all over the place to even come close to devaluing marriage by embracing marriage if they want to match the damage done by straight folks!
 
5 robed buffoons unilaterally lording over 350 million is your idea of democracy?

I am 100% certain that if those 5 robes sided to your favor you would be defending the process.

This too shall pass. God bless America. Let freedom ring.
 
159 pages and still going, amazing. This thread right here is going to kill any chance at a future career in politics and most posting here, lol.
 
What scripture is that? Seriously. And try to stick to the New Testament, which pretty much supersedes the Old.

The premise of your request isn't valid:

Mathew 5, 17
"Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose."

So, the Old Testament is still valid.

What can and can't be done in marriage is a long explanation. So I'll let this website do it. It is well done and has plenty of references:

What Does the Bible Say About Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage?

That should establish that marriage, per the bible, is only allowed between a man and a woman and that anything else is against God's law. The question then becomes, is helping someone to violate God's law a sin? Clearly the answer is yes.

2 John 7-11

7 I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Watch out that you do not lose what we[a] have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. 9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them. 11 Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work.

Does a sin damn you for eternity? Well, yes and no. The goal of life is to avoid sin and apologize when you make a mistake. The less obvious answer is if you intentionally sin and then apologize. Many say you are still ok. Many say there is no repentance.

Either way, the government has no right to put a person's soul in jeopardy just because they participate in commerce. That is a pure violation of the first amendment.
 
So then why has no one been refusing to serve divorced people, adulterers, fornicators? Seems like that 'religious belief' would be applied pretty selectively, eh? I mean, why can those sinners marry but gays (sinners) cant (couldnt)? So yeah, I call BS on 99% of people objecting to serving gays based on 'religion'. And that dishonesty is a sin :)

Because they are lazy and would rather enforce what they want God's word to be than what is God's word.
 
159 pages and still going, amazing. This thread right here is going to kill any chance at a future career in politics and most posting here, lol.

Think I would rather be a piano player in a whorehouse than suffer a career in politics. Much more dignity in piano playing.
 
Actually, after hearing some of the ridiculous remarks on this ruling from a few of the dissenting judges, I now feel it is rather disturbing how incredibly backwards some of them are.
 
Additionally.....I don't see any hardcore leftists crossing over to vote for the Republican candidate.....they might not be happy with Obama, but seriously......there is no shot that they would support even a moderate Republican candidate.

Also...I don't think that Obama got many votes simply because he was black.....especially from people who traditionally vote Republican. I don't know where you are coming up with that, but I find the scenario pretty implausible.

By default, it's an uphill battle for Republicans. When you start off with NY and California in your pocket, almost automatically, you are in pretty good shape. That's why the Democrats are trying to flood Texas with illegals and don't want any voter ID at all. They don't really care much about the illegals in other States, they know if they can get enough votes to get Texas, it would be impossible for a Republican to win.

On the other hand, if the Republicans can win California or NY, ala Reagan, they have an easy win. But hey, why follow that strategy? They're going to throw up someone like Jeb Bush and lose again.
 
They would be the Christians who don't want to participate in abortions.

??? Not sure what that has to do with this except for this, if this is what you were thinking: if you dont want to participate in gay marriage, dont marry someone of the same sex. If you dont want to participate in abortion, dont have one.

See? It's all about choice and neither one affects you *at all.*
 
Because they will want to keep their tax-exempt status.

No, I know a couple of such churches and they welcome everyone, including gay couples. And marry them. Not just to keep from lawsuits or their tax status. So I'm sure there are plenty more. On another forum, there's a gay minister of a protestant parish...in Iowa.

There are many Christian churches in the US that accept gays.
 
The premise of your request isn't valid:

Mathew 5, 17
"Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose."

So, the Old Testament is still valid.

What can and can't be done in marriage is a long explanation. So I'll let this website do it. It is well done and has plenty of references:

What Does the Bible Say About Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage?

