Federal Court Upholds SSM Ban

[ShoeDiva]

NM

 

[Blazing Saddles]

And for the record, as a moral issue, I do not believe in homosexuality or gay marriage as being part of God's best plan. Just like I don't believe heterosexuals living together outside of marriage or being married and divorced multiple times to be God's best plan. I just don't see where it is the part of government to be involved in such matters.

Gay marriage is not only not God's first plan, it isn't any of His plan. If God doesn't recognize the union, why bother? It won't be blessed by Him, it won't join two females, or two males, together as one. They may make a commitment to one another, before mankind, but God's eyes will be turned away. Their promises to one another will be in vain. So, try as they might to convince the Christian world that their union is equal, it is not, and never will be.

(Not picking at your post, just responding and more thoughts poured in while doing so.)

Oh, pick away - you know I don't mind. We agree theologically, but government should not be in the business of deciding whose marriage should and should not be sanctioned, IMHO. As long as the people being joined are CONSENTING ADULTS, I don't care who or what they are. That's why I say government should only be in the business of civil unions (which defines the contractual/legal process) and only churches should be in the business of marrying people.

According to our theology, atheists married in the Unitarian Church would no more be married than two gay people. Yet that is legal. I say, make it all black and white, and then churches can decide based on their belief system whom they will marry and whom they will not. Christians say, oh but kids will see two gays married or whatever. So? They see heterosexuals* having sex outside of marriage, and living together outside of marriage, and having extramarital affairs, and being divorced and married multiple times. I think that has done FAR MORE damage to the institution of marriage** than anything gays could do. It is my humble opinion that if Christians who are so up in arms about gay marriage would be as up in arms about heterosexual shenanigans in today's culture, and lived like they say they believe, then a lot of this mess would straighten itself right out.

* This also applies at the same rate to heterosexuals who say they are Christians. Gallup conducts a poll virtually every year as to the lifestyles of people in the church vs. people who aren't...the lifestyles are perennially the same within the margin of error. I may start another thread about this.

** I say "damage to the institution of marriage" while laughing at myself...marriage is like freedom or any number of other fundamentals of a civilized society. People can use it, allow/disallow it, observe it however they wish, but it does not change what it is.

You really are very smart. I love people that can look at a whole issue and not just from one side of it.

So if you disagree with a person's conclusion, you make subtle attacks about their inability to view all sides? When one lives with principles and morals, most topics don't need to be addressed and personally debated each time it is mentioned. Strong values and morals allow consistency in living without internally questioning everything all the time. It stands the test of time with out changing every time the wind blows. Consistency is a wonderful way to live.

 

[ShoeDiva]

And for the record, as a moral issue, I do not believe in homosexuality or gay marriage as being part of God's best plan. Just like I don't believe heterosexuals living together outside of marriage or being married and divorced multiple times to be God's best plan. I just don't see where it is the part of government to be involved in such matters.

Gay marriage is not only not God's first plan, it isn't any of His plan. If God doesn't recognize the union, why bother? It won't be blessed by Him, it won't join two females, or two males, together as one. They may make a commitment to one another, before mankind, but God's eyes will be turned away. Their promises to one another will be in vain. So, try as they might to convince the Christian world that their union is equal, it is not, and never will be.

(Not picking at your post, just responding and more thoughts poured in while doing so.)

Oh, pick away - you know I don't mind. We agree theologically, but government should not be in the business of deciding whose marriage should and should not be sanctioned, IMHO. As long as the people being joined are CONSENTING ADULTS, I don't care who or what they are. That's why I say government should only be in the business of civil unions (which defines the contractual/legal process) and only churches should be in the business of marrying people.

According to our theology, atheists married in the Unitarian Church would no more be married than two gay people. Yet that is legal. I say, make it all black and white, and then churches can decide based on their belief system whom they will marry and whom they will not. Christians say, oh but kids will see two gays married or whatever. So? They see heterosexuals* having sex outside of marriage, and living together outside of marriage, and having extramarital affairs, and being divorced and married multiple times. I think that has done FAR MORE damage to the institution of marriage** than anything gays could do. It is my humble opinion that if Christians who are so up in arms about gay marriage would be as up in arms about heterosexual shenanigans in today's culture, and lived like they say they believe, then a lot of this mess would straighten itself right out.

* This also applies at the same rate to heterosexuals who say they are Christians. Gallup conducts a poll virtually every year as to the lifestyles of people in the church vs. people who aren't...the lifestyles are perennially the same within the margin of error. I may start another thread about this.

