Here is the biblical view. Our Pastor yesterday:
"Pastor Christopher W. Brooks of Evangel Ministries in Detroit Michigan USA.
The opening sermon in a series on biblical sexuality in the wake of the US Supreme Courts DOMA decision this week.
I love you Pastor Chris. You are a man of real Christian courage and unwavering commitment to the canon of God’s holy word. I grabbed a copy of the video from brother Daryll after service today as this message MUST go public."
Yeah I am going to watch an hour sermon
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Yeah I am going to watch an hour sermon [/quote]
GOOD FOR YOU!!! There’s a first time for everything!! LOL!!! Jist ribbin ya. I’m just postin it. Whether anybody actually watches it is God’s problem. Pastor Chris is certainly not the only one either.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Yeah I am going to watch an hour sermon [/quote]
GOOD FOR YOU!!! There’s a first time for everything!! LOL!!! Jist ribin ya. I’m just postin it. Whether anybody actually watches it is God’s problem. Pastor Chris is certainly not the only one either. [/quote]
If you can get it down to 10 minutes I will watch iT:)
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Yeah I am going to watch an hour sermon [/quote]
GOOD FOR YOU!!! There’s a first time for everything!! LOL!!! Jist ribin ya. I’m just postin it. Whether anybody actually watches it is God’s problem. Pastor Chris is certainly not the only one either. [/quote]
If you can get it down to 10 minutes I will watch iT:)[/quote]
You can skip around.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Since when could gays marry ?[/quote]
Ever since marriage was a socially acceptable norm.
Gay people could (and can) marry whenever they want.
The law in question prevented people, all people, from marrying someone of the same sex. The law had no bearing on whom a person was or wasn’t attracted to, nor did it require a couple to have sex or be attracted in order to marry.
I didn’t have to check a box that said any of the following when I got my marriage license or filed “married” on a tax return:
The only reason the word “discrimination” can be held in this case is due to the people for same sex marriage did a very good job at using logical fallacy, and people’s infantile minds ate up emotional appeals that had zero to do with the subject.
It wasn’t unfairly discriminatory. It discriminated against everyone. Neither a gay person nor a straight person, neither a man, nor a woman could marry someone of the same sex. Everyone was discriminated against equally. Not all discrimination is bad, you and I do it everyday. It is in large part, why the human race, and all life really, has evolved to the point they have. Our ancestors discriminated for mates, employment, food, etc… We discriminate against Meth. Everyone is barred from smoking it. This is good discrimination.
That said, I’m glad Clinton’s law was destroyed and here is why:
The government has no place in marriage outside of custody of property and upholding certain protections in legal affairs. Therefore, to the government marriage is a contract. How the government could ever think they had the power to prevent two consenting adults from entering into a custody contract is beyond me. The government should have no say in that level of detail in our day-to-day lives, especially considering the contract isn’t harming anyone but themselves, and they willfully enter into to.
Now churches and other religious institutions shouldn’t be forced to perform services for these marriages or couples, nor should they be required to celebrate this ruling. Private employers, who’s owners are religious are going to have a tougher time keeping themselves out of court, because of the same as I mentioned above. However a good lawyer will pwn a private employer without the appeal to emotion, but won’t bother because the infancy is strong these days…
This also sets the table for polygamy quite nicely if anyone is crazy enough to want two wives or husbands…
One is more than enough for me, lol.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
This also sets the table for polygamy quite nicely if anyone is crazy enough to want two wives or husbands…
One is more than enough for me, lol. [/quote]
The line in the sand has been removed. Polygamy is the next law to be removed.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
This also sets the table for polygamy quite nicely if anyone is crazy enough to want two wives or husbands…
One is more than enough for me, lol. [/quote]
Here in Utah all the polygamists damn near had a breakdown of joy…seriously, they are getting ready to file their suit in the 10th District Federal Court in Salt Lake City.
It also would make marriage legal to animals and inanimate objects…this should be fun watching these cases.
Sloth had the best argument ever for this. He said that unless you leave ANY and ALL kinds of interactions between ANY consenting adults open to all that traditional marriage has been you ARE discriminating against SOMEbody and since non discrimination is now the sooper cosmic imperative, NO boundaries whatsoever can be consistently upheld.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
It also would make marriage legal to animals and inanimate objects…this should be fun watching these cases.[/quote]
On that note:
Marriage was reserved for one man and one woman for life in this country for a reason. Once that is no longer the case there is literally no logical reason to restrict almost anything.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Marriage was reserved for one man and one woman for life in this country for a reason. Once that is no longer the case there is literally no logical reason to restrict almost anything. [/quote]
Or…once government gets involved in marriage, there is no logical reason for government to not be involved in everything.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Marriage was reserved for one man and one woman for life in this country for a reason. Once that is no longer the case there is literally no logical reason to restrict almost anything. [/quote]
Yes, those states that have had gay marriage legal have seen nothing but animal fucking every since!
