Federal Judge rules Utah's ban on gay marrage illegal. Internet about to explode

[Adjuvant]

Me thinks she doth protest too much.

Just say I'm wrong, then. Legitimize what you need to legitimize and get your shame back on an even keel.

 

[Adjuvant]

And how on earth does busting out ''boy'' in this context, like a lingering tumor of the Jim Crow south aid you point in any fashion other than pointing out that the arguments against homosexual marriage are a grotesque caricature of the same?

You're aware there is an implication disparate from homosexuality in that part of the conversation, right?

 

[Formaldehyde]

And how on earth does busting out ''boy'' in this context, like a lingering tumor of the Jim Crow south, aid you point in any fashion other than pointing out that the arguments against homosexual marriage are a grotesque caricature of the same?

It was only a matter of time. I'm just surprised it took until the 9th page of this thread.

 

[classical_hero]

He doesn't really. He says something along the lines of "in this kind of marriage, i.e. between a man and a women, you shouldn't divorce except for sexual immorality". He makes no mention of same-sex marriages at all.

He clearly defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman for life. You do realise the penalty for adultery in that society is?

Cutlass is correct, but if my reading of history was correct, the 'prudish Right' should have realized this nigh-decades ago and I think if they'd gone for a full-court rush towards civil unions, then they might have forced that compromise. The problem, of course, is that civil unions were fought tooth-and-nail. And, well, Cutlass is correct, 'separate but equal' is not equal.

And, the entire issue doesn't have to be phrased around 'gay people have always been allowed to marry hetero'. The problem is that the current laws are just sexist.

I'm allowed to marry Angelina Jolie. My sister isn't. Ergo, the law is sexist against my sister and I have freedoms that she doesn't have entirely based upon her gender.

Marriage has always been a specific institution. To change what a marriage mean, means you have to change the very definition of what is a marriage. Would you say marriage is discrimination against singles since they can't get married?

This was before or after he healed lepers and the blind?
Maybe people should assume they have the authority of Jesus once they act like Jesus. And not before.

You don't even have a clue. Lovely how you don't quote the whole thing I said. We are already condemned, Jesus came to save sinners from their sins, should they repent. John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the children of God, even to them that believe on his name: If we don't receive him, the our condemnation is sure. 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. If you don't believe then you are condemned, plain and simple. Jesus came to take away the condemnation and put it on himself, but if you don't believe then you are already condemned.

Jesus condemned sin and when the sinner knew they were condemned and that they saw that Jesus was the only way out, then he forgave them and they never returned to their old ways. Whenever someone had a meeting with Jesus they were changed, whether good or bad. Jesus showed he had the power to save people from their sins first having power of illness and later when he rose from the grave. Why do think the religious leaders wanted him gone? Because h massively condemned them for their actions. Matthew 23 is the most caustic chapter in the Bible and Jesus is condemning the Pharisees and Sadducees for their hypocrisy in their actions. Jesus condemned sin and sinners who never repented of their sins.

 

[useless]

And how on earth does busting out ''boy'' in this context, like a lingering tumor of the Jim Crow south, aid you point in any fashion other than pointing out that the arguments against homosexual marriage are a grotesque caricature of the same?

As if arguments against same-sex marriage were based upon anything other than religiously-approved discrimination or dislike of those icky gays ruining the wonderful institution of marriage, which if it is so wonderful and good, surely trying to keep it going and alive by allowing people who WANT to get married would be a priority, rather than something to rail against.

But then again: icky gays!

 

[Adjuvant]

It was only a matter of time. I'm just surprised it took until the 9th page of this thread.

Suuuure. Let your anti-christian agenda get mixed in and relish in it! You're quite the thinker!

 

[Formaldehyde]

Jesus condemned sin and sinners who never repented of their sins.

The nice thing about living in a supposedly secular state is that we ostensibly don't have to care what one personal interpretation of the Bible might or might not allegedly mean.

But either way, I hardly think it is your place to do so no matter what imaginary beings you worship.

To me there is really no difference between those who repent those "sins" only to do them over and over again, and those who don't. YMMV.

Suuuure. Let your anti-christian agenda get mixed in and relish in it! You're quite the thinker!

Au contraire. I have no problem whatsoever with the vast majority of Christians who don't try to inflict their own personal beliefs on others. That is quite well known by those who read this forum on a regular basis. My "agenda" is with those who apparently don't understand what the word "secular" means, and who wish to use the government to discriminate against and even persecute those they personally dislike.