** I say "damage to the institution of marriage" while laughing at myself...marriage is like freedom or any number of other fundamentals of a civilized society. People can use it, allow/disallow it, observe it however they wish, but it does not change what it is.

You really are very smart. I love people that can look at a whole issue and not just from one side of it.

So if you disagree with a person's conclusion, you make subtle attacks about their inability to view all sides? When one lives with principles and morals, most topics don't need to be addressed and personally debated each time it is mentioned. Strong values and morals allow consistency in living without internally questioning everything all the time. It stands the test of time with out changing every time the wind blows. Consistency is a wonderful way to live.

I did not state that and even addressed it later. I do not think anyone here would not look at all sides, I do think that some look and dismiss because of their beliefs that are not shared by all. I do not think that is bad, but I do not totally agree with that. I have things I am steadfast in not believing in, but I can and do try to acknowledge there is another side to be seen by others that do not hold the same beliefs as I.

 

[ShoeDiva]

If they say gays can marry, then as I've always said, polygamy should be legal. They'll have to include mom's and dad's wanting to marry their kids along with gramps hooking up with grandies.

Any man that wants more than one wife should go ahead and marry them all. I have no issue with that, to each their own, as long as they are all consenting adults. I am pretty sure in Biblical times more than one woman was around. As for adults and kids that is a weak argument. Kids do not marry, adult men and women do.

If you sit and ponder the situation, kids grow up to be adults. Once they reach 16 in some states, they can marry. Heck it was 14 in Alabama not too long ago. So yes, my argument is VERY valid and now you are enlightened.

I did consider adulthood, but since we used the words kids I went with the argument that kids do not marry. Now you are enlightened to what I was thinking. As for consenting adults, whether I agree, disagree or not is not the point. I am in the same train of thought as ML, consenting adults can do what they can consent to. That leaves out children, animals, and innate objects.

 

[Blazing Saddles]

And for the record, as a moral issue, I do not believe in homosexuality or gay marriage as being part of God's best plan. Just like I don't believe heterosexuals living together outside of marriage or being married and divorced multiple times to be God's best plan. I just don't see where it is the part of government to be involved in such matters.

Gay marriage is not only not God's first plan, it isn't any of His plan. If God doesn't recognize the union, why bother? It won't be blessed by Him, it won't join two females, or two males, together as one. They may make a commitment to one another, before mankind, but God's eyes will be turned away. Their promises to one another will be in vain. So, try as they might to convince the Christian world that their union is equal, it is not, and never will be.

(Not picking at your post, just responding and more thoughts poured in while doing so.)

Oh, pick away - you know I don't mind. We agree theologically, but government should not be in the business of deciding whose marriage should and should not be sanctioned, IMHO. As long as the people being joined are CONSENTING ADULTS, I don't care who or what they are. That's why I say government should only be in the business of civil unions (which defines the contractual/legal process) and only churches should be in the business of marrying people.

According to our theology, atheists married in the Unitarian Church would no more be married than two gay people. Yet that is legal. I say, make it all black and white, and then churches can decide based on their belief system whom they will marry and whom they will not. Christians say, oh but kids will see two gays married or whatever. So? They see heterosexuals* having sex outside of marriage, and living together outside of marriage, and having extramarital affairs, and being divorced and married multiple times. I think that has done FAR MORE damage to the institution of marriage** than anything gays could do. It is my humble opinion that if Christians who are so up in arms about gay marriage would be as up in arms about heterosexual shenanigans in today's culture, and lived like they say they believe, then a lot of this mess would straighten itself right out.

* This also applies at the same rate to heterosexuals who say they are Christians. Gallup conducts a poll virtually every year as to the lifestyles of people in the church vs. people who aren't...the lifestyles are perennially the same within the margin of error. I may start another thread about this.

** I say "damage to the institution of marriage" while laughing at myself...marriage is like freedom or any number of other fundamentals of a civilized society. People can use it, allow/disallow it, observe it however they wish, but it does not change what it is.

You really are very smart. I love people that can look at a whole issue and not just from one side of it.

So if you disagree with a person's conclusion, you make subtle attacks about their inability to view all sides? When one lives with principles and morals, most topics don't need to be addressed and personally debated each time it is mentioned. Strong values and morals allow consistency in living without internally questioning everything all the time. It stands the test of time with out changing every time the wind blows. Consistency is a wonderful way to live.

