The Supreme Court gay ruling

[GeeMail]

• Tweet

There is muted response in some quarters to the US Supreme Court ruling allowing gay marriage in all the 52 states of America. Many false prophets haven't wagged their tongues yet. People of God cannot afford to sit on the fence while nations dash to the brink of collapse. When families are threatened, the highest institutions in the land cannot stand strong.

The Bible is clear about marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Marriage predates government, so the argument that marriage is both a civil and a religious institution should be viewed in that light. A proper perspective gives the religious aspect precedence, while respecting the latter. The church and the state must remain separate, and only on this marriage bed does one impose itself on the other, with the force of law.

As a Bible believer, I cannot support the ruling. I agree with the minority decision, although our motivations may not be the same.

I disagree with those who claim that it was a 5-4 decision. It was the victory of an anonymous Supreme court judge (who tipped the scales in favor of homosexuality). One man or woman made the decision for a whole nation. What the Louisiana Governor raises comes to question. Should the US Supreme Court be scrapped just like the Senate or Parliament (or both) in the Kenyan case?

People have rebelled against God in history, and their end is open to us to see. When nations officially rebel against God, and put it in their statutes, we can only say the handwriting is on the wall.

[Omollo]

DB

I have sympathy for your views. However my belief in Democracy dwarfs many other things.

I like to see myself as very God Fearing. I believe also that it is a personal relationship between me and God. That you DB shall not be directly responsible for my sins nor be called upon to answer for that which you had no say nor right.

You start well in the introduction. I would have loved to see you develop the idea further and accept that Government has no business in being a "Morality" Policeman.

States like Iran have granted themselves the power to decide not just who one cannot marry but many other things of how citizens lead their lives. They dictate what to wear, when and where. There laws on food etc.

I think you should celebrate that government is transferring the burden of their behaviour on to themselves. Let each one of us live fully without interference from government. Let us each be ready to answer for our conduct on earth and not blame man or government. That time to answer is nigh!

[vooke]

Something reeks of hypocrisy when Christians denounce some sins rabidly while looking the other way on some others

It's high time the church concentrates on judging WITHIN not WITHOUT
1 Corinthians 5:12 (KJV)
For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? 13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

I'd be more worried by a church that is indifferent to homosexuality within its rank and file just as adultery and say witchcraft over existence of the same in the world

I'd also get alarmed if my right to belief in heterosexuality are severely challenged like say if preaching against homosexuality is criminalized. Sounds weird but I once heard that in India it I
Was illegal to preach second coming of Jesus. Anything but that.

While at it, what is Daily Bread's opinion on abortion? What is the Adventist position. That's a sect claiming to be part of the body of Christ. Such things are more interesting.

[veritas]

Extending it to all states doesn't seem right. I think the problem is not a legal matter but a social issue. Don't get me wrong I have many gay friends and I love them the way I do people. I just wouldn't put them in harms way by letting them get married in let's say some redneck church in Texas. Gay populace suffer from unresolved identity crises. Sanctioning that in all states would make the kids of gay parents growing up in an ultra conservative town subject to identity disorders and bullying. Less than 1% of Americans are gay, same amount as polygamy, pedos, should they be allowed to get married too? A large percentage of gays in the entertainment industry distort realities. This isn't a legal rights issue. They should've considered public health concerns, safety for gays and straights, identity impact on youth, nuclear family units in the context of youth development, family definition in commercial enterprises. I don't think this ruling will hold for most states when it becomes clear it generates more harm than good for the rest of America who aren't celebs. Sanctioning gay marriage in ALL states is an easy way at promoting a rights issue at the cost of actually marginalising an already marginalised community. Believe me I think they have every right to get married, but in a community that isn't hostile about their identity and they themselves accept their identities.