That should establish that marriage, per the bible, is only allowed between a man and a woman and that anything else is against God's law. The question then becomes, is helping someone to violate God's law a sin? Clearly the answer is yes.



Does a sin damn you for eternity? Well, yes and no. The goal of life is to avoid sin and apologize when you make a mistake. The less obvious answer is if you intentionally sin and then apologize. Many say you are still ok. Many say there is no repentance.

Either way, the government has no right to put a person's soul in jeopardy just because they participate in commerce. That is a pure violation of the first amendment.

Jesus said there is absolutely repentance if you ask. Like I said...New Testament. For ANY sin.

But it's sad that you think the govt can make you fear God. God is a God of love and peace and compassion and nothing you write indicates that you recognize that, only vengeance and hate.

I guess all the bakers and photographers, etc, that have been serving adulterers and fornicators all these years have gone to Hell, or are going to? Ruh oh!
 
Because they are lazy and would rather enforce what they want God's word to be than what is God's word.

So like I said then, they are just selectively using sin as an excuse against gays, rather than actually objecting because of religious belief.

Thanks, that's what I said.
 
By default, it's an uphill battle for Republicans. When you start off with NY and California in your pocket, almost automatically, you are in pretty good shape. That's why the Democrats are trying to flood Texas with illegals and don't want any voter ID at all. They don't really care much about the illegals in other States, they know if they can get enough votes to get Texas, it would be impossible for a Republican to win.

On the other hand, if the Republicans can win California or NY, ala Reagan, they have an easy win. But hey, why follow that strategy? They're going to throw up someone like Jeb Bush and lose again.

First off...there is very little chance that a Republican would win California (in the near foreseeable future). If they ever ARE going to win California it would have to be with a moderate. Someone the likes of Cruz or Walker would never stand a chance.

Second...I don't know where you get the idea that Democrats are trying to flood Texas with illegals. First of all, illegals can't vote and vote ID doesn't change that at all. I support voter ID as long as there are procedures in place to allow for no-charge ID's and it is combined with motor-voter registration (something that Republicans oppose because they want to limit the pool of voters not expand it). The reason why Texas is trending purple is more due to changing demographics and one of the "downsides" to Texas luring companies away from other states with their massive corporate welfare handouts. They are bringing Democratic voters into the state. The reality is that once Texas becomes a swing state or turns blue, there is zero chance that the Republicans will get the whitehouse.
 
No, I know a couple of such churches and they welcome everyone, including gay couples. And marry them. Not just to keep from lawsuits or their tax status. So I'm sure there are plenty more. On another forum, there's a gay minister of a protestant parish...in Iowa.

There are many Christian churches in the US that accept gays.

The first openly gay Episcopalian Bishop was here in NH. His name is Gene Robinson. It was big news 12 years or so ago when he was tapped by the church and elected as Bishop. He was married to a woman in his early years but divorced her in the 1980s, and came out as gay then. It didn't hurt his career by any means.

He married his partner in the mid-2000s when NH legalized SSM but I heard they were getting divorced.

Yup, some churches are very welcoming to gay people.
 
Yes, you won in the immediate on the issue but lost like the rest of us, long term, on the method. It matters as much how you get there as where you get to.

You, nor I, know the future. You don't have any clue the actual repercussions of this decision, particularly on future Court decisions, especially with how many times the SCOTUS has changed its mind on things.
 
Whoa, where did spite come from? It's merely an academic discussion on whether clergy acting as an agent of the state in a legal marriage contract could discriminate, not unlike the discussion on whether a city clerk could refuse to issue a marriage licence.

THe spite comes from the selective choice to not serve gay 'sinners' but not objecting to serve the other sinners applying for marriage licenses...the adulterers, the fornicators, the convicted murderers, the multiple divorcees.....

It's not about 'sin' or religious belief. It's about being mad that gays can now marry and using your religion as a tool against them. Spite. God frowns on that btw.
 
Back
Top Bottom