Supreme Court extends same-sex marriage nationwide

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: JohnFisher

Jesus reaffirmed God's plan for marriage when replying to a question about divorce.

Jesus also reaffirmed God's plan for marriage in the parable about the 10 virgins awaiting their one bridegroom. According to Jesus, one could argue that polygamy is God's plan for marriage.

I can definitely see why you would think this, but... That isn't the case. This link does a great job explaining ancient Jewish wedding customs to. which this parable is relevant. www.khouse.org...

a reply to: JohnFisher

Nothing needs to be explained. Biblical speaking, marriages were arranged and men could have as many wives as they could afford. When Jesus, supposedly, told the parable about the 10 virgins, he was referring to a culturally acceptable marriage tradition, where romance and love were never even considered.

The Bible in no way endorses marriage as a romantic relationship between one man and one women.

Liberals who call themselves christians just told Jesus and God the Father off and said screw your laws.They bowed to the U.S. instead without realizing they just told God I don't believe in your laws.

They think the U.S. government is God for some bizarre reason.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: JohnFisher

Nothing needs to be explained. Biblical speaking, marriages were arranged and men could have as many wives as they could afford. When Jesus, supposedly, told the parable about the 10 virgins, he was referring to a culturally acceptable marriage tradition, where romance and love were never even considered.

The Bible in no way endorses marriage as a romantic relationship between one man and one women.

TThe Old Testament is full of polygamy, yes, but it is also full of examples as to the hardships such a practice brings, ultimately because it goes against God's plan for marriage... which Jesus later clarified. The article is worth the read. It is also nice to know what the parable actually talks about.

a reply to: Jobeycool

They bowed to the U.S. instead without realizing they just told God I don't believe in your laws.

Maybe it's just that they don't believe some bunch of dusty guys thousands to hundreds of years ago, who wrote down some stuff, knew better than what we know now.

Maybe God had nothing at all to do with the Bible. No, not even mayb------------hang on.................


....*finger to ear*......
oh, wait.

Yeah, God just said, "I don't give a rip about adults using their privates with other adults. I also don't care if people eat shrimp, or bacon. Or shrimp wrapped in bacon. All I care about is that you all stop slaughtering each other, stop ruining the house I built you (Earth), look after one another, and teach each other and your offspring how to get along. I did not write that book....okay? You guys did. And frankly it's preposterous...so

Just get ove-----it------(sighing sound)---*crackle*

Yeah, just lost the signal. Sorry.
Make of it what you will.




God is not a PERSON. Sheesh. And is also not paying attention. Unless it's like occasionally stopping while high to gaze at an ant colony in the yard, and thinking, "What the HELL?!"

Yeah, magical thinking. It's so 2nd grade.

You all need to grow up. The only thing that can change our circumstances is - ---- WE. Us (for the less gramatically inclined.) WE are the ONLY THING that can turn this story around. WE are the collective authors of what happens to us.....the guys who 'wrote the Bible'? nope, not here. Long dead and recycled back into the universe. Now it's only we ourselves who can do anything.

a reply to: Jobeycool

Because God can't make laws for everyone, your god is your belief system and you can believe what you want, but you can't make laws based off one religion, unless you want a "One world religion"

a reply to: Jobeycool

My God is well chuffed.
What makes your God right and mine wrong?.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Because your God is probably British

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: JohnFisher

Nothing needs to be explained. Biblical speaking, marriages were arranged and men could have as many wives as they could afford. When Jesus, supposedly, told the parable about the 10 virgins, he was referring to a culturally acceptable marriage tradition, where romance and love were never even considered.

The Bible in no way endorses marriage as a romantic relationship between one man and one women.

WWhen Jesus told the parable He based it around an ancient Jewish custom-- a wedding ceremony where. It was specifically about this ceremony because this ceremony held a particular practice. That particular practice is the very thing He wanted to use to express a greater truth. The bride and her attendees (the virgins) were to he ready because they knew not when the bridegroom would come with his guests to claim his bride. He would certainly come at night, and then the bride and her attendees would accompany everyone to a tent where the bride and groom would, uh, make it official. The guests would wait outside the tent and cheer. This parable speaks to the attendees who didn't get ready in time... being that they didn't know when the bridegroom would come. Since they didn't get ready in time, they were left behind while the ones who were ready got to participate in the celebration.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: JohnFisher

See. There's the thing, we can go back and forth all day on this topic and at the end of the day neither of us will be convinced. Just like every other bible interpretation in the world. Hence why this ruling was a good thing. Get religion out of the government.

interpretation isn't the issue regarding scripture so much as how stable or.how well taught one is in the faith. But I do agree about constitution. At least we can agree that the constitution must be adhered to.

originally posted by: Jobeycool
Liberals who call themselves christians just told Jesus and God the Father off and said screw your laws. They bowed to the U.S. instead without realizing they just told God I don't believe in your laws.

They think the U.S. government is God for some bizarre reason.