You don’t have to restrict what isn’t a problem, but we can keep talking about how everyone’s gonna bang a goat now. Ironically the states where gay marriage is banned have a MUCH higher chance of animal fucking and other redneck hillbilly dumbass shit than any of the places where it’s currently legal.
But let’s not let any of that get in the way of the religious crazies constant here comes the animal banging argument 
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Marriage was reserved for one man and one woman for life in this country for a reason. Once that is no longer the case there is literally no logical reason to restrict almost anything. [/quote]
Or…once government gets involved in marriage, there is no logical reason for government to not be involved in everything.[/quote]
Their involvement in everything came a bit before marriage so no need to blame it on that.
Also, what was the point of DOMA if marriage is reserved for one man and one woman? We did fine for over 200 years without it during the good ol days.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I am not an Athiest
Since when could gays marry ?[/quote]
My mistake. I was confused by the way you seemed to be inferring that God can be tricked by humans.
Like I said, as far as I know, gays have always been able to marry in America. I don’t know of any laws that have ever said, “A person can’t say he is married,” or anything like that.[/quote]
If you mean marry with none of the benefits or be recognized by the Gov . I guess they can pretend to marry and no one will imprison them
[/quote]
If they’re worried about being married for religious purposes(you said this judgment provided gays with religious freedom), then state recognition of marriage wouldn’t matter. A person isn’t necessarily “pretending” to be married just because the government doesn’t recognize his or her marriage. The government benefits of marriage should not exist for anyone.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I am not an Athiest
Since when could gays marry ?[/quote]
My mistake. I was confused by the way you seemed to be inferring that God can be tricked by humans.
Like I said, as far as I know, gays have always been able to marry in America. I don’t know of any laws that have ever said, “A person can’t say he is married,” or anything like that.[/quote]
If you mean marry with none of the benefits or be recognized by the Gov . I guess they can pretend to marry and no one will imprison them
[/quote]
If they’re worried about being married for religious purposes(you said this judgment provided gays with religious freedom), then state recognition of marriage wouldn’t matter. A person isn’t necessarily “pretending” to be married just because the government doesn’t recognize his or her marriage. The government benefits of marriage should not exist for anyone.[/quote]
In a sense I agree about your premise that there should be no “benefits” recognized by the government as far as marriage goes, but it DOES make sense…a couple raising kids is economically more feasible than people knocking up and leaving, creates a more stable environment for their kids to get a good head-start, and have a greater opportunity to be a boon to society as a whole. If giving people a little more incentive to stick together helps society as a whole advance, maybe that’s a good thing.
What do you think?
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I am not an Athiest
Since when could gays marry ?[/quote]
My mistake. I was confused by the way you seemed to be inferring that God can be tricked by humans.
Like I said, as far as I know, gays have always been able to marry in America. I don’t know of any laws that have ever said, “A person can’t say he is married,” or anything like that.[/quote]
If you mean marry with none of the benefits or be recognized by the Gov . I guess they can pretend to marry and no one will imprison them
[/quote]
If they’re worried about being married for religious purposes(you said this judgment provided gays with religious freedom), then state recognition of marriage wouldn’t matter. A person isn’t necessarily “pretending” to be married just because the government doesn’t recognize his or her marriage. The government benefits of marriage should not exist for anyone.[/quote]
In a sense I agree about your premise that there should be no “benefits” recognized by the government as far as marriage goes, but it DOES make sense…a couple raising kids is economically more feasible than people knocking up and leaving, creates a more stable environment for their kids to get a good head-start, and have a greater opportunity to be a boon to society as a whole. If giving people a little more incentive to stick together helps society as a whole advance, maybe that’s a good thing.
What do you think?[/quote]
It’s not the government’s job to keep people together. Reduced taxes for everyone would be great, however.
I’d say it could also be argued that people with no business getting married will get married for the tax benefits, have children, decide the tax benefits aren’t as great as they thought, then divorce and leave their children with an even less stable environment.
I wonder if there are any statistics regarding divorce rates prior to and after federal marriage benefits?
It consistently amazes me, just how many people will argue for religiously driven legal definitions(which of course always seem to suit them and their particular god), then deny that they support having a theocracy.