[GeeMail]

Several questions come to mind. Some are repeated in very many words.
1. Should the government regulate marriage at all? Some LGBTQI persons are christians but many gay people are also self-proclaimed atheists, ruling out God's definition of marriage and his very existence.
2. Should the SCOTUS be left to ultimately and decide with finality on a matter kindled but not burning?
3. Why should the SCOTUS be left to decide on a matter that is so unique to individual cases like marriage?
4. American progress rests on the premise of "We, the People". When and how did SCOTUS transform itself into the People?
5. Are decisions of the SCOTUS higher than the concept of democracy?
6. If the SCOTUS decision was to protect the "minority rights" of the LGBTQI community, what happens to heterosexuals when they become the "minority" as opinion polls across the western world show? Will SCOTUS reverse itself on this decision?
7. Should the SCOTUS make decisions it thinks the framers of the constitution ought to have included (judicial activism) or simply interpret the law as it exists?
8. How should religious institutions, hospitality industry and individual service providers (e.g wedding cake bakers) opposed to homosexuality (sodomy and its cousins) interpret the ruling in real life situations (e.g when a gay couple seeks admission and accommodation in "married" quarters)?

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

I am informed that Lot offered his daughters to a gang of men who wanted homosexual sex with angels who were visiting him.  How accurate is that?

[MOON Ki]

Several questions come to mind. Some are repeated in very many words.
1. Should the government regulate marriage at all? Some LGBTQI persons are christians but many gay people are also self-proclaimed atheists, ruling out God's definition of marriage and his very existence.
2. Should the SCOTUS be left to ultimately and decide with finality on a matter kindled but not burning?
3. Why should the SCOTUS be left to decide on a matter that is so unique to individual cases like marriage?
4. American progress rests on the premise of "We, the People". When and how did SCOTUS transform itself into the People?
5. Are decisions of the SCOTUS higher than the concept of democracy?
6. If the SCOTUS decision was to protect the "minority rights" of the LGBTQI community, what happens to heterosexuals when they become the "minority" as opinion polls across the western world show? Will SCOTUS reverse itself on this decision?
7. Should the SCOTUS make decisions it thinks the framers of the constitution ought to have included (judicial activism) or simply interpret the law as it exists?
8. How should religious institutions, hospitality industry and individual service providers (e.g wedding cake bakers) opposed to homosexuality (sodomy and its cousins) interpret the ruling in real life situations (e.g when a gay couple seeks admission and accommodation in "married" quarters)?

Ask yourself similar questions in regard to slavery and segregation and relevant court rulings.   For example, in place of eight ask the following (which would have been quite relevant at some point):

"8. How should religious institutions, hospitality industry and individual service providers opposed to inter-racial sexual activity  interpret the X ruling  in real life situations (e.g when an inter-racial couple seeks admission and accommodation in Y quarters)?"

Once you have some answers, translate them into the present context.

[vooke]

Several questions come to mind. Some are repeated in very many words.
1. Should the government regulate marriage at all? Some LGBTQI persons are christians but many gay people are also self-proclaimed atheists, ruling out God's definition of marriage and his very existence.
2. Should the SCOTUS be left to ultimately and decide with finality on a matter kindled but not burning?
3. Why should the SCOTUS be left to decide on a matter that is so unique to individual cases like marriage?
4. American progress rests on the premise of "We, the People". When and how did SCOTUS transform itself into the People?
5. Are decisions of the SCOTUS higher than the concept of democracy?
6. If the SCOTUS decision was to protect the "minority rights" of the LGBTQI community, what happens to heterosexuals when they become the "minority" as opinion polls across the western world show? Will SCOTUS reverse itself on this decision?
7. Should the SCOTUS make decisions it thinks the framers of the constitution ought to have included (judicial activism) or simply interpret the law as it exists?
8. How should religious institutions, hospitality industry and individual service providers (e.g wedding cake bakers) opposed to homosexuality (sodomy and its cousins) interpret the ruling in real life situations (e.g when a gay couple seeks admission and accommodation in "married" quarters)?

Ask yourself similar questions in regard to slavery and segregation and relevant court rulings.   For example, in place of eight ask the following (which would have been quite relevant at some point):

"8. How should religious institutions, hospitality industry and individual service providers opposed to inter-racial sexual activity  interpret the X ruling  in real life situations (e.g when an inter-racial couple seeks admission and accommodation in Y quarters)?"

Once you have some answers, translate them into the present context.