I did not state that and even addressed it later. I do not think anyone here would not look at all sides, I do think that some look and dismiss because of their beliefs that are not shared by all. I do not think that is bad, but I do not totally agree with that. I have things I am steadfast in not believing in, but I can and do try to acknowledge there is another side to be seen by others that do not hold the same beliefs as I.

Ok. I don't mind discussing this through either. I didn't mean for that earlier comment to temporarily derail the discussion either. What comes across as clever rebutle in my head was seen as a personal attack and that was not the main intention by no means. Play jabs I guess can hurt sometimes as well.

 

[J-man]

Ya'll just need to get a room. :whistle

(I'm kidding)

 

[Blazing Saddles]

hahahaha. I need a padded room . You know, we all need to :BH sometimes during the day.

 

[ShoeDiva]

And for the record, as a moral issue, I do not believe in homosexuality or gay marriage as being part of God's best plan. Just like I don't believe heterosexuals living together outside of marriage or being married and divorced multiple times to be God's best plan. I just don't see where it is the part of government to be involved in such matters.

Gay marriage is not only not God's first plan, it isn't any of His plan. If God doesn't recognize the union, why bother? It won't be blessed by Him, it won't join two females, or two males, together as one. They may make a commitment to one another, before mankind, but God's eyes will be turned away. Their promises to one another will be in vain. So, try as they might to convince the Christian world that their union is equal, it is not, and never will be.

(Not picking at your post, just responding and more thoughts poured in while doing so.)

Oh, pick away - you know I don't mind. We agree theologically, but government should not be in the business of deciding whose marriage should and should not be sanctioned, IMHO. As long as the people being joined are CONSENTING ADULTS, I don't care who or what they are. That's why I say government should only be in the business of civil unions (which defines the contractual/legal process) and only churches should be in the business of marrying people.

According to our theology, atheists married in the Unitarian Church would no more be married than two gay people. Yet that is legal. I say, make it all black and white, and then churches can decide based on their belief system whom they will marry and whom they will not. Christians say, oh but kids will see two gays married or whatever. So? They see heterosexuals* having sex outside of marriage, and living together outside of marriage, and having extramarital affairs, and being divorced and married multiple times. I think that has done FAR MORE damage to the institution of marriage** than anything gays could do. It is my humble opinion that if Christians who are so up in arms about gay marriage would be as up in arms about heterosexual shenanigans in today's culture, and lived like they say they believe, then a lot of this mess would straighten itself right out.

* This also applies at the same rate to heterosexuals who say they are Christians. Gallup conducts a poll virtually every year as to the lifestyles of people in the church vs. people who aren't...the lifestyles are perennially the same within the margin of error. I may start another thread about this.

** I say "damage to the institution of marriage" while laughing at myself...marriage is like freedom or any number of other fundamentals of a civilized society. People can use it, allow/disallow it, observe it however they wish, but it does not change what it is.

You really are very smart. I love people that can look at a whole issue and not just from one side of it.

So if you disagree with a person's conclusion, you make subtle attacks about their inability to view all sides? When one lives with principles and morals, most topics don't need to be addressed and personally debated each time it is mentioned. Strong values and morals allow consistency in living without internally questioning everything all the time. It stands the test of time with out changing every time the wind blows. Consistency is a wonderful way to live.

I did not state that and even addressed it later. I do not think anyone here would not look at all sides, I do think that some look and dismiss because of their beliefs that are not shared by all. I do not think that is bad, but I do not totally agree with that. I have things I am steadfast in not believing in, but I can and do try to acknowledge there is another side to be seen by others that do not hold the same beliefs as I.

Ok. I don't mind discussing this through either. I didn't mean for that earlier comment to temporarily derail the discussion either. What comes across as clever rebutle in my head was seen as a personal attack and that was not the main intention by no means. Play jabs I guess can hurt sometimes as well.

:thumbsup I appreciate that!

I personally with the strict background I have and was raised in had a hard time opening myself to others opinions that you do see me debate here. I came to realize as I got older that my understanding and accepting others beliefs did not change mine. I have left all (okay as much as I possibly can as a human) judgements up to God and want people to be happy. While we argue/debate gays I know that these same things were argued and debated about others freedoms. Freedom to own property, freedom to vote, freedom to marry another race. I know it is not all the same, but it is where I am coming from in that what right do I have to deny someone a right others have?

 

[ShoeDiva]

Ya'll just need to get a room. :whistle

(I'm kidding)

:wut )