 

[useless]

The nice thing about living in a supposedly secular state is that we ostensibly don't have to care what one personal interpretation of the Bible might or might not mean.

Replace the bible with "any religious text" and it'd be more appropiate, but in a purely American context it makes perfect sense.

 

[Adjuvant]

The nice thing about living in a supposedly secular state is that we ostensibly don't have to care what one personal interpretation of the Bible might or might not mean.

Au contraire. I have no problem whatsoever with the vast majority of Christians who don't try to inflict their own personal beliefs on others.

You'd do well to be so "inflicted", but in the meantime, using something with which you have categorically no vestment is... pretty silly. I don't believe in purple flying unicorns, nor do I debate what they mean when they speak.

You probably don't understand why I said that, because it's all a joke to you.

 

[Arachnofiend]

Much as my parents are fighting against it and I sympathise with them to a degree, in terms of what is likely to actually happen I agree with IglooDude for the most part. There is an exception to the analogy, however- that the Churches will put up a fight for a long time. IglooDude acknowledges this but does not emphasise it enough.

The Mormon church, at least, would be explicitly going against their own tenants for doing so.

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

It's not the first time God's law has been modified to reflect real world realities and it won't be the last.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You'd do well to be so "inflicted", but in the meantime, using something with which you have categorically no vestment is... pretty silly. I don't believe in purple flying unicorns, nor do I debate what they mean when they speak.

You probably don't understand why I said that, because it's all a joke to you.

What "vestment" could you possibly have with homosexuals getting married? Or are you going to dodge that question once again?

 

[Adjuvant]

What "vestment" could you possibly have with homosexuals getting married? Or are you going to dodge that question once again?

This was never a question, no matter how you spin it. It is my position. You blame my religion. I am religious. I honestly feel I feel this way if I wasn't religious, but because I do and because I am, even though YOU have no vested interest, I'm someone to "dogpile".

I will fight you on this. I can see through your b.s. and to paraphrase you, you are the "dodgy one".

 

[classical_hero]

America was founded upon Christian values and the Constitution shows that. You destroy the foundation, you destroy the whole building.

 

[Arachnofiend]

America was founded upon Christian values and the Constitution shows that. You destroy the foundation, you destroy the whole building.

Hmm... Strange, I just skimmed through the Constitution and I couldn't find the words Christian, Christianity, or Jesus anywhere! In fact, the closest I got to a direct reference to religion is this:

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.

Yikes, no respect for an establishment of religion whatsoever? That's pretty harsh. It's almost as if most of the founding fathers weren't Christians, and were actually Deists.

 

[Farm Boy]

America was founded upon Christian values and the Constitution shows that. You destroy the foundation, you destroy the whole building.

This phrase is often invoked to justify that which is anything but. What a terribly small interpretation of what my values are.

 

[Evie]

And it'S definitely as if most foundin father felt that shoving one religion down other people's throat was bad, or something.

 

[Adjuvant]

If it is part of a religion that "same sex marriages do not occur" and now churches are basically being forced to perform same sex marriages, isn't the government "making a law prohibiting that free exercise of belief"?

 

[downtown]

and now churches are basically being forced to perform same sex marriages,

No they aren't.

 

[Cutlass]

Oh? Can you make a pleasant discussion about secularism without using Christianity as your "whipping boy"? Of course you can't, because you're not about secularism, rather about being "anti-christian" and "funny".

You have not said one thing productive this whole conversation which didn't involve some ridicule of belief from the "other side of your face". I bet you don't give 2 rats asses for or against gay marriage, you just want to jump a christian.

Admit it, boy.

"Secularism" is a lot less anti-Christian than sectarianism.

 

[Farm Boy]

If it is part of a religion that "same sex marriages do not occur" and now churches are basically being forced to perform same sex marriages, isn't the government "making a law prohibiting that free exercise of belief"?

How are churches being forced to perform same sex marriages? They aren't. If somebody shows up at the door of a Catholic church and demands that the priest marry them, that priest can tell them to shove off. Rightfully so too! However, the county courthouse is not a church. It's not your church, it's not mine, it's not El Mac's. It's the courthouse. Now, if the courts start trying to force how churches administer their sacraments, sure, I'll take your side on this. But they aren't. There's no basis for it, there's no call for it, and there is vanishingly small threat of it.