I posed this question to one Reverend Mitchell and he nearly banned me from his forum

[mya88]

I am informed that Lot offered his daughters to a gang of men who wanted homosexual sex with angels who were visiting him.  How accurate is that?

You were informed by who??
Do you consider your sources trustworthy?

Remember Sodom and Gomorrah? That is what happened to them. I noticed you keep changing your signature.... second thoughts on atheism lol.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

I am informed that Lot offered his daughters to a gang of men who wanted homosexual sex with angels who were visiting him.  How accurate is that?

You were informed by who??
Do you consider your sources trustworthy?

Remember Sodom and Gomorrah? That is what happened to them. I noticed you keep changing your signature.... second thoughts on atheism lol.

Yep.  Sodom and Gomorrah in genesis is the source.  The gang wanted the angels, and he offered them his daughters instead. 

The story of Lot and his daughters is generally pretty shocking.  He later sires children with them.  They end up mothers to their own half siblings.

I have had that signature for a while now.  I change avatars more often.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Daily Bread,

The ruling expands the definition of marriage.  It does not regulate or in any way reduce the concept.  I don't see a valid issue that a Christian would have with marriage in the US.

A Muslim on the other hand might have legitimate beef.  Because polygamy is illegal.

[GeeMail]

Daily Bread,

The ruling expands the definition of marriage.  It does not regulate or in any way reduce the concept.  I don't see a valid issue that a Christian would have with marriage in the US.

A Muslim on the other hand might have legitimate beef.  Because polygamy is illegal.

The ruling would be an expansion of marriage just like the establishment of butcheries is an expansion of vegetarianism or the establishment of mortuaries the expansion of life. The main purpose of marriage is to have children (at least it used to be), a thing which is not only alien but impossible in a gay relationship. Homosexual marriage (or sodomy to be more precise, with its attendant cousin calling itself lesbianism) is an oxymoron. One of the things that the SCOTUS dissenters noted is precisely what you're attempting to say (Justice Antonin Scalia). If sodomizers went to the SCOTUS to "expand the meaning of marriage" for "freedoms", nothing could be more self-defeating, for marriage by definition constrains relationships rather than expands them. Ask the nearest hippie.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2015/06/26/justice_scalia_ask_the_nearest_hippie_an_interview_with_a_hippie_about_marriage.html

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Daily Bread,

The ruling expands the definition of marriage.  It does not regulate or in any way reduce the concept.  I don't see a valid issue that a Christian would have with marriage in the US.

A Muslim on the other hand might have legitimate beef.  Because polygamy is illegal.

The ruling would be an expansion of marriage just like the establishment of butcheries is an expansion of vegetarianism or the establishment of mortuaries the expansion of life. The main purpose of marriage is to have children (at least it used to be), a thing which is not only alien but impossible in a gay relationship. Homosexual marriage (or sodomy to be more precise, with its attendant cousin calling itself lesbianism) is an oxymoron. One of the things that the SCOTUS dissenters noted is precisely what you're attempting to say (Justice Antonin Scalia). If sodomizers went to the SCOTUS to "expand the meaning of marriage" for "freedoms", nothing could be more self-defeating, for marriage by definition constrains relationships rather than expands them. Ask the nearest hippie.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2015/06/26/justice_scalia_ask_the_nearest_hippie_an_interview_with_a_hippie_about_marriage.html

DB,

That's one view.  Indeed while marriage is traditionally for procreation it is also an official recognition of companionship.  Some need it in order to enjoy bend-bend.  Others just for company.  Others for children.

A lot benefits and rights come with official recognition.  I think that is what gays are after.  It will be a non-issue eventually.  Gays have been free in this country for some time now.

Scalia is disgraceful.  But have you read Clarence Thomas' dissent?

[GeeMail]

Scalia's statement resonates with my thinking on the matter and you hint it as well. Official recognition of marriage comes with certain privileges. Throughout history most of those privileges have something to do with children (think maternity leave, paternity leave, married personal tax relief and so on). Those privileges become abuses if one is merely asking for official recognition of his company with another man for example. Sodomy needs no official recognition based on the premise of bringing up children in a secure marriage.

I've not read Clarence Thomas' dissent. I will.