"Liberals" did not do this. The Constitution did. The Supreme Court justices who voted for this were 4 liberal and 1 conservative. They do not consider "God's Law" when deciding a legal issue. They defer to the Constitution. As they should. "God's Law" is irrelevant in matters of US law.

originally posted by: JohnFisher
No, I'm pointing out that the people of our country tend to take things too far, and our government has a tendency to completely disregard constitutional liberties. I'm saying that this has potential become what many movements have.in the past in our own country and around the world.

Why can't you answer MY post?

Your answer here is so ambiguous. What are you afraid of? Other than a general "taking things too far"... specifically, what do you mean? Churches being forced to marry people?

a reply to: JohnFisher

Right, and that is why this ruling from the Supreme Court was inevitable. The Constitution trumps Christian law every time. It's spelled out as such in the 1st Amendment.

That is also why it is a falsehood to claim that any liberal is going to use this ruling to discriminate against Christians. Not only is that impossible, but again the Supreme Court is there to uphold the Constitution, even if a lawyer DID manage to convince a judge to side against Christians in some weird lawsuit involving gay marriage, the SC would over turn it after enough appeals.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

And I believe even the liberals would support such an appeal.

The 1st Amendment is to be protected at all costs. If not for the protection of the religious, but also for the protection of the NON-religious as well.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: JohnFisher
No, I'm pointing out that the people of our country tend to take things too far, and our government has a tendency to completely disregard constitutional liberties. I'm saying that this has potential become what many movements have.in the past in our own country and around the world.

Why can't you answer MY post?

Your answer here is so ambiguous. What are you afraid of? Other than a general "taking things too far"... specifically, what do you mean? Churches being forced to marry people?

You want examples of people going to far? I'm not saying anything specific will or won't happen. I'm just saying we ought be cautious. That's all. I think you're smart enough to know our own history of taking things too far and our government's history of disregarding the constitution.

I didn't reply to your post directly because I didn't see it. It's hard to keep up on my phone. I apologize.

a reply to: JohnFisher

What about the countries that had already allowed Gay Marriage, i brought up The Netherlands who was the first

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Right. MOST homosexuals understand that with this victory, doesn't mean they are entitled to be married in whatever church they decide to pick while driving down the street. Churches were and still are private institutions protected by the 1st Amendment. A homosexual couple demanding to be married would be the same as a Satanist couple demanding to have a Satanist wedding at a Catholic church. The church has EVERY right, as per the 1st Amendment, to deny that service to them because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

Look, there are still churches that deny interracial marriages:
Interracial Couple Spurned

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: JohnFisher

Right, and that is why this ruling from the Supreme Court was inevitable. The Constitution trumps Christian law every time. It's spelled out as such in the 1st Amendment.

That is also why it is a falsehood to claim that any liberal is going to use this ruling to discriminate against Christians. Not only is that impossible, but again the Supreme Court is there to uphold the Constitution, even if a lawyer DID manage to convince a judge to side against Christians in some weird lawsuit involving gay marriage, the SC would over turn it after enough appeals.

impossible? Not at all. Likely? I don't know, about as likely as the forceful internment of innocent American citizens I guess. About as likely as a president ignoring supreme court rulings on forced relocation. About as likely as forced sterilization programs or warrantless wiretapping. About as likely as McCarthyism a guess.

a reply to: JohnFisher

TThe Old Testament is full of polygamy, yes, but it is also full of examples as to the hardships such a practice brings, ultimately because it goes against God's plan for marriage.

Why is that, because when men have multiple wives, they get jealous of each other?

TThe Old Testament is full of polygamy, yes, but it is also full of examples as to the hardships such a practice brings, ultimately because it goes against God's plan for marriage.

Right, Jesus clarified that a man can marry as many women as he can afford.

The bride and her attendees (the virgins) were to he ready because they knew not when the bridegroom would come with his guests to claim his bride.

Oh, so now you're going to change the scripture! There are no attendees to the bride mentioned in that parable! ALL the virgins were waiting for one and only one bridegroom! I the bridegroom was prepared to take all ten of them, but some of them were to immature to have oil in their lamps, and so the bridegroom would have nothing to do with them.

That's the example of traditional marriage that Jesus affirms, polygamy! The Bible nowhere affirms marriage in the sense that the church defines as marriage today, where to two people, one man and one woman, fall in love and choose to make a commitment to each other. That was unheard of and certainly not what Jesus affirmed as traditional marriage!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Right. MOST homosexuals understand that with this victory, doesn't mean they are entitled to be married in whatever church they decide to pick while driving down the street. Churches were and still are private institutions protected by the 1st Amendment. A homosexual couple demanding to be married would be the same as a Satanist couple demanding to have a Satanist wedding at a Catholic church. The church has EVERY right, as per the 1st Amendment, to deny that service to them because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

Look, there are still churches that deny interracial marriages:
Interracial Couple Spurned

IIf they did take it too far, it probably wouldn't be the get community fueling the fire.