Your thoughts on Islam having legitimate beef are insightful. A threat to any religion (including atheism and other strange sects) is a threat to all religion. I expect in the near future some Muslim will go to court with good conscience in the land of the free (several Mormons appearing as amicus) to seek a SCOTUS ruling on polygamy. That will be the day.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Scalia's statement resonates with my thinking on the matter and you hint it as well. Official recognition of marriage comes with certain privileges. Throughout history most of those privileges have something to do with children (think maternity leave, paternity leave, married personal tax relief and so on). Those privileges become abuses if one is merely asking for official recognition of his company with another man for example. Sodomy needs no official recognition based on the premise of bringing up children in a secure marriage.

I've not read Clarence Thomas' dissent. I will.

Your thoughts on Islam having legitimate beef are insightful. A threat to any religion (including atheism and other strange sects) is a threat to all religion. I expect in the near future some Muslim will go to court with good conscience in the land of the free (several Mormons appearing as amicus) to seek a SCOTUS ruling on polygamy. That will be the day.

Scalia mischaracterizes this quote below to make that hippie statement.  That is okay for a nipate(.com) discussion, but disgraceful for the court.  The intimacy they talk about is not the freedom to hump around, but rather the freedom to enjoy the same with their partner in a legally sanctioned union.

"'The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality,'"

Clarence Thomas argues that the dignity of gays in not violated.  Because it is inherent.  He does this by pointing out that slavery never robbed anyone of their dignity.  It's a pretty retarded argument.

[GeeMail]

Scalia's statement makes a lot of sense. He is simply saying you cannot claim to seek freedom by harnessing yourself to the yoke of marriage. Clarence Thomas makes even more sense. If its a human rights issue, one of the principles of human rights is that human dignity is inherent. In other words, you have it even if someone purported to deny your dignity through slavery or lack of a SCOTUS ruling. People have human dignity even when their governments deny them their rights. It is an extremely important principle. He is saying it was needless for gays to run to the SCOTUS to claim their dignity as if they didn't have it before. The import of it is that if the SCOTUS can grant you dignity, do not complain when someone robs you of your rights because you have given them the false position of granting it in the first place.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Scalia's statement makes a lot of sense. He is simply saying you cannot claim to seek freedom by harnessing yourself to the yoke of marriage. Clarence Thomas makes even more sense. If its a human rights issue, one of the principles of human rights is that human dignity is inherent. In other words, you have it even if someone purported to deny your dignity through slavery or lack of a SCOTUS ruling. People have human dignity even when their governments deny them their rights. It is an extremely important principle. He is saying it was needless for gays to run to the SCOTUS to claim their dignity as if they didn't have it before. The import of it is that if the SCOTUS can grant you dignity, do not complain when someone robs you of your rights because you have given them the false position of granting it in the first place.

Scalia is mischaracterizing the type of freedom implied in that ruling.  It amounts to little more than heckling.

Clarence Thomas' is retarded if you consider that human life, which comes before dignity, can be taken away.  You can be robbed of your life.  By the same logic, you can be robbed of your dignity.  Slaves were robbed of their dignity.

[GeeMail]

The idea is that dignity is so intertwined with human existence that even if somebody killed you or committed you to slavery, you still have it. Life is a human right even if somebody denies it by taking away life itself. It is not at all retarded to understand it that way.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

The idea is that dignity is so intertwined with human existence that even if somebody killed you or committed you to slavery, you still have it. Life is a human right even if somebody denies it by taking away life itself. It is not at all retarded to understand it that way.

DB,

I understand the idealistic view.  But Clarence's Job is not to be sentimental.  The retarded part is the notion that just because a right is inherent, it needs not be protected.  That is clearly misguided.

[vooke]

The idea is that dignity is so intertwined with human existence that even if somebody killed you or committed you to slavery, you still have it. Life is a human right even if somebody denies it by taking away life itself. It is not at all retarded to understand it that way.

So why are rights protected seeing they are inherent. The essence of a right is not inherency but EXERCISE of those rights. Look at a serial killer with 10'victims and pat them in the back since the victims still have a right to life regardless of what he did